Proportionate response?
Discussion
Avon and Somerset Police said:
We are seeking dashcam or any CCTV footage taken in Burnham-on-Sea town centre on Friday 14 July, which may help our ongoing investigation into an attempted robbery.
We were called at just before 1.30pm yesterday, with a report of a man entering a Nationwide Building Society branch, in High Street, and threatening the employees. Nothing was taken and no-one was injured, but the employees were left shaken.
Officers attended the scene, including armed officers, and the National Police Air Service helicopter was deployed, to help carry out a thorough search of the area and review all available CCTV.
Two people – a man and a woman – were arrested on suspicion of attempted robbery yesterday and were released on bail earlier today.
Detective Sergeant Duncan Verel said: “Our investigation into this attempted robbery is ongoing and as part of our enquiries we are seeking information about a man who was seen in the area dressed in all black, including a balaclava, shortly before 1.30pm.
“He is believed to have walked from the Chapel Street area towards the High Street and was in possession of a yellow carrier bag. A very short while later, he was seen towards the Esplanade and in the general direction of Vicarage Street.
“We’re particularly keen to hear from witnesses who have not yet come forward, or anyone who was driving in the area and may have dashcam footage that may be helpful to our enquiries.”
I'm interested that armed police and the helicopter were called out to this incident. The statement doesn't state the nature of the threat to staff (e.g. whether a knife or firearm was involved). Neither does it indicate how long it took the firearms officers and helicopter to get to the town but it is a small place and I would think it unlikely they would already have been in the vicinity. This isn't a big city where firearms units might well be cruising round within a few minutes of an incident.We were called at just before 1.30pm yesterday, with a report of a man entering a Nationwide Building Society branch, in High Street, and threatening the employees. Nothing was taken and no-one was injured, but the employees were left shaken.
Officers attended the scene, including armed officers, and the National Police Air Service helicopter was deployed, to help carry out a thorough search of the area and review all available CCTV.
Two people – a man and a woman – were arrested on suspicion of attempted robbery yesterday and were released on bail earlier today.
Detective Sergeant Duncan Verel said: “Our investigation into this attempted robbery is ongoing and as part of our enquiries we are seeking information about a man who was seen in the area dressed in all black, including a balaclava, shortly before 1.30pm.
“He is believed to have walked from the Chapel Street area towards the High Street and was in possession of a yellow carrier bag. A very short while later, he was seen towards the Esplanade and in the general direction of Vicarage Street.
“We’re particularly keen to hear from witnesses who have not yet come forward, or anyone who was driving in the area and may have dashcam footage that may be helpful to our enquiries.”
Before anyone jumps to any conclusions about my thoughts on whether this is good or bad, I'm actually rather impressed and a bit surprised.
There is a distinction between armed officers deploying versus attending an incident.
To be deployed (ie specifically directed because they are armed) the below should be met; (taken directly from APP)
[i] 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. [/i]
It may be that armed officers attended rather than being specifically “deployed”. They are cops and respond to none-firearms jobs every day, they still have the exact powers and obligations as every other officer.
To be deployed (ie specifically directed because they are armed) the below should be met; (taken directly from APP)
[i] 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. [/i]
It may be that armed officers attended rather than being specifically “deployed”. They are cops and respond to none-firearms jobs every day, they still have the exact powers and obligations as every other officer.
SteveScooby said:
There is a distinction between armed officers deploying versus attending an incident.
To be deployed (ie specifically directed because they are armed) the below should be met; (taken directly from APP)
[i] 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. [/i]
It may be that armed officers attended rather than being specifically “deployed”. They are cops and respond to none-firearms jobs every day, they still have the exact powers and obligations as every other officer.
Doesn't seem like that in my force ha. 'We can't do that incase a firearms job comes in...we've got one under arrest for FTA...we need a unit for transport...no we can't split up, oh you'll need to do the whole booking in procedure as we can't enter custody'To be deployed (ie specifically directed because they are armed) the below should be met; (taken directly from APP)
[i] 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. [/i]
It may be that armed officers attended rather than being specifically “deployed”. They are cops and respond to none-firearms jobs every day, they still have the exact powers and obligations as every other officer.
LosingGrip said:
SteveScooby said:
There is a distinction between armed officers deploying versus attending an incident.
To be deployed (ie specifically directed because they are armed) the below should be met; (taken directly from APP)
[i] 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. [/i]
It may be that armed officers attended rather than being specifically “deployed”. They are cops and respond to none-firearms jobs every day, they still have the exact powers and obligations as every other officer.
Doesn't seem like that in my force ha. 'We can't do that incase a firearms job comes in...we've got one under arrest for FTA...we need a unit for transport...no we can't split up, oh you'll need to do the whole booking in procedure as we can't enter custody'To be deployed (ie specifically directed because they are armed) the below should be met; (taken directly from APP)
[i] 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. [/i]
It may be that armed officers attended rather than being specifically “deployed”. They are cops and respond to none-firearms jobs every day, they still have the exact powers and obligations as every other officer.
Somewhatfoolish said:
How could anyone possibly answer the question "Proportionate response?" in the negative without being in possession of more facts than that? Rightly, the police aren't splashing it all all over the internet.
Exactly.But you know, the public demand to know why as they pay their wages etc etc.
You can imagine the uproar if a couple of pcso officers turned up instead and were injured carrying out their duties.
Penny Whistle said:
I'm interested that armed police and the helicopter were called out to this incident. The statement doesn't state the nature of the threat to staff (e.g. whether a knife or firearm was involved). Neither does it indicate how long it took the firearms officers and helicopter to get to the town but it is a small place and I would think it unlikely they would already have been in the vicinity. This isn't a big city where firearms units might well be cruising round within a few minutes of an incident.
Before anyone jumps to any conclusions about my thoughts on whether this is good or bad, I'm actually rather impressed and a bit surprised.
It's press release to solicit information from the public. The wording may have been carefully chosen to weed out the helpful from the unhelpful from the obstructive.Before anyone jumps to any conclusions about my thoughts on whether this is good or bad, I'm actually rather impressed and a bit surprised.
For instance, if they said the male was armed with a blank handgun then every moron calling in for sh!ts and giggles (of which are depressingly many) will mention a black handgun, and time and resources will be wasted speaking to and investigating nonsense.
If the unreleased information is that a silver handgun was used, then anyone reporting seeing someone with a silver thing in their hand will be of interest, and can be prioritised.
For both armed and air units to be deployed suggests there was a not insignificant threat involving a weapon of some description. Probably not a feather duster.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff