Unprofessional bellends at it again

[HeliX]

2 minutes ago, The Phantom said:

American policing is mainly a shit show due to their gun culture. 

Every single time the Police interact with anyone, they have to assume they will be carrying a gun.  It is therefore not surprising in the least that they regularly escalate and end up in tragedy. 

At least they don't have to really worry about that here. 

But they really don't, the overwhelming majority of US police officers never fire a gun on duty, because it's not necessary. It's safer than being a pizza delivery driver. But since the 70s or so, police training (and budget...) in the states has mostly focused on the use of force, and teaching police that they need to assume they're going to die in every encounter. And now, very surprisingly, they're a force full of trigger-happy police. Weird, that.

[The Phantom]

2 minutes ago, HeliX said:

But they really don't, the overwhelming majority of US police officers never fire a gun on duty, because it's not necessary. It's safer than being a pizza delivery driver. But since the 70s or so, police training (and budget...) in the states has mostly focused on the use of force, and teaching police that they need to assume they're going to die in every encounter. And now, very surprisingly, they're a force full of trigger-happy police. Weird, that.

I can see that you've never had a gun pulled on you. 

I have.  I've also been knifed.  Changes your outlook slightly. 

[HeliX]

1 minute ago, The Phantom said:

I can see that you've never had a gun pulled on you. 

I have.  I've also been knifed.  Changes your outlook slightly. 

Yes, I can imagine a traumatic anecdote may make it harder to relate to objective statistics.

 

I reworded this twice in an attempt to make it not sound arsey and failed, so you'll have to take my word for it that I'm not trying to be arsey or glib.

[Two-lane]

To put another perspective on this, policing is not the only dangerous job. Being a war zone journalist is pretty dangerous.

A few posts ago I mentioned Don McCullin, who survived his time in Vietnam. Several photojournalists did not.

He was also in Africa - I remember reading a quote which I think was from him - "There is nothing as frightening as being in a war zone and looking into the eyes of a black African carrying an AK47".

Some people feel justified in taking a risk to do something because they believe what they are doing will benefit society.

[The Phantom]

6 minutes ago, Two-lane said:

To put another perspective on this, policing is not the only dangerous job. Being a war zone journalist is pretty dangerous.

A few posts ago I mentioned Don McCullin, who survived his time in Vietnam. Several photojournalists did not.

He was also in Africa - I remember reading a quote which I think was from him - "There is nothing as frightening as being in a war zone and looking into the eyes of a black African carrying an AK47".

Some people feel justified in taking a risk to do something because they believe what they are doing will benefit society.

I think it was Errol Flynn's son that was a photog in Vietnam. He got captured and was never seen again. Wasn't declared dead until the mid 80s.

[Two-lane]

My recollection of the time was that Larry Burrows was one of the most well-known of the Vietnam photographers. He was killed there.

I have read that in recent years organisations like the BBC and CNN hand out cheap (but good quality) video cameras to local journalists in Libya/Lebanon/Syria/Egypt/Wherever so that they can take the footage, and the risk, while not endangering any of their own staff. People who live in these situations are motivated to let the world know what is happening, no matter the risk to themselves.

My reason for mentioning war zone photojournalists was to counter the suggestion here that Met. officers should be above the law simply because they have a job that is at times dangerous.

[I just looked up Larry Burrows on the Internet. I was sure he was American, but actually, he was English. If you feel interested, take a look at a couple of Burrows' most famous shots - and then compare that to the photograph of the three UK cops I posted earlier. In fact, looking back at Derek Flint's comment, he does not seem to realise that the publicity photo was intended as a parody].

 

[Harry Lamb]

52 minutes ago, The Phantom said:

I can see that you've never had a gun pulled on you. 

I have.  I've also been knifed.  Changes your outlook slightly. 

Why am I not surprised?

[P.K.]

2 hours ago, HeliX said:

The "every encounter could be your last" rhetoric is exactly what's caused the shit-show that is American policing.

If you're facing off the bad guys who could be armed it is unfortunately true.

As someone has pointed out the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms, has a great deal to answer for...

[Passing Time]

10 hours ago, Derek Flint said:

I'm guessing I'm the only former Tactical Firearms Commander on here, who had previously been an authorised firearms officer, and Firearms Tactical Adviser. So I can probably comment with some authority?

First of all, if you want to play armchair commanders, here is some stuff to help you.

https://www.college.police.uk/app/armed-policing

That is basically it - other than the tactics contained in the National Police Firearms Training Curriculum, which, for good reason, is restricted.

Secondly, the deployment of armed police is not exclusively confined to what Roxanne is determining as 'armed'. This is a commonly held misconception. Deployment of armed officers is based on a 'reason to suppose'

• where the officer authorising the deployment has 'reason to suppose' that officers may have to protect themselves or others from a person who:
  • is in possession of, or has immediate access to, a firearm or other potentially lethal weapon, or
  • is otherwise so dangerous that the deployment of armed officers is considered to be appropriate, or
• as an operational contingency in a specific operation (based on the threat assessment), or
• for the destruction of animals which are dangerous or are suffering unnecessarily.

Reason to suppose

Use of the words ‘reason to suppose’ sets the level of knowledge required (about the existence of a threat justifying the deployment of AFOs) at a far lower level than that which would actually justify the use of firearms.

In London, and most other counties, there is now a standing authority for armed officers based on the frequency that officers may have to protect themselves or others from people that meet the criteria for deployment. They have immediate access to their weapons, including baton, PAVA, Taser, 'Baton Gun' and of course firearms in the mode of a handgun or carbine. This is a long way from my early days in armed policing when on ARV. The guns were locked away and you were always the very last people to go to job which would justify deployment. It was the safest job in policing!

Then Article 2 of the Human Rights Act sort of bobbed into view, and terrorists started committing atrocities. The state has a positive obligation to protect life under Art 2, and it was a bit difficult to do if there weren't armed officers ready and nearby. See "Borough Market" as an example.

On top of that, the 1974 Health and Safety at Work Act was starting to catch up with policing. Officers being deployed into an increasingly violent society were being issued with bigger sticks, PAVA, CS, body armour, Taser, and a few more were carrying guns. Chief Constables were lawfully required to send officers out with the means to protect themselves from reasonably foreseeable threats.

And of course, again the terrorism issue presses the point of having a ready to go 'operational contingency based on the threat assessment'. That is why you now see overtly armed officers at Tynwald Day. It's a picture book terrorist opportunity.

Then we come to the 'armed' issue. This isn't a western gunslingers shootout. 'Or other potentially lethal weapon' might include a knife, a crossbow, a suicide vest or even a car or lorry' (see 'Nice' for an example). The purpose of an armed deployment is to identify the threat, locate and contain it, then neutralise it. Depending on the circumstances, you might achieve the last two with a protracted containment in a house, alongside negotiation leading to a surrender. However, the moment that person either seeks to move out of that containment, or harm someone within it, then the circumstances change and another tactic may be considered. If they attempted to leave, say, in a vehicle, and there was reason to believe they were armed, perhaps due to a marker on the vehicle or their own nominal, what would you do? do you then enter an OJ Simpson convoy and 'pursue' them for many miles, risking them discharging a weapon into crowds, or deciding to mow down a bus queue, or do you go upstream and neutralise that threat there and then, using say tactical vehicle contact, or in the worst case scenario, shooting the driver? You might have 2 seconds to evaluate that situation and make a decision. 

Which brings in another point that someone made - that police should avoid making 'split second' decisions whether to shoot. Every single time, a decision model is spun, sometimes in milliseconds. It is called the National Decision Model (also on the college of policing site.) It will include all the options available, from verbal communication to lethal force. For that, the officers train at length, and requalify regularly. Most fail on decision making, rather than marksmanship.

Just to touch on the 100 or so officers that 'protested'. It won't have been a protest. I'd have genuinely been considering my own future in armed policing. The burden of responsibility is enormous - I felt it enough as a commander let alone right at the pointy end. Sometimes you need to reflect on the consequences that may come to your door. And few have faith in the IOPC. Google the case of W80 and see what you make of that?

Finally, the 'Army being ready to step in' was a drama headline. They always are in terrorism cases. There is a specific operation where special forces units which are permanently and strategically deployed would have primacy switched to them until the threat was neutralised. It is effectively what happened at the Iranian Embassy, but is just a much more sophisticated and integrated version today.

So, Roxanne, I hope that helps a little bit in your future assessment of matters.

 

Excellent response Derek.

[HeliX]

18 minutes ago, P.K. said:

If you're facing off the bad guys who could be armed it is unfortunately true.

As someone has pointed out the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms, has a great deal to answer for...

But it's overwhelmingly not true for the overwhelming majority of US police officers. And yet they're taught to act like it is, which results in escalations and needless violence.

Even when it is their time to face danger, they usually fuck about in a hallway while a gunman murders kids.

[Passing Time]

6 hours ago, WTF said:

well yes,  but maybe if they could actually see a weapon first before shooting ?? ,

Have you ever been in this situation?

[Passing Time]

5 hours ago, HeliX said:

Oh well, best murder members of the public then.

Dick post of the week

[HeliX]

Just now, Passing Time said:

Dick post of the week

Add me on Snapchat and you can have one daily.

[Passing Time]

2 hours ago, HeliX said:

But they really don't, the overwhelming majority of US police officers never fire a gun on duty, because it's not necessary. It's safer than being a pizza delivery driver. But since the 70s or so, police training (and budget...) in the states has mostly focused on the use of force, and teaching police that they need to assume they're going to die in every encounter. And now, very surprisingly, they're a force full of trigger-happy police. Weird, that.

Source of "information"

[HeliX]

3 minutes ago, Passing Time said:

Source of "information"

The very well researched and evidenced book The End of Policing by Alex S Vitale.

It's frequently free here as an ebook:

https://www.versobooks.com/en-gb/products/178-the-end-of-policing?_pos=1&_psq=end of pol&_ss=e&_v=1.0

Edit: I can lend you a paperback, if you like.

Edited October 2, 2023 by HeliX