Met unhappy carrying weapons?
Discussion
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/chris-kaba-fata...
How likely is it happen that armed police will decline to continue, and if they did what effect would it have?
I thought there was a thread about this particular incident, but I can't find it.
It it a serious threat or just press hype?
It's a slightly different slant from the other thread.
In my opinion, the police can hardly take umbridge about being investigated after they've killed someone is questionable circumstances.
As I said on the other thread: the police have questions to answer about this incident, and quickly. A suspension from firearms duties for the duration seems entirely normal. They surely must know this is the case as apart of firearms training???
I can't see firearms officers giving up their guns though...too much of a status thing imo
In my opinion, the police can hardly take umbridge about being investigated after they've killed someone is questionable circumstances.
As I said on the other thread: the police have questions to answer about this incident, and quickly. A suspension from firearms duties for the duration seems entirely normal. They surely must know this is the case as apart of firearms training???
I can't see firearms officers giving up their guns though...too much of a status thing imo
Suspension is not normal or routine.
'Questionable circumstances'. I assume you came to that conclusion because you read it in a 'news' paper.
Officers would love body worn video to be released or to be able to make comment. But they can't precisely because of the investigation.
There's no problem with an investigation bring carried out. It's the lynch mob of usual suspects that's objectionable.
'Questionable circumstances'. I assume you came to that conclusion because you read it in a 'news' paper.
Officers would love body worn video to be released or to be able to make comment. But they can't precisely because of the investigation.
There's no problem with an investigation bring carried out. It's the lynch mob of usual suspects that's objectionable.
Ian Geary said:
It's a slightly different slant from the other thread.
In my opinion, the police can hardly take umbridge about being investigated after they've killed someone is questionable circumstances.
As I said on the other thread: the police have questions to answer about this incident, and quickly. A suspension from firearms duties for the duration seems entirely normal. They surely must know this is the case as apart of firearms training???
I can't see firearms officers giving up their guns though...too much of a status thing imo
Is it standard? If it was then it would be immediate surely? In my opinion, the police can hardly take umbridge about being investigated after they've killed someone is questionable circumstances.
As I said on the other thread: the police have questions to answer about this incident, and quickly. A suspension from firearms duties for the duration seems entirely normal. They surely must know this is the case as apart of firearms training???
I can't see firearms officers giving up their guns though...too much of a status thing imo
From what was said when he was suspended it sounded like they were doing it because of "public confidence" reasons.
IMO suspending the officer (if it's not normal) has the reverse affect on confidence. It appears you think the officer has done wrong.
98elise said:
Ian Geary said:
It's a slightly different slant from the other thread.
In my opinion, the police can hardly take umbridge about being investigated after they've killed someone is questionable circumstances.
As I said on the other thread: the police have questions to answer about this incident, and quickly. A suspension from firearms duties for the duration seems entirely normal. They surely must know this is the case as apart of firearms training???
I can't see firearms officers giving up their guns though...too much of a status thing imo
Is it standard? If it was then it would be immediate surely? In my opinion, the police can hardly take umbridge about being investigated after they've killed someone is questionable circumstances.
As I said on the other thread: the police have questions to answer about this incident, and quickly. A suspension from firearms duties for the duration seems entirely normal. They surely must know this is the case as apart of firearms training???
I can't see firearms officers giving up their guns though...too much of a status thing imo
From what was said when he was suspended it sounded like they were doing it because of "public confidence" reasons.
IMO suspending the officer (if it's not normal) has the reverse affect on confidence. It appears you think the officer has done wrong.
Pica-Pica said:
98elise said:
Ian Geary said:
It's a slightly different slant from the other thread.
In my opinion, the police can hardly take umbridge about being investigated after they've killed someone is questionable circumstances.
As I said on the other thread: the police have questions to answer about this incident, and quickly. A suspension from firearms duties for the duration seems entirely normal. They surely must know this is the case as apart of firearms training???
I can't see firearms officers giving up their guns though...too much of a status thing imo
Is it standard? If it was then it would be immediate surely? In my opinion, the police can hardly take umbridge about being investigated after they've killed someone is questionable circumstances.
As I said on the other thread: the police have questions to answer about this incident, and quickly. A suspension from firearms duties for the duration seems entirely normal. They surely must know this is the case as apart of firearms training???
I can't see firearms officers giving up their guns though...too much of a status thing imo
From what was said when he was suspended it sounded like they were doing it because of "public confidence" reasons.
IMO suspending the officer (if it's not normal) has the reverse affect on confidence. It appears you think the officer has done wrong.
Elroy Blue said:
Suspension is not normal or routine.
'Questionable circumstances'. I assume you came to that conclusion because you read it in a 'news' paper.
Officers would love body worn video to be released or to be able to make comment. But they can't precisely because of the investigation.
There's no problem with an investigation bring carried out. It's the lynch mob of usual suspects that's objectionable.
Either way if it was normal it would surely have been immediate, not days after?'Questionable circumstances'. I assume you came to that conclusion because you read it in a 'news' paper.
Officers would love body worn video to be released or to be able to make comment. But they can't precisely because of the investigation.
There's no problem with an investigation bring carried out. It's the lynch mob of usual suspects that's objectionable.
Ian Geary said:
I can't see firearms officers giving up their guns though...too much of a status thing imo
Maybe in the UK, but here the duty handgun is just a tool, like the radio, handcuffs, patrol car etc.I would have gladly not carried any of my guns (3) on duty, if it was safe to do so. Unfortunately the world is an unsafe place, so I still carry a gun when I leave the house.
Ian Geary said:
It's a slightly different slant from the other thread.
In my opinion, the police can hardly take umbridge about being investigated after they've killed someone is questionable circumstances.
It would be entirely reasonable (and necessary) for an investigation. What’s been a concern in the past is when police are trained to act in a certain way in firearms incidents, do as they are trained, and then risk dismissal or disciplinary proceedings. In my opinion, the police can hardly take umbridge about being investigated after they've killed someone is questionable circumstances.
I’ve not followed this recent case to know whether that applies here.
Ian Geary said:
It's a slightly different slant from the other thread.
In my opinion, the police can hardly take umbridge about being investigated after they've killed someone is questionable circumstances.
As I said on the other thread: the police have questions to answer about this incident, and quickly. A suspension from firearms duties for the duration seems entirely normal. They surely must know this is the case as apart of firearms training???
I can't see firearms officers giving up their guns though...too much of a status thing imo
Suspension is not normal, removal from frontline duties and placed on meaningful restricted duties is the norm. The Met have clearly pandered to the vocal crowd claiming murder, racism etc without actually know what happened. In my opinion, the police can hardly take umbridge about being investigated after they've killed someone is questionable circumstances.
As I said on the other thread: the police have questions to answer about this incident, and quickly. A suspension from firearms duties for the duration seems entirely normal. They surely must know this is the case as apart of firearms training???
I can't see firearms officers giving up their guns though...too much of a status thing imo
I don't blame people for handing their tickets in, f
k em. Find someone else to risk their liberty for doing the job they're trained to do. Greendubber said:
Suspension is not normal, removal from frontline duties and placed on meaningful restricted duties is the norm. The Met have clearly pandered to the vocal crowd claiming murder, racism etc without actually know what happened.
I don't blame people for handing their tickets in, fk em. Find someone else to risk their liberty for doing the job they're trained to do.
I think this is the case and I know a lot of people in the Police who are taking a similar view with many specialisms, people need to bare in mind that a constable is on a structured pay scale regardless of their role be it Firearms, Traffic, Detective etc, they all earn the same basic pay based on years service and not based on their skills. I don't blame people for handing their tickets in, f
k em. Find someone else to risk their liberty for doing the job they're trained to do. Overtime is a different matter but still they have to be at work for the hours to make the extra pay.
In the end it's easy to see people thinking why should I bother taking on the extra responsibility even risking their personal freedom for no extra reward.
The threat is the officer who sees a colleague treated badly by the service - and I know of a number of instances, details available on request - who ends up in the same situation and, despite all their training, hesitates. It is emphasised in firearms training that if someone is under threat and the only answer is to pull the trigger, then you should do it at once. Knowing, believing or even suspecting pulling the trigger might end their career, even their job, might be enough for just that second or two to be critical.
A member of the public, a colleague or the actual firearms officer might well be seriously injured or worse.
A singular risk is for a firearms team to feel they are not supported and they end up distrusting all their managers. The next step is for them to form a circle if there's an investigation.
From my understanding, the officer has not been suspended by merely removed from active duty. That seems to me a reasonable response by management. It is also a reasonable response from management to ensure the officer gets all the support he or she needs. They should not be segregated. They should be able to meet and talk with colleagues.
Someone suggested status stopping firearms officers ditching their tickets. Yeah, that's what management depends on. Not sure it is enough to overcome worry about officers leaving. The number of high profile firearms incidents where police teams have proven their worth should not be ignored. It's the same type of officer who responded in Borough Market who responded in this stop. Treat them as beneath reasonable treatment, and that could end badly.
What firearms officers depend on is others in their team. Literally, their lives might well depend on their colleagues. An unfair system, one where officers feel the truth will not come out because of political pressures, is not one conducive to honesty in dealings with inquiries into any incidents. All investigations must be open, clear, thorough and without political interference. It's always the fourth one that firearm officers fear.
I accept we shouldn't treat the habitual haters as the norm, but they are sowing the seeds of a risk of a significant change for the worse. If the service can't recruit specialist firearms volunteers, there's a simple response from the government, and that'd be a disaster.
All the above from experience from some 20 years ago. From conversations and other sources, it seems that there has been little improvement in that aspect; in fact it's possible it has become more prevalent. They don't even seem to hide it now.
A member of the public, a colleague or the actual firearms officer might well be seriously injured or worse.
A singular risk is for a firearms team to feel they are not supported and they end up distrusting all their managers. The next step is for them to form a circle if there's an investigation.
From my understanding, the officer has not been suspended by merely removed from active duty. That seems to me a reasonable response by management. It is also a reasonable response from management to ensure the officer gets all the support he or she needs. They should not be segregated. They should be able to meet and talk with colleagues.
Someone suggested status stopping firearms officers ditching their tickets. Yeah, that's what management depends on. Not sure it is enough to overcome worry about officers leaving. The number of high profile firearms incidents where police teams have proven their worth should not be ignored. It's the same type of officer who responded in Borough Market who responded in this stop. Treat them as beneath reasonable treatment, and that could end badly.
What firearms officers depend on is others in their team. Literally, their lives might well depend on their colleagues. An unfair system, one where officers feel the truth will not come out because of political pressures, is not one conducive to honesty in dealings with inquiries into any incidents. All investigations must be open, clear, thorough and without political interference. It's always the fourth one that firearm officers fear.
I accept we shouldn't treat the habitual haters as the norm, but they are sowing the seeds of a risk of a significant change for the worse. If the service can't recruit specialist firearms volunteers, there's a simple response from the government, and that'd be a disaster.
All the above from experience from some 20 years ago. From conversations and other sources, it seems that there has been little improvement in that aspect; in fact it's possible it has become more prevalent. They don't even seem to hide it now.
Scum always have a problem when police do anything to them, and why is it they think they don’t have to stop when ordered to then complain when the tactics to stop them get upped.
I’ve thought for years about firearms officers when they have to pull that trigger, it’s a split second decision and then if it turned out to be the wrong one he’s getting sent down and his life is completely changed forever.
Is the risk of losing your life as you know it worth it?
If some of these that have been shot etc would’ve just stopped and surrendered then this wouldn’t be an issue. But typically it’s always the polices fault or someone else’s.
I’m sure he was just a totally innocent law abiding lad who was on his way to do his granny’s shopping as usual when all of a sudden a copper just stood in front of him and shot him!
I’ve thought for years about firearms officers when they have to pull that trigger, it’s a split second decision and then if it turned out to be the wrong one he’s getting sent down and his life is completely changed forever.
Is the risk of losing your life as you know it worth it?
If some of these that have been shot etc would’ve just stopped and surrendered then this wouldn’t be an issue. But typically it’s always the polices fault or someone else’s.
I’m sure he was just a totally innocent law abiding lad who was on his way to do his granny’s shopping as usual when all of a sudden a copper just stood in front of him and shot him!
It seems to have been kept fairly quiet (Apart from one telegraph article) that the chap in question was released from prison last year - for a firearms offence.
That may or may not have had a bearing on how the police responded, depending whether they knew it was him in the car, or thought it was someone else (there was a firearms marker on the car apparently, but it wasn't his car) but it does paint him in a slightly different light to the Innocent Rapper & Aspiring Architect picture that's been painted by the family.
It's not some sort of insider information, it was reported at the time too!
https://www.newhamrecorder.co.uk/news/crime/man-19...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/09/08/drill-...
That may or may not have had a bearing on how the police responded, depending whether they knew it was him in the car, or thought it was someone else (there was a firearms marker on the car apparently, but it wasn't his car) but it does paint him in a slightly different light to the Innocent Rapper & Aspiring Architect picture that's been painted by the family.
It's not some sort of insider information, it was reported at the time too!
https://www.newhamrecorder.co.uk/news/crime/man-19...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/09/08/drill-...
Elroy Blue said:
Suspension is not normal or routine.
And nor is shooting someone dead. This line of conversation will just going round in circles. Elroy Blue said:
'Questionable circumstances'. I assume you came to that conclusion because you read it in a 'news' paper.
Yes - there are obvious questions to answer, so "questionable" circumstances. Where else would I read about it?
I assume we're all basing out opinions on what has been reported, other than some other pre formed views?
Elroy Blue said:
Officers would love body worn video to be released or to be able to make comment. But they can't precisely because of the investigation.
That's unfortunate for the officers involved - the investigation needs to happen at pace (which is exactly what the family have beens calling for as well, incidentally)Elroy Blue said:
There's no problem with an investigation bring carried out. It's the lynch mob of usual suspects that's objectionable.
This is the nub of it. It seems from various replies (including 3 current or ex police officers now) are getting very defensive about the investigation.You're describing a "lynch mob" - what? Where?
Other people describing the suspects as "scum"
Another has said the police response will be to "form a circle"
I can understand why the family are also getting defensive:
- they see the police just dismiss them as "scum",
- they see the police "forming a circle",
- they see themselves being dismissed as a lynch mob
And they see their member being killed due to a firearms marker on a car which wasn't his, no gun being found, and a met police that frankly has got form for institutional racism.
So, given all of that, we come back to the question: should the Met (armed) officers be unhappy about an investigation into their actions after someone has been shot dead by them?
I still think "no" is the answer.
I'd suggest if you're having difficulty identifying the lunch mob you should look on social media. People have this sewn up, racist cop just thought he'd off a random black lad for absolutely no reason that wasn't a threat to anyone.
Forget any kind of investigation into the facts if what occured, it's murder and nothing short of that will satisfy them.
Forget any kind of investigation into the facts if what occured, it's murder and nothing short of that will satisfy them.
Greendubber said:
I'd suggest if you're having difficulty identifying the lunch mob you should look on social media. People have this sewn up, racist cop just thought he'd off a random black lad for absolutely no reason that wasn't a threat to anyone.
Forget any kind of investigation into the facts if what occured, it's murder and nothing short of that will satisfy them.
Which is why the investigation needs to be fast, and the conclusion along with key evidence (video) be made public.Forget any kind of investigation into the facts if what occured, it's murder and nothing short of that will satisfy them.
How long is this process expected to take? I assume there is ample footage of the incident itself.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff