Man shot dead on M62 in pre-planned police operation
Discussion
I normally don't bother with any Police threads any more. I may regret this, but I'm going out soon, so crack on SP with your utter buffoonery.
Any pre planned firearms operation will have had extensive intelligence gathering and briefing. In my force, those briefings are recorded. I know, because I've been on them (in an investigative capacity, I am not an AFO). The AFOs make a declaration on the briefing they are fit for duty (no drink/drugs/medication/medical condition) and to carry firearms. This is in addition to signing the same at the start and end of their tour of duty when they draw and return weapons. So straight away, some checks and balances.
The strategic firearms commander, the firearms tactical advisor and anyone else involved in any sort of decision making will have completed a policy log, including policy decisions and their rationale for those decisions. This covers everything from whether the officers were in uniform or plain clothes, type of vehicles, contingency plans, arrest procedures, pursuit decisions, location of the stop, time of day, etc etc, ad infinitum. More checks and balances.
Including in the operational briefing/operational order are reminders about the use of force, which are the same for handcuffing to use of deadly force, ie it has to be proportionate, legal and necessary. This includes s3 of the Criminal Law Act, s17 of Pace and the Human Rights Act, as well as local force policies and procedures. AFOs again confirm their understanding of these matters. More checks and balances.
In law, preemption is allowed. The police don't have to wait for someone to shoot first before they open fire. The Police CAN shoot first, but it is down to the individual officer to open fire, but more importantly, for them to justify that use of force. The same for every Police officer who uses any kind of force. They have to be able to justify it. More checks and balances.
When Police AFOs open fire, they are subject to the same criminal law as everyone else. They may well be subjected to breath alcohol and blood tests, seizure of clothing and mobiles and the taking of other intimate and non intimate body samples. They will be interviewed. More checks and balances.
Any death from Police contact is always at the very least overseen by the INDEPENDENT Police Complaints Commission. The IPCC are no lovers of the Police and matters that would often see a member of the public receive no sanction will see Police officers charged and put through the judicial process. More checks and balances.
There will be an inquest into the man's death, chaired by a Coroner, who has nothing to do with the Police. More checks and balances.
Every AFO I know would much rather resolve an incident without even drawing a weapon, let alone discharging one. I work for one of the larger provincial forces. We currently have about 2,800 Police Officers and of those, around 60 are AFOs. The Home Office has instructed that we need to increase that to nearer 100. Initial courses are being run at the moment. On the last course, 3 of 12 passed, so it's not just a case of turning up and being signed off, it's pass or fail and plenty do fail. This can be for poor drills or poor attitude. More checks and balances.
At this stage, none of us know whether or not the shooting was justified or not. It may have been murder, it may have been manslaughter, it may have been completely justified, none of us know.
So to suggest this is an "assassination" is some of the most ridiculous tinfoil-hatted twuntery I have heard in a VERY long time.
Any pre planned firearms operation will have had extensive intelligence gathering and briefing. In my force, those briefings are recorded. I know, because I've been on them (in an investigative capacity, I am not an AFO). The AFOs make a declaration on the briefing they are fit for duty (no drink/drugs/medication/medical condition) and to carry firearms. This is in addition to signing the same at the start and end of their tour of duty when they draw and return weapons. So straight away, some checks and balances.
The strategic firearms commander, the firearms tactical advisor and anyone else involved in any sort of decision making will have completed a policy log, including policy decisions and their rationale for those decisions. This covers everything from whether the officers were in uniform or plain clothes, type of vehicles, contingency plans, arrest procedures, pursuit decisions, location of the stop, time of day, etc etc, ad infinitum. More checks and balances.
Including in the operational briefing/operational order are reminders about the use of force, which are the same for handcuffing to use of deadly force, ie it has to be proportionate, legal and necessary. This includes s3 of the Criminal Law Act, s17 of Pace and the Human Rights Act, as well as local force policies and procedures. AFOs again confirm their understanding of these matters. More checks and balances.
In law, preemption is allowed. The police don't have to wait for someone to shoot first before they open fire. The Police CAN shoot first, but it is down to the individual officer to open fire, but more importantly, for them to justify that use of force. The same for every Police officer who uses any kind of force. They have to be able to justify it. More checks and balances.
When Police AFOs open fire, they are subject to the same criminal law as everyone else. They may well be subjected to breath alcohol and blood tests, seizure of clothing and mobiles and the taking of other intimate and non intimate body samples. They will be interviewed. More checks and balances.
Any death from Police contact is always at the very least overseen by the INDEPENDENT Police Complaints Commission. The IPCC are no lovers of the Police and matters that would often see a member of the public receive no sanction will see Police officers charged and put through the judicial process. More checks and balances.
There will be an inquest into the man's death, chaired by a Coroner, who has nothing to do with the Police. More checks and balances.
Every AFO I know would much rather resolve an incident without even drawing a weapon, let alone discharging one. I work for one of the larger provincial forces. We currently have about 2,800 Police Officers and of those, around 60 are AFOs. The Home Office has instructed that we need to increase that to nearer 100. Initial courses are being run at the moment. On the last course, 3 of 12 passed, so it's not just a case of turning up and being signed off, it's pass or fail and plenty do fail. This can be for poor drills or poor attitude. More checks and balances.
At this stage, none of us know whether or not the shooting was justified or not. It may have been murder, it may have been manslaughter, it may have been completely justified, none of us know.
So to suggest this is an "assassination" is some of the most ridiculous tinfoil-hatted twuntery I have heard in a VERY long time.
Digga said:
La Liga said:
Also consider that a warrant to secure a firearm at an address isn't necessarily any less risky than a 'hard stop' of this nature.
I know the square root of bugger all about police work or forcing a vehicle to a stop, but it would seem to my layman's eye, it's less risky in terms of pedestrians, by-standers and escape routes, to corner a car on a dual carriageway or motorway or, sliproad.Tom Logan said:
rxe said:
OK, riddle me this.
It was a pre planned operation, so they knew quite a bit about the bad man. They knew where he was going, and what he was driving. So presumably the bad man could be nicked at a time of their choosing.
So they chose to nick him while he was driving a car at speed on a motorway. Safety first and all that.
No doubt it will be explained to us in great detail why he had to be arrested in the outside lane of a motorway doing 70, which is much more sensible than kicking him out of bed at 3 am.
The stop happened at the end of the exit slip at J24, a low speed stop not "nick him while he was driving a car at speed on a motorway"It was a pre planned operation, so they knew quite a bit about the bad man. They knew where he was going, and what he was driving. So presumably the bad man could be nicked at a time of their choosing.
So they chose to nick him while he was driving a car at speed on a motorway. Safety first and all that.
No doubt it will be explained to us in great detail why he had to be arrested in the outside lane of a motorway doing 70, which is much more sensible than kicking him out of bed at 3 am.
The stop was at probably the best possible place once off the M62. A couple of hundred metres further and they would be into a densely populated residential area which continues all the way into Huddersfield.
BoRED S2upid said:
Borroxs said:
Will be interesting to find out why he's been shot.
What do you do when the Police, without warning, force you to stop and then point their automatic weapons at you?
Raise your hands in surrender?
Shield your face instinctively?
Grab a gun from somewhere in the hope of winning a shootout with the cops?
In this country you can still chose option 1. In America not so much. What do you do when the Police, without warning, force you to stop and then point their automatic weapons at you?
Raise your hands in surrender?
Shield your face instinctively?
Grab a gun from somewhere in the hope of winning a shootout with the cops?
Fascinating this. Very rare it happens in this country and when it does all hell breaks loose. In America there have probably been a few of these so far this year not reported.
I just cant see anyone thinking that reaching for their own gun was an option.
I would also have thought the police would have issued a statement by now if a weapon had been recovered.....
But perhaps they're just winding us all up, and he had a gun all along. Or they haven't found it yet, but are still looking..... How long till they released details of finding Mark Duggan's gun?
Dibble said:
I normally don't bother with any Police threads any more. I may regret this, but I'm going out soon, so crack on SP with your utter buffoonery.
Any pre planned firearms operation will have had extensive intelligence gathering and briefing. In my force, those briefings are recorded. I know, because I've been on them (in an investigative capacity, I am not an AFO). The AFOs make a declaration on the briefing they are fit for duty (no drink/drugs/medication/medical condition) and to carry firearms. This is in addition to signing the same at the start and end of their tour of duty when they draw and return weapons. So straight away, some checks and balances.
The strategic firearms commander, the firearms tactical advisor and anyone else involved in any sort of decision making will have completed a policy log, including policy decisions and their rationale for those decisions. This covers everything from whether the officers were in uniform or plain clothes, type of vehicles, contingency plans, arrest procedures, pursuit decisions, location of the stop, time of day, etc etc, ad infinitum. More checks and balances.
Including in the operational briefing/operational order are reminders about the use of force, which are the same for handcuffing to use of deadly force, ie it has to be proportionate, legal and necessary. This includes s3 of the Criminal Law Act, s17 of Pace and the Human Rights Act, as well as local force policies and procedures. AFOs again confirm their understanding of these matters. More checks and balances.
In law, preemption is allowed. The police don't have to wait for someone to shoot first before they open fire. The Police CAN shoot first, but it is down to the individual officer to open fire, but more importantly, for them to justify that use of force. The same for every Police officer who uses any kind of force. They have to be able to justify it. More checks and balances.
When Police AFOs open fire, they are subject to the same criminal law as everyone else. They may well be subjected to breath alcohol and blood tests, seizure of clothing and mobiles and the taking of other intimate and non intimate body samples. They will be interviewed. More checks and balances.
Any death from Police contact is always at the very least overseen by the INDEPENDENT Police Complaints Commission. The IPCC are no lovers of the Police and matters that would often see a member of the public receive no sanction will see Police officers charged and put through the judicial process. More checks and balances.
There will be an inquest into the man's death, chaired by a Coroner, who has nothing to do with the Police. More checks and balances.
Every AFO I know would much rather resolve an incident without even drawing a weapon, let alone discharging one. I work for one of the larger provincial forces. We currently have about 2,800 Police Officers and of those, around 60 are AFOs. The Home Office has instructed that we need to increase that to nearer 100. Initial courses are being run at the moment. On the last course, 3 of 12 passed, so it's not just a case of turning up and being signed off, it's pass or fail and plenty do fail. This can be for poor drills or poor attitude. More checks and balances.
At this stage, none of us know whether or not the shooting was justified or not. It may have been murder, it may have been manslaughter, it may have been completely justified, none of us know.
So to suggest this is an "assassination" is some of the most ridiculous tinfoil-hatted twuntery I have heard in a VERY long time.
Spot on my friend but will be largely ignored by those who are narrow minded and accuse the police of an assassination. Any pre planned firearms operation will have had extensive intelligence gathering and briefing. In my force, those briefings are recorded. I know, because I've been on them (in an investigative capacity, I am not an AFO). The AFOs make a declaration on the briefing they are fit for duty (no drink/drugs/medication/medical condition) and to carry firearms. This is in addition to signing the same at the start and end of their tour of duty when they draw and return weapons. So straight away, some checks and balances.
The strategic firearms commander, the firearms tactical advisor and anyone else involved in any sort of decision making will have completed a policy log, including policy decisions and their rationale for those decisions. This covers everything from whether the officers were in uniform or plain clothes, type of vehicles, contingency plans, arrest procedures, pursuit decisions, location of the stop, time of day, etc etc, ad infinitum. More checks and balances.
Including in the operational briefing/operational order are reminders about the use of force, which are the same for handcuffing to use of deadly force, ie it has to be proportionate, legal and necessary. This includes s3 of the Criminal Law Act, s17 of Pace and the Human Rights Act, as well as local force policies and procedures. AFOs again confirm their understanding of these matters. More checks and balances.
In law, preemption is allowed. The police don't have to wait for someone to shoot first before they open fire. The Police CAN shoot first, but it is down to the individual officer to open fire, but more importantly, for them to justify that use of force. The same for every Police officer who uses any kind of force. They have to be able to justify it. More checks and balances.
When Police AFOs open fire, they are subject to the same criminal law as everyone else. They may well be subjected to breath alcohol and blood tests, seizure of clothing and mobiles and the taking of other intimate and non intimate body samples. They will be interviewed. More checks and balances.
Any death from Police contact is always at the very least overseen by the INDEPENDENT Police Complaints Commission. The IPCC are no lovers of the Police and matters that would often see a member of the public receive no sanction will see Police officers charged and put through the judicial process. More checks and balances.
There will be an inquest into the man's death, chaired by a Coroner, who has nothing to do with the Police. More checks and balances.
Every AFO I know would much rather resolve an incident without even drawing a weapon, let alone discharging one. I work for one of the larger provincial forces. We currently have about 2,800 Police Officers and of those, around 60 are AFOs. The Home Office has instructed that we need to increase that to nearer 100. Initial courses are being run at the moment. On the last course, 3 of 12 passed, so it's not just a case of turning up and being signed off, it's pass or fail and plenty do fail. This can be for poor drills or poor attitude. More checks and balances.
At this stage, none of us know whether or not the shooting was justified or not. It may have been murder, it may have been manslaughter, it may have been completely justified, none of us know.
So to suggest this is an "assassination" is some of the most ridiculous tinfoil-hatted twuntery I have heard in a VERY long time.
Dibble said:
I normally don't bother with any Police threads any more. I may regret this, but I'm going out soon, so crack on SP with your utter buffoonery.
Any pre planned firearms operation will have had extensive intelligence gathering and briefing. In my force, those briefings are recorded. I know, because I've been on them (in an investigative capacity, I am not an AFO). The AFOs make a declaration on the briefing they are fit for duty (no drink/drugs/medication/medical condition) and to carry firearms. This is in addition to signing the same at the start and end of their tour of duty when they draw and return weapons. So straight away, some checks and balances.
The strategic firearms commander, the firearms tactical advisor and anyone else involved in any sort of decision making will have completed a policy log, including policy decisions and their rationale for those decisions. This covers everything from whether the officers were in uniform or plain clothes, type of vehicles, contingency plans, arrest procedures, pursuit decisions, location of the stop, time of day, etc etc, ad infinitum. More checks and balances.
Including in the operational briefing/operational order are reminders about the use of force, which are the same for handcuffing to use of deadly force, ie it has to be proportionate, legal and necessary. This includes s3 of the Criminal Law Act, s17 of Pace and the Human Rights Act, as well as local force policies and procedures. AFOs again confirm their understanding of these matters. More checks and balances.
In law, preemption is allowed. The police don't have to wait for someone to shoot first before they open fire. The Police CAN shoot first, but it is down to the individual officer to open fire, but more importantly, for them to justify that use of force. The same for every Police officer who uses any kind of force. They have to be able to justify it. More checks and balances.
When Police AFOs open fire, they are subject to the same criminal law as everyone else. They may well be subjected to breath alcohol and blood tests, seizure of clothing and mobiles and the taking of other intimate and non intimate body samples. They will be interviewed. More checks and balances.
Any death from Police contact is always at the very least overseen by the INDEPENDENT Police Complaints Commission. The IPCC are no lovers of the Police and matters that would often see a member of the public receive no sanction will see Police officers charged and put through the judicial process. More checks and balances.
There will be an inquest into the man's death, chaired by a Coroner, who has nothing to do with the Police. More checks and balances.
Every AFO I know would much rather resolve an incident without even drawing a weapon, let alone discharging one. I work for one of the larger provincial forces. We currently have about 2,800 Police Officers and of those, around 60 are AFOs. The Home Office has instructed that we need to increase that to nearer 100. Initial courses are being run at the moment. On the last course, 3 of 12 passed, so it's not just a case of turning up and being signed off, it's pass or fail and plenty do fail. This can be for poor drills or poor attitude. More checks and balances.
At this stage, none of us know whether or not the shooting was justified or not. It may have been murder, it may have been manslaughter, it may have been completely justified, none of us know.
So to suggest this is an "assassination" is some of the most ridiculous tinfoil-hatted twuntery I have heard in a VERY long time.
Good post.Any pre planned firearms operation will have had extensive intelligence gathering and briefing. In my force, those briefings are recorded. I know, because I've been on them (in an investigative capacity, I am not an AFO). The AFOs make a declaration on the briefing they are fit for duty (no drink/drugs/medication/medical condition) and to carry firearms. This is in addition to signing the same at the start and end of their tour of duty when they draw and return weapons. So straight away, some checks and balances.
The strategic firearms commander, the firearms tactical advisor and anyone else involved in any sort of decision making will have completed a policy log, including policy decisions and their rationale for those decisions. This covers everything from whether the officers were in uniform or plain clothes, type of vehicles, contingency plans, arrest procedures, pursuit decisions, location of the stop, time of day, etc etc, ad infinitum. More checks and balances.
Including in the operational briefing/operational order are reminders about the use of force, which are the same for handcuffing to use of deadly force, ie it has to be proportionate, legal and necessary. This includes s3 of the Criminal Law Act, s17 of Pace and the Human Rights Act, as well as local force policies and procedures. AFOs again confirm their understanding of these matters. More checks and balances.
In law, preemption is allowed. The police don't have to wait for someone to shoot first before they open fire. The Police CAN shoot first, but it is down to the individual officer to open fire, but more importantly, for them to justify that use of force. The same for every Police officer who uses any kind of force. They have to be able to justify it. More checks and balances.
When Police AFOs open fire, they are subject to the same criminal law as everyone else. They may well be subjected to breath alcohol and blood tests, seizure of clothing and mobiles and the taking of other intimate and non intimate body samples. They will be interviewed. More checks and balances.
Any death from Police contact is always at the very least overseen by the INDEPENDENT Police Complaints Commission. The IPCC are no lovers of the Police and matters that would often see a member of the public receive no sanction will see Police officers charged and put through the judicial process. More checks and balances.
There will be an inquest into the man's death, chaired by a Coroner, who has nothing to do with the Police. More checks and balances.
Every AFO I know would much rather resolve an incident without even drawing a weapon, let alone discharging one. I work for one of the larger provincial forces. We currently have about 2,800 Police Officers and of those, around 60 are AFOs. The Home Office has instructed that we need to increase that to nearer 100. Initial courses are being run at the moment. On the last course, 3 of 12 passed, so it's not just a case of turning up and being signed off, it's pass or fail and plenty do fail. This can be for poor drills or poor attitude. More checks and balances.
At this stage, none of us know whether or not the shooting was justified or not. It may have been murder, it may have been manslaughter, it may have been completely justified, none of us know.
So to suggest this is an "assassination" is some of the most ridiculous tinfoil-hatted twuntery I have heard in a VERY long time.
petop said:
3 shots in a tight gropuing and certain people are thinking assasination from some Black Ops playing Police Sniper from 100m.
More like they were tailing the 2 cars, and information came through they may have been involved with earlier incident. Rather than get onto the motorway it seems they pulled them on the slip road.
They are boxed in, Police get out shouting rather loudly and Police with assault type weapon at the front spots weapon being pulled. 3 shots to remove threat. Job done.
Now admittedly, its 3 shots which could be seen as 1 more than required but the "i thought myself and colleagues were still danger" will probably play here etc etc.
End of the day, he probably wasnt off to play snooker at the local Legion and he had form.
He also probably dealt drugs which deserves whatever cards are dealt to him.
The only people that are shedding tears are his customers, his crew and Facebook friends.
Why does everyone say "3 shots", its quite clearly 4More like they were tailing the 2 cars, and information came through they may have been involved with earlier incident. Rather than get onto the motorway it seems they pulled them on the slip road.
They are boxed in, Police get out shouting rather loudly and Police with assault type weapon at the front spots weapon being pulled. 3 shots to remove threat. Job done.
Now admittedly, its 3 shots which could be seen as 1 more than required but the "i thought myself and colleagues were still danger" will probably play here etc etc.
End of the day, he probably wasnt off to play snooker at the local Legion and he had form.
He also probably dealt drugs which deserves whatever cards are dealt to him.
The only people that are shedding tears are his customers, his crew and Facebook friends.
Maybe the one on its own was shot from inside the car.
It will all come out in the wash..... Apparently the pursuit started in Bradford some 16 miles away with other people apprehended one motorway junction further back. Anyway, looks like a result, several in custody and another in a body bag, keeping popping them I say, these people contribute nothing to society .
Dibble said:
At this stage, none of us know whether or not the shooting was justified or not. It may have been murder, it may have been manslaughter, it may have been completely justified, none of us know.
So to suggest this is an "assassination" is some of the most ridiculous tinfoil-hatted twuntery I have heard in a VERY long time.
As you say, 'none of us know', but I know what the outcome of the investigation will be. So to suggest this is an "assassination" is some of the most ridiculous tinfoil-hatted twuntery I have heard in a VERY long time.
Justified lawful killing.
Would you dare/care for a wager on the matter?
ANY amount you please.
(and on my part that's without knowing any more than the BBC report)
mickmcpaddy said:
petop said:
3 shots in a tight gropuing and certain people are thinking assasination from some Black Ops playing Police Sniper from 100m.
More like they were tailing the 2 cars, and information came through they may have been involved with earlier incident. Rather than get onto the motorway it seems they pulled them on the slip road.
They are boxed in, Police get out shouting rather loudly and Police with assault type weapon at the front spots weapon being pulled. 3 shots to remove threat. Job done.
Now admittedly, its 3 shots which could be seen as 1 more than required but the "i thought myself and colleagues were still danger" will probably play here etc etc.
End of the day, he probably wasnt off to play snooker at the local Legion and he had form.
He also probably dealt drugs which deserves whatever cards are dealt to him.
The only people that are shedding tears are his customers, his crew and Facebook friends.
Why does everyone say "3 shots", its quite clearly 4More like they were tailing the 2 cars, and information came through they may have been involved with earlier incident. Rather than get onto the motorway it seems they pulled them on the slip road.
They are boxed in, Police get out shouting rather loudly and Police with assault type weapon at the front spots weapon being pulled. 3 shots to remove threat. Job done.
Now admittedly, its 3 shots which could be seen as 1 more than required but the "i thought myself and colleagues were still danger" will probably play here etc etc.
End of the day, he probably wasnt off to play snooker at the local Legion and he had form.
He also probably dealt drugs which deserves whatever cards are dealt to him.
The only people that are shedding tears are his customers, his crew and Facebook friends.
Maybe the one on its own was shot from inside the car.
drainbrain said:
As you say, 'none of us know', but I know what the outcome of the investigation will be.
Justified lawful killing.
Would you dare/care for a wager on the matter?
ANY amount you please.
(and on my part that's without knowing any more than the BBC report)
You're probably right. A testament to the quality of police firearms deployments. Justified lawful killing.
Would you dare/care for a wager on the matter?
ANY amount you please.
(and on my part that's without knowing any more than the BBC report)
Dibble said:
I normally don't bother with any Police threads any more. I may regret this, but I'm going out soon, so crack on SP with your utter buffoonery.
Any pre planned firearms operation will have had extensive intelligence gathering and briefing. In my force, those briefings are recorded. I know, because I've been on them (in an investigative capacity, I am not an AFO). The AFOs make a declaration on the briefing they are fit for duty (no drink/drugs/medication/medical condition) and to carry firearms. This is in addition to signing the same at the start and end of their tour of duty when they draw and return weapons. So straight away, some checks and balances.
The strategic firearms commander, the firearms tactical advisor and anyone else involved in any sort of decision making will have completed a policy log, including policy decisions and their rationale for those decisions. This covers everything from whether the officers were in uniform or plain clothes, type of vehicles, contingency plans, arrest procedures, pursuit decisions, location of the stop, time of day, etc etc, ad infinitum. More checks and balances.
Including in the operational briefing/operational order are reminders about the use of force, which are the same for handcuffing to use of deadly force, ie it has to be proportionate, legal and necessary. This includes s3 of the Criminal Law Act, s17 of Pace and the Human Rights Act, as well as local force policies and procedures. AFOs again confirm their understanding of these matters. More checks and balances.
In law, preemption is allowed. The police don't have to wait for someone to shoot first before they open fire. The Police CAN shoot first, but it is down to the individual officer to open fire, but more importantly, for them to justify that use of force. The same for every Police officer who uses any kind of force. They have to be able to justify it. More checks and balances.
When Police AFOs open fire, they are subject to the same criminal law as everyone else. They may well be subjected to breath alcohol and blood tests, seizure of clothing and mobiles and the taking of other intimate and non intimate body samples. They will be interviewed. More checks and balances.
Any death from Police contact is always at the very least overseen by the INDEPENDENT Police Complaints Commission. The IPCC are no lovers of the Police and matters that would often see a member of the public receive no sanction will see Police officers charged and put through the judicial process. More checks and balances.
There will be an inquest into the man's death, chaired by a Coroner, who has nothing to do with the Police. More checks and balances.
Every AFO I know would much rather resolve an incident without even drawing a weapon, let alone discharging one. I work for one of the larger provincial forces. We currently have about 2,800 Police Officers and of those, around 60 are AFOs. The Home Office has instructed that we need to increase that to nearer 100. Initial courses are being run at the moment. On the last course, 3 of 12 passed, so it's not just a case of turning up and being signed off, it's pass or fail and plenty do fail. This can be for poor drills or poor attitude. More checks and balances.
At this stage, none of us know whether or not the shooting was justified or not. It may have been murder, it may have been manslaughter, it may have been completely justified, none of us know.
So to suggest this is an "assassination" is some of the most ridiculous tinfoil-hatted twuntery I have heard in a VERY long time.
Any pre planned firearms operation will have had extensive intelligence gathering and briefing. In my force, those briefings are recorded. I know, because I've been on them (in an investigative capacity, I am not an AFO). The AFOs make a declaration on the briefing they are fit for duty (no drink/drugs/medication/medical condition) and to carry firearms. This is in addition to signing the same at the start and end of their tour of duty when they draw and return weapons. So straight away, some checks and balances.
The strategic firearms commander, the firearms tactical advisor and anyone else involved in any sort of decision making will have completed a policy log, including policy decisions and their rationale for those decisions. This covers everything from whether the officers were in uniform or plain clothes, type of vehicles, contingency plans, arrest procedures, pursuit decisions, location of the stop, time of day, etc etc, ad infinitum. More checks and balances.
Including in the operational briefing/operational order are reminders about the use of force, which are the same for handcuffing to use of deadly force, ie it has to be proportionate, legal and necessary. This includes s3 of the Criminal Law Act, s17 of Pace and the Human Rights Act, as well as local force policies and procedures. AFOs again confirm their understanding of these matters. More checks and balances.
In law, preemption is allowed. The police don't have to wait for someone to shoot first before they open fire. The Police CAN shoot first, but it is down to the individual officer to open fire, but more importantly, for them to justify that use of force. The same for every Police officer who uses any kind of force. They have to be able to justify it. More checks and balances.
When Police AFOs open fire, they are subject to the same criminal law as everyone else. They may well be subjected to breath alcohol and blood tests, seizure of clothing and mobiles and the taking of other intimate and non intimate body samples. They will be interviewed. More checks and balances.
Any death from Police contact is always at the very least overseen by the INDEPENDENT Police Complaints Commission. The IPCC are no lovers of the Police and matters that would often see a member of the public receive no sanction will see Police officers charged and put through the judicial process. More checks and balances.
There will be an inquest into the man's death, chaired by a Coroner, who has nothing to do with the Police. More checks and balances.
Every AFO I know would much rather resolve an incident without even drawing a weapon, let alone discharging one. I work for one of the larger provincial forces. We currently have about 2,800 Police Officers and of those, around 60 are AFOs. The Home Office has instructed that we need to increase that to nearer 100. Initial courses are being run at the moment. On the last course, 3 of 12 passed, so it's not just a case of turning up and being signed off, it's pass or fail and plenty do fail. This can be for poor drills or poor attitude. More checks and balances.
At this stage, none of us know whether or not the shooting was justified or not. It may have been murder, it may have been manslaughter, it may have been completely justified, none of us know.
So to suggest this is an "assassination" is some of the most ridiculous tinfoil-hatted twuntery I have heard in a VERY long time.
Dibble provides a very good summary.
Here's a little more for anyone wanting even greater detail: https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/arme...
Here's a little more for anyone wanting even greater detail: https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/arme...
La Liga said:
ood questions.
It appears as if they thought he was in possession of a firearm. That implies some form of immediacy to me, as generally criminals do not want to carry firearms unless they're going to use them.
Even if an immediate act weren't suspect, then having someone in possession of a firearm makes a sound case to prosecute.
Also consider that a warrant to secure a firearm at an address isn't necessarily any less risky than a 'hard stop' of this nature.
It may be that I don't understand "pre-planned". It may mean "we worked out we had to do this 5 minutes ago" rather than "we've been watching the scrote for weeks". But if they have been watching him closely (i.e. they know he is tooled up and has drugs), why stop him on a motorway (slip road or carriageway). One mistake, he gets lucky, and you've got a proper cops and robbers chase with people firing guns out of a moving car.It appears as if they thought he was in possession of a firearm. That implies some form of immediacy to me, as generally criminals do not want to carry firearms unless they're going to use them.
Even if an immediate act weren't suspect, then having someone in possession of a firearm makes a sound case to prosecute.
Also consider that a warrant to secure a firearm at an address isn't necessarily any less risky than a 'hard stop' of this nature.
rxe said:
It may be that I don't understand "pre-planned". It may mean "we worked out we had to do this 5 minutes ago" rather than "we've been watching the scrote for weeks". But if they have been watching him closely (i.e. they know he is tooled up and has drugs), why stop him on a motorway (slip road or carriageway). One mistake, he gets lucky, and you've got a proper cops and robbers chase with people firing guns out of a moving car.
I think you underestimate the element of surprise involved, I doubt that the police would have been following with blues and twos blaring on a couple of marked vehicles.rxe said:
It may be that I don't understand "pre-planned". It may mean "we worked out we had to do this 5 minutes ago" rather than "we've been watching the scrote for weeks". But if they have been watching him closely (i.e. they know he is tooled up and has drugs), why stop him on a motorway (slip road or carriageway). One mistake, he gets lucky, and you've got a proper cops and robbers chase with people firing guns out of a moving car.
Its relatively open, lots of space before you come across any other people- especially at 3am. the stop seems to have been made on the exit slip way- near his destination?- so the slowest part of the chase- if it even was as such. They might not have chased in a dramatic TV way but caught up very quickly. I saw three cop cars practicing high speed runs at about midnight a few months back between a few junctions. They really were moving and the chase would have lasted not very long- i wasn't doing under 70 either.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff