"Hundreds" of Met Police armed response officers hand in the weapons after colleague charged with murder - Chris Kaba Shooting aftermath.

gingergundog said:
He said to the man in the mirror
Click to expand...
people who disagree with you aren't simply angry, however much it might make you feel better. people who get sweary ignore the point, and resort to twisting turn of phrases however vulgar into their own sick rapey slightly homophobic fantasies, probably need a visit from the people they claim to support. You know if I was a delicate sunflower :)

If you're, mad, get mad at Baroness Casey, that well known anti-police person.

Here


This is the reason the Police don't get to say "trust me bro" any more, it's nothing to do with me
 
Last edited:
esmozz said:
Grow up. Do you actually have anything to contribute? There is a legal precedent I was trying to to highlight with Lee Clegg. What has Bloody Sunday got to do with it. Or were you trying to be edgy?
Click to expand...
That a rational human being might make a mistake that gets them killed because they're afraid of the person on the other end of the gun being trigger happy.
 
StriderX said:
That a rational human being might make a mistake that gets them killed because they're afraid of the person on the other end of the gun being trigger happy.
Click to expand...
Still not sure of your connection to Bloody Sunday, beyond a buzzword, I suspect you have no idea what you’re talking about.

As for rational human beings - are you really that dense. A rational human being doesn’t try to ram through an armed road block. One who thought he was on the hook for attempted murder might though.
 
esmozz said:
Crikey fella, I really seem to have touched a nerve here. Better delete that internet history before somebody comes looking…..
Click to expand...
lol and "it" continues what were you talking about projection ? :)

Is that another threat ? don't sail too close to the wind PC know it all maybe take some advice from your rep before you continue to post ;)
 
Last edited:
Haggisman said:
Jesus Christ, grow up already
Click to expand...
You work with what you're given, 3 times I've post WHY the officer might be being prosecuted and WHY the Police might be better advised to keep quiet for the time being. 3 times it's ignored in favour of childish attacks and utter nonsense so, meh, if that's the level of debate, roll with it.
 
Sythe79 said:
You work with what you're given, 3 times I've post WHY the officer might be being prosecuted and WHY the Police might be better advised to keep quiet for the time being. 3 times it's ignored in favour of childish attacks and utter nonsense so, meh, if that's the level of debate, roll with it.
Click to expand...

To be honest, I can only see one person consistently making childish attacks and remarks in the thread.
 
Sounds like the black athletes(santos/bianca) court case and their racist accusations is showing exactly what kind of abuse police have to put up with,
including him trying to defend his continued swearing at the police, which wasn't on the edited video they placed on youtube.


If you hadn't read the account of the Menezes shooting - this gives a good insight into police protocol and real time decisions
Executed: Anatomy of a police killing https://web.archive.org/web/20090109143617/http://www.dispatch.co.za/2005/08/23/Foreign/amendez.html
 
Haggisman said:
To be honest, I can only see one person consistently making childish attacks and remarks in the thread.
Click to expand...
well you can choose to see whatever you want, it's all there again
Sythe79 said:
"But everyone within the Met also now needs to recognise that its failings go well beyond the
actions of ‘bad apple’ officers. My report makes clear that, on top of the unimaginable crimes of
individuals and the shocking series of events that have hit the service in recent years, the way in
which the Met has responded to them is also a symptom of a wider malaise in an organisation that
has fundamentally lost its way.
“The Met can now no longer presume that it has the permission of the people of London to police
them. The loss of this crucial principle of policing by consent would be catastrophic. We must make
sure it is not irreversible.
“It is fixable if the Met recognises the true scale of the challenge in front of it, with drastic and
effective action. The Met must be prepared to accept stronger outside challenge and scrutiny. It
needs strong leadership and all its officers and staff to be behind the changes required"

This is why this officer is getting treated "harshly" or as most people would think like any other person. So yes it comes across as crying when officers hand in their ticket in protest or complain about the time under investigation.
Click to expand...

no debate about the reasons, Just misdirected anger as every contentious issue on this forum ends up, so yes, you might as well reply to childishness in kind.
 
Last edited:
Sythe79 said:
If you honestly think the Police have had a lack of protection historically from prosecution, then you and those officers are too far gone up their own behinds for help.
Click to expand...
Who's the one being childish again?

And yes, they have had a lack of protection; the RTA was amended just last year because police drivers were, despite operating under certain exemptions and being trained and expected to drive at higher speeds and use specialist tactics, held to the same standard as a regular member of the public.

Sythe79 said:
The ink on the report proving and condemning their actions is barely dry, anyone with a hint of humanity and contrition would at the very least keep quiet, man up and realise there is a collective and personal responsibility for the met's past actions and wait for the trial, which they will probably win anyway.
Click to expand...
The trial is in at least a year's time, firearms officers had concerns now about their willingness and ability to continue with their role. By the sounds of it some have since decided to resume their firearms duties of their own volition, some were effectively threatened by management and some have yet to resume.

Telling people who have to make potentially lethal, split-second decisions to "man up" is how you end up with officers who aren't fit for the role, make poor decisions and end up with mental health issues.
 
TheVoice said:
Who's the one being childish again?

And yes, they have had a lack of protection; the RTA was amended just last year because police drivers were, despite operating under certain exemptions and being trained and expected to drive at higher speeds and use specialist tactics, held to the same standard as a regular member of the public.


The trial is in at least a year's time, firearms officers had concerns now about their willingness and ability to continue with their role. By the sounds of it some have since decided to resume their firearms duties of their own volition, some were effectively threatened by management and some have yet to resume.

Telling people who have to make potentially lethal, split-second decisions to "man up" is how you end up with officers who aren't fit for the role, make poor decisions and end up with mental health issues.
Click to expand...
That's not as lack of protection, again I don't think you get the concept, police officers have historically been given the benefit of the doubt, that's born out in charge and conviction rates, and how every organisation meant to police the police ends up as not fit for purpose. times might have changed.

The RTA isn't about lack of protection, if you are given an exemption that allows you to not follow the RTA in certain circumstances then you should be trained to a higher standard AND held to a higher standard, an exemption isn't a free pass to drive dangerously, It's an allowance to for example drive above the stated speed limit were the training and conditions allow them to safely.

Yes they should man up and keep quiet, the optics are horrible, they can be privately as disgruntled as they like, if they want to quit fine, but to publicly hand in their tickets and turn it into a political statement months after all the Mets failing have been exposed is pretty pathetic.
 
Sythe79 said:
That's not as lack of protection, again I don't think you get the concept
Click to expand...
Then why was the law changed?

Sythe79 said:
if you are given an exemption that allows you to not follow the RTA in certain circumstances then you should be...held to a higher standard
Click to expand...
They are, ever since the amendments were made. Previously they were held to the lower standard of a "careful and competent driver" which didn't take into account training and tactics and therefore meant police drivers could be prosecuted for incidents that occurred as a result of utilising said training and tactics. I didn't mention anything about a "free pass to drive dangerously", you keep adding in these extremes yourself as if it somehow proves a point.
 
TheVoice said:
Then why was the law changed?


They are, ever since the amendments were made. Previously they were held to the lower standard of a "careful and competent driver" which didn't take into account training and tactics and therefore meant police drivers could be prosecuted for incidents that occurred as a result of utilising said training and tactics. I didn't mention anything about a "free pass to drive dangerously", you keep adding in these extremes yourself as if it somehow proves a point.
Click to expand...
It's not extreme, either your driving is deemed legally safe or it isn't. You either follow the laws or you don't in which case expect to face the consequences. That should be the case for a civilian or a Police officer.

Serious question, what extra protections do the Police need that they don't already enjoy ? What's the threshold then where police officers should be given the benefit of the doubt no questions asked, even if that in itself goes against the British Ethos of Citizen police officers policing by consent, How many times can they be found to be failing or abusing those protections before the public are allowed to question them ?
 
I found this timeline over on pistonheads. While I don't have time to confirm if it is all factual, I did find it quite insightful.

Timeline:

11 December 2015
Incident occurs.

16 November 2016
IPCC (as was) passes the investigation report to CPS to assess whether a prosecution should be brought.

The IOPC noted in the subsequent public inquiry that their investigation was hindered by police witnesses refusing to answer questions at interview and instead only responding afterwards in writing. This causes delays to follow up questions and corroboration. The Police Regulations were subsequently changed to require Police witnesses to cooperate fully in accordance with expectations of professional behaviours for a police officer. However the Police Federation continued to advise members that they still cannot be compelled to answer.

14 June 2017
The CPS conclude there is no realistic prospect of criminal prosecution. It is a defence in criminal proceedings to have a honestly held belie no matter how mistake or unreasonable that belief may be (though unreasonableness can be used to challenge whether it was honestly held).

The family exercise their Victim's Right to Review. This is a standard process available to all victims and not specific to police cases.

26 June 2017
The Met rescinded W80's suspension and allowed him to return to duty albeit in an non-operational training role.

19 March 2018
CPS confirm decision not to bring criminal proceedings.

That same day, the IPCC made a recommendation to the Met that gross misconduct proceedings be brought against W80 on the basis of the civil law test that any mistake of fact could be relied upon if it was a reasonable mistake to make. This was in the investigation report prepared on 16 November 2016.

The Met replied saying it did not agree with the IOPC interpretation of the law and had decided not to follow the recommendation.

1 May 2018
The IOPC use their powers to formally direct the Met to undertake disciplinary proceedings.

The Met and W80 decide to challenge the IOPC direction through a Judicial Review

14 August 2019
The High Court upholds the judicial review challenge in favour of W80 and the Met. The IOPC seek leave to appeal.

9 October 2020
The Court of Appeal upholds the IOPC appeal. W80 and the Met appeal to the Supreme Court

5 July 2023
Supreme Court upholds the Court of Appeal decision in favour of IOPC and and rules that the civil law test for self defence is the correct standard for misconduct proceedings.

Those proceedings have yet to be brought.

In addition to the above:

12 February 2020
The coroner concluded that an inquest could not take place as the Met refused to hand over certain evidence. At the coroner's request the Home Secretary orders a statutory public inquiry led by a judge who has the power to compel the Met to release evidence or hear it in closed session.

5 July 2022
Inquiry report is published with a narrative verdict of lawful killing following application of the criminal test.

The inquiry exposes significant failures in the planning and execution of the operation. It revealed that the Met had placed audio surveillance devices in the car, which captured the occupants discussing how they did not have a real firearm. This was passed to the DCI who was leading the operation and acting as Tactical Firearms Commander two hours before he ordered the CTSFOs to move in to arest. This information was not shared with the firearms team or others.

For that and other failures, the IPCC investigation report in November 2016 had also concluded that there was a case for gross misconduct proceedings against the DCI. They had previously issued a notice of investigation to the DCI on 28 July 2016.

Meanwhile the DCI had given the Met notice on 11 May 2016 that he intended to retire at the conclusion of 30 years service on 27 September 2016. Prior to 15 December 2017 it was not possible to bring disciplinary proceedings against officers who had ceased serving with the police, including retired officers. The power to prevent an officer retiring in such circumstances had been introduced in January 2015. The IPCC requested the Met exercise this power but they declined. The DCI was therefore allowed to retire and no disciplinary proceedings could be brought against him. The judge was critical of this decision.

Returning to W80 the Inquiry was also critical of his conduct. Other firearms officers were simultaneously ordering the car occupants to "put your hands up, don't move" or "put your hands on the dashboard". W80 claimed he did not hear these instructions and so when he saw Baker raising his hands right in front of him immediately after arriving at the car door he shot Baker.

This is not the first time people have been shot for complying with police instructions hence the issue with "follow the orders of armed police and you'll be okay" position taken by some posters in this thread.
Click to expand...

Source: https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=10&t=2028028&i=660
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom