Police dealing with incident on London Bridge amid reports of shots fired

Associate
Joined
16 Jan 2003
Posts
272
I can't beleive people are dismissing the copper in this situation. They truely beleived he was an immediate threat to life then he was well within his right to shoot. It's literally how they are trained. He (they) even put their lifes at risk if there was a potential of a suicidie vest, at such close range.

How people can argue against it, is beyond me. Can you not put yourself in that situation?

The police are very aware they could be up in court for their decisions, they are literally putting others lifes infront of theirs. Does anyone really think they want to be jailed for murder?

Then the weight of taking a persons life is on his mind forever. There is far too many factors to say this killing was unlawful, and hugely unfair for anyone to judge from an armchair.

Correct, it is how they are trained, Im a AFO and have been for six years as part of a dedicated firearms unit. I'm actually flabbergasted people are criticising the police response.
 
Associate
Joined
18 Oct 2011
Posts
324
Correct, it is how they are trained, Im a AFO and have been for six years as part of a dedicated firearms unit. I'm actually flabbergasted people are criticising the police response.
A very small minority. The rest of us are praising the police and the members of the public that helped stop this murderous scumbag
 
Soldato
Joined
1 Apr 2014
Posts
18,532
Location
Aberdeen
An (edited) update from Fishmongers' Hall - the building in the background:

You will be aware from national media of a violent incident that ended on London Bridge this afternoon. It originated inside Fishmongers' Hall, during an event hosted by an external charity, it is my present understanding that there has been a fatality and of other injuries, one was a member of staff, who is recovering in hospital.
The police have primacy on this incident ...
Although there were many witnesses to this horrific event I am glad to report that all subsequent actions are under control. Those members of the company who were present are binding together in common purpose...

BBC article mentioning Fishmongers' Hall here.
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Mar 2008
Posts
32,741
Correct, it is how they are trained, Im a AFO and have been for six years as part of a dedicated firearms unit. I'm actually flabbergasted people are criticising the police response.

You don't believe they should constantly be criticised to make sure they keep within their scope?

God forbid another de Menezes happens.
 
Soldato
Joined
7 Jun 2009
Posts
2,633
Location
No where
You don't believe they should constantly be criticised to make sure they keep within their scope?

God forbid another de Menezes happens.

But they are By the IPCC, who have fully trained competent investigators. who will go through every decision.
Unlike on here where people are making judgement calls from a video clip and years of firearms training
 
Associate
Joined
16 Jan 2003
Posts
272
These officers are trained to a high standard and the selection process is tough. These officers wouldn't have taken that decision lightly. The use of force is ultimately up the officer involved, no one makes that decision for them.

This was a spontaneous firearms incident and completely different circumstances to De Menezes, so I don't think it's fair to compare it.
 
Soldato
Joined
22 Nov 2006
Posts
23,304
You don't believe they should constantly be criticised to make sure they keep within their scope?

God forbid another de Menezes happens.

Any armed cop or soldier would have reacted the same. If they didn't and they had a real bomb, more people would now be dead.

Someone has to do the job otherwise these lunatics would take over.
 
Soldato
Joined
26 Dec 2011
Posts
5,830
Location
City of London
You don't believe they should constantly be criticised to make sure they keep within their scope?

God forbid another de Menezes happens.
Yeah because a guy jumping over a tube barrier 15 years ago is totally comparable to someone killing two people and wearing a fake suicide belt in 2019. Come on, you're not that silly.
 
Associate
Joined
22 Jun 2018
Posts
1,578
Location
Doon the watah ... Scotland
Is this a change of policy ?

Not really. As above, there it falls down to the individual officer to make the decision on whether to shoot.

They are presented with a situation where a person is out maurauding in the public having seriously harmed and continuing to actively try to harm others. On sight of him, he appears to be wearing what looks like a improvised explosive device which can cause significant injury over a wide area. At that point, a big portion of their working strategy will be to maximise the safety of the public right there and then. Taking shots to stop further action by the subject, to me, appears a wholly justified use of force.

I dont understand how people think that would not be an appropriate course of action.
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Mar 2008
Posts
32,741
These officers are trained to a high standard and the selection process is tough. These officers wouldn't have taken that decision lightly. The use of force is ultimately up the officer involved, no one makes that decision for them.

This was a spontaneous firearms incident and completely different circumstances to De Menezes, so I don't think it's fair to compare it.

I feel it's a little irrelevant what each incident was (hindsight...), they're still incidents in which a firearm was used, and it should be scrutinised each and every time it happens, regardless (to my knowledge this does occur, but it's just sensible to reiterate). I feel better in a society that is vigilant, and that is entirely my position.

Maybe i'm being overcautious, but I simply don't want to be in a situation decades (or years) down the line where the rules are being weakened or broken because society no longer cares.
 
Caporegime
Joined
1 Dec 2010
Posts
52,091
Location
Welling, London
I feel it's a little irrelevant what each incident was (hindsight...), they're still incidents in which a firearm was used, and it should be scrutinised each and every time it happens, regardless (to my knowledge this does occur, but it's just sensible to reiterate). I feel better in a society that is vigilant, and that is entirely my position.

Maybe i'm being overcautious, but I simply don't want to be in a situation decades (or years) down the line where the rules are being weakened or broken because society no longer cares.
The man had his hand near a detonator on a suicide vest with people mere feet away from him. What more justification can there be for finishing him off?
 
Soldato
Joined
27 Dec 2003
Posts
16,309
One of the guys who tackled him to the ground was a plain clothes policeman and its reported that one of the others was a convicted murderer out on day release
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Mar 2008
Posts
32,741
The man had his hand near a detonator on a suicide vest with people mere feet away from him. What more justification can there be for finishing him off?

That isn't my point, can you know for certain that statement is true for instance? Again i'm being far-reaching, but i feel someone has to be.
 
Soldato
OP
Joined
3 Feb 2010
Posts
3,034
I feel it's a little irrelevant what each incident was (hindsight...), they're still incidents in which a firearm was used, and it should be scrutinised each and every time it happens, regardless (to my knowledge this does occur, but it's just sensible to reiterate). I feel better in a society that is vigilant, and that is entirely my position.

Maybe i'm being overcautious, but I simply don't want to be in a situation decades (or years) down the line where the rules are being weakened or broken because society no longer cares.

I'd argue that is a very pessimistic view of human nature.
 
Associate
Joined
16 Jan 2003
Posts
272
Every incident where a firearm is pointed at someone is investigated by an independent body, not discharged, but pointed. As technically when you point a firearm at someone you are in essence assaulting them. So scrutiny isn't an issue. Each incident should be investigated separately and without prejudice. So to compare and contrast with an incident that occured years ago in a completely different set of circumstances isn't really fair in my opinion.
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Mar 2008
Posts
32,741
Every incident where a firearm is pointed at someone is investigated by an independent body, not discharged, but pointed. As technically when you point a firearm at someone you are in essence assaulting them. So scrutiny isn't an issue. Each incident should be investigated separately and without prejudice. So to compare and contrast with an incident that occured years ago in a completely different set of circumstances isn't really fair in my opinion.

But those circumstances are now well known, this hasn't been investigated yet (though i assume it starts immediately?), the circumstances here are currently muddled and that will be cleared up over time. I guess i just feel the need to say it, rather than assume it, so that it is at least in some folks minds, rather than compounding an attitude of the gun-ho people, by just echoing a response as if to agree without stipulation. Maybe that makes me uncool i suppose.
 
Back
Top Bottom