Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
You do realise that the majority of Police Officers who serve now either weren't born or were toddlers during the miners strike right?
Protect and Serve . . . yeah right !
- Thread starter Sliver
- Start date
You do realise that the majority of Police Officers who serve now either weren't born or were toddlers during the miners strike right?
Yes but i was and remember all to well, from what i can see in London the main change has been that they cant get away with as much as they did.
I suppose the more you train your police like your military, the more they're likely to use force and aggression to the extent that some american forces seem to employ on their citizenry.
Tazers were 'sold' the the british public as a non lethal option for firearms officers in a situation where a firearm would otherwise have been used. However that's not how they are used currently.
Mission-creep - at first it's only armed response units, now it's regular police. I think the problem with tools like these is that in some (though not all) cases, the threat response escalates more quickly, with improper use of such tools as means of coercion on individuals who clearly don't warrant such a response in the first place - think the blind guy who was tazered a while back.
Arming the police more heavily will lead to training them in a more aggressive fashion. That's just the way it goes.
I know there's a couple of you guys who stick up for the police due to your involvement. I don't really have any issue with that. But part of the responsibility of the uniform, along with the pension, the unsociable hours and the chance of seeing and being involved in some rather unpleasant things, is also to expect to be held to a higher standard than joe-public, to be placed under the scrutiny of the people and their criticism, no matter if you like it or agree with it or not.
There are certain cases that just show how bad the police can be when it comes to doing the right thing - the jean charles de menezes case stands a head an shoulders above many other cases of recent times - nothing about that, from the incident and it's control, to the press statements and subsequent distortion of what happened and why, to the blatant public smearing by officials of JCM, culminating in the charade of a public inquiry that was so utterly anaemic in its prosecution that the commanding officer (of the operational surveillance of a known terrorist suspect, who had been watched closely for more than six months), presided over such a catastrophic failure of communication followed by some of the worst official backtracking I have ever seen reported, not only kept her job, but was even promoted!
On the whole I think we have a better police force than the americans, but I certainly wouldn't call them great. Everyone can use example of how this country does this despite that, or how that country doesn't do this as a reason to explain how giving our police firearms won't change how they deal with the public. But if we give the police these tools, then they will use them, in some cases grossly inappropriately.
We can all sit here and argue about it; about how that guy deserved it 'cause he didn't do what he was told etc. But perhaps that guy might one day be you, going about your business to be suddenly faced with armed, aggressive police who are used to treating eveyone they deal with as a potentially lethal threat, and when you don't respond immediately to their commands, because you're and ordinary guy and not a hardened criminal and have no idea what is happening to you, and you do the wrong thing and end up dead, well.... we can all sit round here and moralise about how you 'should have done what you was told, serves you right'.
That is the reason why I find such cases so deplorable, when there is absolutely no reason for them to have happened in the first place, and when they do nobody accepts responsibility for killing someone they shouldn't have.
It's a trend that is not exclusively american and the only reason we don't have such comparable rates of police killings is because we do not arm our regular plod. The longer we can keep it that way the better.
Tazers were 'sold' the the british public as a non lethal option for firearms officers in a situation where a firearm would otherwise have been used. However that's not how they are used currently.
Mission-creep - at first it's only armed response units, now it's regular police. I think the problem with tools like these is that in some (though not all) cases, the threat response escalates more quickly, with improper use of such tools as means of coercion on individuals who clearly don't warrant such a response in the first place - think the blind guy who was tazered a while back.
Arming the police more heavily will lead to training them in a more aggressive fashion. That's just the way it goes.
I know there's a couple of you guys who stick up for the police due to your involvement. I don't really have any issue with that. But part of the responsibility of the uniform, along with the pension, the unsociable hours and the chance of seeing and being involved in some rather unpleasant things, is also to expect to be held to a higher standard than joe-public, to be placed under the scrutiny of the people and their criticism, no matter if you like it or agree with it or not.
There are certain cases that just show how bad the police can be when it comes to doing the right thing - the jean charles de menezes case stands a head an shoulders above many other cases of recent times - nothing about that, from the incident and it's control, to the press statements and subsequent distortion of what happened and why, to the blatant public smearing by officials of JCM, culminating in the charade of a public inquiry that was so utterly anaemic in its prosecution that the commanding officer (of the operational surveillance of a known terrorist suspect, who had been watched closely for more than six months), presided over such a catastrophic failure of communication followed by some of the worst official backtracking I have ever seen reported, not only kept her job, but was even promoted!
On the whole I think we have a better police force than the americans, but I certainly wouldn't call them great. Everyone can use example of how this country does this despite that, or how that country doesn't do this as a reason to explain how giving our police firearms won't change how they deal with the public. But if we give the police these tools, then they will use them, in some cases grossly inappropriately.
We can all sit here and argue about it; about how that guy deserved it 'cause he didn't do what he was told etc. But perhaps that guy might one day be you, going about your business to be suddenly faced with armed, aggressive police who are used to treating eveyone they deal with as a potentially lethal threat, and when you don't respond immediately to their commands, because you're and ordinary guy and not a hardened criminal and have no idea what is happening to you, and you do the wrong thing and end up dead, well.... we can all sit round here and moralise about how you 'should have done what you was told, serves you right'.
That is the reason why I find such cases so deplorable, when there is absolutely no reason for them to have happened in the first place, and when they do nobody accepts responsibility for killing someone they shouldn't have.
It's a trend that is not exclusively american and the only reason we don't have such comparable rates of police killings is because we do not arm our regular plod. The longer we can keep it that way the better.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,468
Is this a different sort of baton round to the type I am aware of?
If the type that was deployed in NIreland was fired like this it would usually have killed.
So what is the cop shooting him point blank with?
Anyway, as for OP, cop kills man, plants evidence, then he got caught, he will do time for murder, and they shouldn't be referring to it as a 'bad decision'. It was murder, and then covered up as something else.
This doesn't happen often in Britain, certainly not these days. The amount of police shooting are relatively low, and thankfully most situations are defused without resorting to firing weapons.
I just dont see it that way. The difference is night and day between american cops and british.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 13,634
- Location
- La France
Is this a different sort of baton round to the type I am aware of?
If the type that was deployed in NIreland was fired like this it would usually have killed.
So what is the cop shooting him point blank with?
Looks like one of those non-canister tear gas dispensers, so safe-ish to fire at point blank range.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 13,634
- Location
- La France
How many people did the police kill during the miners strike?
I don't remember it being policemen killing David Wilkie...
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 1 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 12,681
- Location
- Tyneside
I hope not.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 1 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 12,681
- Location
- Tyneside
The pit strike was a different era and a different style of policing. Pre PACE and now are not really comparable.
The Ian Tomlinson incident - no argument and something I have always spoke out against but hardly indicative of the majority.
So All of us have seen the same clip and yet many have come to rather different conclusions.
How might the Policeman have reacted?
The problem with "Phone clips" is that we don't really get to see what lead up to it. The "Clipper" only starts recording AFTER it is clear that something "Interesting" is going to happen.
To play Devils Advocate
Cop has carried out routine traffic stop.
Instead of dealing with it in a "normal" manner, the suspect assaults the cop, disarms him, and does a runner.
Now (And of course "Officially" he isn't supposed to do this because it is "Profiling" and therefore wrong!) the Cop will be fully aware that a US Black man in his 50's will have a near on 50/50 chance of having done prison time. So one who does an assault and runner after a simple traffic stop for a faulty bulb is highly likely to be up to serious no good.
He is also highly likely to be armed and prepared to use it.
A runner isn't necessarily trying to escape. He might well be running for cover from which he can draw his own weapon and fire on the pursuing cop.
(Certainly that would be my plan if I was an armed suspect rather than fumble with my gun in the open, I would be very interested to see the sort of ground the man was heading for.)
Cops are not superhuman, they are ordinary people who have the same desire to go home at the end of the day and have dinner with their families as anybody else. The extent to which they will be prepared to risk their own lives to protect the life of a suspected criminal is going to be limited.
The Cop had three choices. Pursue the suspect into an ally and face the high likelihood of coming under fire from somebody in a position of considerable advantage. Just let him go, or shoot him.
You have around 100mS to decide!
What do YOU do? :/
How might the Policeman have reacted?
The problem with "Phone clips" is that we don't really get to see what lead up to it. The "Clipper" only starts recording AFTER it is clear that something "Interesting" is going to happen.
To play Devils Advocate
Cop has carried out routine traffic stop.
Instead of dealing with it in a "normal" manner, the suspect assaults the cop, disarms him, and does a runner.
Now (And of course "Officially" he isn't supposed to do this because it is "Profiling" and therefore wrong!) the Cop will be fully aware that a US Black man in his 50's will have a near on 50/50 chance of having done prison time. So one who does an assault and runner after a simple traffic stop for a faulty bulb is highly likely to be up to serious no good.
He is also highly likely to be armed and prepared to use it.
A runner isn't necessarily trying to escape. He might well be running for cover from which he can draw his own weapon and fire on the pursuing cop.
(Certainly that would be my plan if I was an armed suspect rather than fumble with my gun in the open, I would be very interested to see the sort of ground the man was heading for.)
Cops are not superhuman, they are ordinary people who have the same desire to go home at the end of the day and have dinner with their families as anybody else. The extent to which they will be prepared to risk their own lives to protect the life of a suspected criminal is going to be limited.
The Cop had three choices. Pursue the suspect into an ally and face the high likelihood of coming under fire from somebody in a position of considerable advantage. Just let him go, or shoot him.
You have around 100mS to decide!
What do YOU do? :/
Check out this post where I essentially said what you said, albeit in a more eloquent manner: http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=27882515&postcount=309
Well, seeing the additional clip of the initial traffic stop that has been released, the fact that the man has already run from the cop once and not pulled a gun before being stopped again, would indicate that when he runs a 2nd time it's not likely that he'll pull a gun this time.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
I don't see how the dashcam footage actually changes anything though.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 1 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 12,681
- Location
- Tyneside
You don't discharge eight rounds on a subject who is clearly running away. The justification for lethal force isn't there.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
It really is that simple.
It doesn't, but it gives us more information on the situation. It shows him running from the cop to escape arrest, but the later footage shows him having been caught by the officer. Regardless of whether the suspect has already run away or not, when he runs the second time, the actions of the officer are clearly unjustified.
That's the nub of it, whether in that moment he felt it was justified as it sounds Orionaut would, legally it wasn't justified.
"Fear for your life" as justification for lethal force, or even non lethal force is only valid when the fear is real, it cannot boil down to "because he was black", which is essentially what you're suggesting Orionaut.
yes it was a different era and many things have changed and I not saying all police are bad, its an incredibly difficult job that I would not be able to do.
But when you see the way some behave at demos involving law abiding people many young or older who clearly are not out for trouble it reminds me of the bad old days, so for me giving them all guns set alarm bells ringing.
I guess my view is slanted by being exposed to inner city policing that will always be more aggressive.
Back to this incident, most of us seem to agree unloading a gun into a man running away is wrong.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 1 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 12,681
- Location
- Tyneside
Interesting points as I work a combination of urban and rural on my patch with ex pit villages. Part of my patch was, and may still well be, one of the most socially deprived areas in Western Europe let alone the UK and a very different dynamic to inner city policing and 99% of the time I'm on my own. A lot of problem areas but the majority if people in them are not a problem. They mustn't be written off due to circumstance and area.
Also interesting that the Met are slated. Here's my view.
Firstly, I know a few ex Met cops who transferred up to the north east and it must be one of the hardest cities there is to police, especially post McPherson Report.
I have worked with the Met on numerous mutual aid jobs and there seems a marked difference with them in that there seems to be little appetite for engaging and speaking to the public, even to other cops. It's a mentality I personally don't get.
Any Met cops reading - I don't mean to be offensive, just saying what I've had experience of.
Last month they killed more Americans than the British police have killed Brits in the last hundred years, at the beginning of that hundred years we had US style gun laws and zero welfare state, we have roughlu a fifth of their population and we're much more densely packed in our little isle, we're just much better than them it would appear.