T W A U ... The Chase...from...
Film, Media & TV2 mins ago
Firearms Officers.
Hypothetical at this point, I know, but if the Firearms Police Officers involved in the Menezes shooting are charged with criminal offences, the rest of the trained officers could, and most probably would, hand in their "chits".
This is a real possibility/probability as they are all voluntarily in their posts and it could happen on a national scale. This would cause all sorts of security problems.
Anyone have any views on this??
This is a real possibility/probability as they are all voluntarily in their posts and it could happen on a national scale. This would cause all sorts of security problems.
Anyone have any views on this??
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mike1222. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
In theory it could happen if they all felt that the action taken was unfair. Without wishing to prejudge the individual case, it is by no means certain that action against these people would be unfair. The vast majority of the police are committed to catching criminals, even more so if the alleged criminals are among them.
Grunty, I appreciate what you say, but none of us knows all the details of the case and any action against these officers wouldn't have to be deemed as "unfair" by other firearms officers, but it could be looked upon by them with a certain amount of "there but for the grace of God go I" empathy.
I just feel that it is a real possibility,
I just feel that it is a real possibility,
Although I don't see a problem with shooting illegal immigrants (regardless of terrorists) I suppose you could argue that the the Police sometimes kill pedestrians in their police cars on blues and twos .
Further, sometimes these officers face criminal charges of death by dangerous driving etc even though they were just trying to get to an emergency. You don't see many police officers handing in their driving permit afterwards do you? So I suppose we will not see too many handing in their firearms.
I just hope that common sense prevails. And in the aftermath of the muslim bombings of London, the brave Police Officers who shot the Brazillian were acting in good faith.
mike1222 - I accept what you say, but I have deliberately left out much comment because Answerbank and its members could be in trouble if we prejudice any possible trial by unwise or detailed comment. I think most people who have read the quality papers, including between the lines, will see that there is a prima facie case to answer.
Ward-Minter, the difference between a traffic officer and a firearms officer is that the former can be "posted" to the Traffic Department and ordered to drive whatever vehicle he is qualified to drive. Whether he then applies some sort of work to rule, ie drive to emergency incidents within the speed limit, is up to him, but the carrying of firearms is purely on a voluntary basis.
I don't think you'll see a mass exodus of armed police and despite whatever charges are likely to be brought against them I don't think there will be a conviction and even if there is they will be the scapegoats of their incompetant superiors.As Ward-Minter correctly points out, there are frequent civilian casualties with Police driving but there are still plenty of officers driving around.
Does you desire to shoot illegal immigrants extend to their children who may have had no choice but to have been brought here by their parents Wardy or are you just hell bent on shooting innocent adults?
Grunty,there is no need to deliberately leave out any comment if you stick to the point I have raised - I have not commented on their guilt, or lack of relating to any offences. I have merely commented on how whatever happens is perceived by other officers.
I would also maintain that, no matter what quality newspapers you may read, nobody will know if there is a prima facie case to answer or not - that includes reading between the lines as well.
I would also maintain that, no matter what quality newspapers you may read, nobody will know if there is a prima facie case to answer or not - that includes reading between the lines as well.
I would never condone the shooting of "innocent" people noxy. What kind of man do you think I am?
Crudely speaking mike1222 I suppose one could argue that every police officer is a firearms officers in the strict sense of the law. This is because CS and Pepper sprays are techically section 5 Firearms as they expel a "noxious thing" See here http://www.dsei.co.uk/guidelines/prohibited_weapons.htm< /p>
However, a bit of a tangent as I know a firearms officers refers to the "lethally barrelled" side of the definition.
Going back to your point, If (and i don't think there will be) but if there is a return of police guns I imagine The Army will take over. I know with the exception of NI the army have not been used in civilian enforcement in an armed capacity (Green goddesses etc, they were not armed) but as crown servants they can be utilised. To the muslim terrorist, I don't think it will matter too much if he is thwarted by the Police or the Army.
I don't believe the officers concerned should face charges because the situation in which they were involved was unique and tragic in equal measure.
Armed police officers in English cities have never confronted people both willing to die for a cause and actively embracing their own death. The IRA were dangerous, but not suicidal.
The security forces will learn from this tragedy, probably more quickly and humanely than the Israelis in similar situations and I for one support them on this occasion. I do not believe it's in our interest to have mass resignations of such skilled men when all they ask is our support and understanding of the specific difficulties involved in this particular case.
If there were future incidents of this nature, I don't believe we should be so lenient with officers involved, but this was the beginning of a new age for all concerned and should be accepted as such.
The family of the dead man should be financially compensated for his tragic loss, but the British Government need take no notice of the whingeing from the Brazilian authorities about our policing methods, whilst Brazilian police authorities continue to employ secret death squads to cleanse their streets of unwanted urchins
The killing in London was a tragic mistake, their killings are 'nod and a wink' policy decisions. I sincerely hope I haven't given Ward-Minter ideas on how to solve the 'chav' problem on our streets.
I suppose the crux of the matter really comes down to the fact that do the firearms officers feel that they are being backed by their superiors or left to swing in the wind?
There can't be a much worse feeling than doing a very difficult job if you don't feel you have the support and total backing of those above you in the chain of command, particularly if your role is voluntary and where you have milli-seconds to react to a life or death situation.
If it were me, and those officers were charged, they would have my chit back in a heartbeat.
The firearms officers in question must have been had radio comms with their superiors until they and Menendes entered the underground system, when reception would, I believe, have been lost.
Before that happened the target was, in my opinion, identified as a terrorist. (wrongly, as it turns out).
What I want to know is, was permission given to neutralise the threat ? If so, when and who by ?
If radio comms were lost in the underground before permission to open fire was given the officers would have believed that they were dealing with an identified and dangerous terrorist in a public transport system, and would have had to take that fateful decision themselves. What would you have done ? Simple, the same as them.
No, someone is covering their own back and the lads at the sharp end are facing the music, as usual.
Ummmm, Regarding being murdered, what am I more worried about?
1)Trigger happy plods who worked long hard hours under the Queen for relatively small reward, keeping us safe. Or...........
2)Fanatical muslim terrorists who stalk the streets of london listening to some blind, hooked fat man sponging off the country they hate, and want to destroy all things western whilst wearing male dresses.
Tough call bernie. I will sleep on it.
The big picture is as follows :
If he hadnt been here illegally, he would most probably have been alive today.
To castigate the ' man with the hook' as being somehow inferior to a corrupt police investigation does no-one any credit - it is another fact of life in Britain today, that the politician who bears responsibility for the police force is also part of the mechanism that allows anyone through our borders on the thinnest of pretexts....as for compensation for the unfortunate Brazilian - I think not. In the event that I illegally entered Rio and was accidentally shot for my pains, it is unlikely that the Brazilian police would be so accommodating. It happened folks - deal with it.
Hang on...did I read that correctly???
Did Ward Minter really write 'Although I don't see a problem with shooting illegal immigrants (regardless of terrorists)'
I've read that sentence again and again, and it looks like Ward-Minter is advocating a shoot to kill policy on illegal immigrants.
Ward-Minter - seriously, if that's what you're proposing for illegal immigrants, what have you got up your sleeve for murders and rapists???
