UK firearms officers suspended

[Bobbycop]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3976939.stm

In brief two armed Police Officers have been suspended following an inquiry into shooting a man they perceived to be a threat.

I think the article shows what a massive cultural difference there is between the UK and US regarding this subject. The Police service regularly receives criticism from the media, but on the very rare occasions when Police actually have to use fatal action it is almost guaranteed. Even if the party is armed to the teeth questions are asked such as 'Why didn't they just shoot him in the leg?'

I personally would hate to see this country have a gun culture like America's. I also think every single poster on the Firearms section of this board is a closet psycho, but there has got to be a middle ground.

[keith758]

Bobbycop, though I've posted in the Firearms section, I take exception of being classified as a "closet psycho." I carry a firearm on duty as a necessity. Our culture allows it's citizens the freedom to keep and bear arms, a freedom that came about as the result of our breaking free from England's tyrannical rule over it's perceived colonies. Our leaders made a conscious decsion to arm it's citizens so such tyranny couldn't occur again. Admittedly, there are too many firearms in the hands of too many people that shouldn't have them. That will never change. I live in an area where probably 90% of households have firearms, as most are hunters. There is very little crime.I wonder why?

[Bobbycop]

Keith,You miss my point.
I am all for the use of firearms where necessary and did not mean to offend.The psycho bit was tongue in cheek.
What's important is that two Officers ,plainly doing their duty,are now suspended for an alleged 'illegal killing'.The male shot was supposedly non-compliant and looked to be armed.
Now British Police Officers are asking why the hell would they want to specialise in firearms. No extra money, only normal paid overtime , and the worry that you are going to be accused of murder for trying to do your job. A very real worry.
That is why dozens of firearms officers 'downed tools'.
Off topic but this country is similarly anti-Police regarding vehicle pursuits.A kid crashing a car at 100mph is blamed on the poor Traffic cop behind him.

[keith758]

Just about every time a cop shoots someone, people crawl out of the woodwork and from under the baseboards to question their actions. It's a shame that the people that second guess us, have never been in our shoes. I've been lucky, and have never had to shoot anyone. I've drawn my pistol on a few, but have never had to pull the trigger. I can understand why your officers wouldn't want the added responsibility of carrying firearms if they don't receive not only extra pay for the responsibility, but backing from the public and more importantly their superiors. I hope someone has the balls to stand-up for the officers.

[leonha2]

I guess it

[Lucky77]

I don't think we can compare both systems.
In France we do wear guns and are used to it, I wouldn't work without. But I spent a month in July working with a British police force, and they are mainly against the idea of wearing a weapon ... And they actually work quite well without, the number of officers killed on duty is not very high ... Unfortunately it's something we can't do in our countries now, the US, France ...

[Sleuth]

The best study I am aware of is in the book "The Samuri, the Mountie, and the Cowboy". The cultures of our countries are so different, it simply is not possible to compare the people of the UK to Austria, France, or the US. It's not just the laws, but the culture.
As an example, the Brits in Canada negotiated with the Native Peoples, while, rightly or wrongly, in the US we took the land, usually by force. On the other hand, the Brits in Tasmaina killed off almost all the Native People on the island.

Many departments in the US run "Citizen's Police Academys", where everyone is welcome. As part of many of these classes, real time simulations get the people, and the media, to better understand the dynamics of a confrontation. Many 'reporters' have "shot" innocents when it was their life on the line. This has reduced the ranting about officer involved shootings. This could be a tack for the armed officers to take with their critics in the press.

[leonha2]

I like your "Citizen

[Sleuth]

Everything I have heard indicates that it has had a very positive effect, cutting down undeserved comments in the press. Some departments run special, short term classes (run by the public information officer) for the press only. Show them what a real investigation is like, take them for a spin on the driving track, how to raise fingerprints, booking procedures, a bit of shooting, and then some shoot/no-shoot decision making. After the 'news readers' (we call them "talking heads") shoot the wrong people a few times, their comments change direction. One TV station in San Diego ran a story about it, and just how difficult it is to make those decisions under stress.

[Marky Mark]

Originally posted by Bobbycop
[url]I personally would hate to see this country have a gun culture like America's. I also think every single poster on the Firearms section of this board is a closet psycho, but there has got to be a middle ground.
I'm not sure a "gun culture" is all that bad. Yesterday on CNN they announced that Camden, NJ, is the murder capital of America (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/11/22/dangerous.cities.ap/index.html) It is ironic to note that NJ is one of the most restrictive states for gun ownership. If you look at the U.S. state by state, you'll find that the areas with the least restrictions and highest rates of gun ownership are oddly the safest places to live!

Also, there are other nations that certainly qualify as "gun cultures", but the media would have you think it's only the US:

Finland has 39 guns for every 100 citizens, one of the highest rates in the world. Per Capital, Germans buy about the same number of guns annually as Americans. The French have more handguns than Czech Rep,Denmark, England, Scotland, Wales, Poland and Sweden ALL COMBINED. (source www.smallarmssurvey.org)

Maybe you should shoot the media...;)

[NSWCop]

Originally posted by Marky Mark
[
Maybe you should shoot the media...;) [/B]

that has to be the most sensible thing any-one has said on these forums!!:D :D :D

[Philip]

:mad: Hi guys Ihave been reading all your comments and I geuse none of you are actually wrong. Here in South Africa we have a really difficult time with the same problem. The press here bemoanthe fact that crime is to high and on the same page will rip a policeman apart for acting (even if he/she didn't use a fire arm even pepper spray is bad if used as the press say) Our problem is even bigger here as we have a vast arry of fire arms that come from wars threw out africa ending up in our country. Its quite common for officers on patrol to be fired on with RPG's or have hand grenades threwn at them not to mention being shot at with just about every type of assualt rifel known to man kind and some that arn't.
The point is that even though the threat here is very big that one can die in the line of duty, we still go out every day because its what we believe in. Its a calling to us and we go threw the same problems every day just the same as countries that have far less crime and violence. We never had a constitution as we do now and as hard as it is to work safely under it, (we arnt allowed to go near our guns during road blocks or vehicle stops) we still try our best.

To the guy in the UK just remember one thing we may be worlds apart but we do the same job and u are NOT alone in this. we are together in spirit. We here have a saying "AS LONG AS U KNOW YOU ACTED THE RIGHT WAY F%#*K THE PRESS.

[fredlgd]

While I was still in France, I had to go on patrol carrying my side arm. The legislation regarding the use of weapons on duty in France is very complex. You can use it to defend yourself or someone else in imminent and life-threatening danger as long as the peril is of the same level (ie : lethal or insignificant weapon...) and your response immediate. You have as well the right to shoot a very dangerous offender(to stop and arrest him ) as long as you tell him to comply to your order. We also have two different situations which allow us to shoot at someone without normally being annoyed by any shenanigans from the justice dpt -- as long as in respect with the legislation, that is to say ! -- I didn't happen to be in a situation such as to have to pull the trigger and I hope I won't. The point is that it's very difficult to tell how we will react to the event. It depends on so many things, your health, temper, time of the day, etc... The same guy at the same hour the day after won't react alike. For sure, using your handgun is the last solution to the problem and that's why we have to be trained to. Practise, Practise and practise not to have to use it...

[Sleuth]

Fredldg, other than the shooting at fleeing felons (limited to the US Marshals Service, as far as I know), the french policy sounds like most US laws.
In general, we are only authorized to shoot in defense of our, or someone ele's, life. There must be an immediate threat of death or serious bodily harm.

We train, train, train, and hope never to need our sidearms.

[Delta784]

Originally posted by Sleuth
Fredldg, other than the shooting at fleeing felons (limited to the US Marshals Service, as far as I know

My PD's deadly force policy allows shooting fleeing felons if they have committed or have threatened to commit death or great bodily injury, and if you believe that they will do so again if their escape is not immediately terminated. In other words, if someone shoots at me and then runs away, they're fair game.

In almost every police use of deadly force I've seen, the people making the most noise are usually the suspect's family and friends. "He was turning his life around", "He just signed a contract for a rap album", etc.

The whole brouhaha soon blows over, and I can only think of one incident where a cop was actually prosecuted for using deadly force (he went to prison).

[fredlgd]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Delta784
In other words, if someone shoots at me and then runs away, they're fair game.

In this specific case, isn't it necessary for you to shoot at him in a very short period of time after his first attempt to kill you ? I mean, if for example you can't run after the guy to stop him with your handgun, will one of your colleague be allowed to shoot at the suspect two or three days after if they think they've just met the "good guy" (on the condition that he refuses to surrender) ?
:confused: :confused: :confused:

Sorry to confess my ignorance on that topic. But is the legislation regarding the use of lethal weapons so different from state to state in the US ?
Sleuth was talking about the US Marshals Service. Don't you have all, as Police officer all around the USA, the same rights --talking about guns of course ! --

[Sleuth]

The legal requirments are very, very close nation wide as to use of force. Agencies can, and do, further restrict officer's use of force. Our laws are made by the states, but subject to rulings by our Supreme Court.

In the example of fleeing felons, the underling case set limits that if a felon has commited a crime involing deadly force or serious bodily injury, is currently attempting escape, and the officer is unable to apprhend him, the officer may use deadly force if he resonably believes that escape will place others at deadly risk. But this was supposition on the part of the Supreme Court, and to my knowledge, it has never been tested in court. Most agencies do not allow shooting a fleeing felons.

As to other officers who encounter the felon later, each incident has to be examinied on it's own. They may not just open fire as soon as they see the suspect.

[fredlgd]

On the whole, the US legislation concerning the use of force is not very different from the French one. I've known some colleagues who have had to use their handgun in legal conditions and didn't really have to be worried by the investigation that naturally followed the gunfire. The investigating magistrate took the right decision.
Unfortunately, circonstances are not always quite clear and there are situations, especially those involving a fleeing felon, in which you'd better miss your target even if sometimes all the legal conditions to shoot seem to be gathered... At least, will it prevent you from having to fill a lot of forms to justify the loss of two or three bullets ! ;)
I remember when I first went on patrol bearing my handgun how proud I was, considering myself as The One who will arrest all the villains. How pretentious or immature I was... I've changed now and even if I still, hopefully, believe in what I'm doing, I sometimes think that, as long as there's no real and immediate threat, it's better not to put your carreer at stake by shooting at a fleeing fellon even if apparently the legal prerequisites seem to be there. I know it's a debating-point and some may not agree with me but I don't want to be conscience-striken. I prepare myself to that event but never would be better...

[Sleuth]

I have the dubious distiction of having killed a fleeing person (I did not use a gun!), and after 5 years, winning the lawsuit that followed.

This was a 90 mile high speed persuit, during which the suspects attempted to run over my partner, ran folks off the road, rammed me several times, and, in my professional opinion, posed an immediate threat of death or serious bodily harm to myself and others.

I did the PIT manuver (at 80 MPH, it's not reccomended above 30 mph), the car spun, went off the road, and hit the only tree in about 2 miles. It travelled 100 yards inverted, and one of the passengers was killed. I won in Federal District court, and it was upheld by the 9th Circut of the Supreme Court.

I had spent 9 years teaching 'use of force' at our Academy, and my report was phrased to highlight the threat they posed in the near future, rather than their immediate past (ramming me was "attempted murder of a Federal Officer").

Winning the lawsuit depends to a great extent on how you write your report.


P.S. The kicker? Had they stopped, they would only have been required to return to Mexico - no arrest, no fines. They choose poorly.

[Delta784]

Originally posted by fredlgd
[QUOTE]In this specific case, isn't it necessary for you to shoot at him in a very short period of time after his first attempt to kill you ?

No, if the suspect inflicts or threatens to inflict death or great bodily injury on me or anyone else, and I have reason to believe that he may do so again if his escape is not immediately terminated....he's fair game. I don't need to fire a single shot beforehand.

For example, I arrive at a "shots fired" call. I see a guy with a gun, he takes a few shots at me, and then starts running away, still carrying the gun. I can shoot him in the back, no problem at all. He;

1) Threatened to inflict death or great bodily injury to me, by shooting at me.

2) I have very good reason to believe that he would do so again if his escape is not terminated, since he fired on a uniformed, armed police officer, and he was fleeing while still holding the weapon.

[Labrock]

I don't have anything to add, but I wanted to say, "What an interesting thread!" Seeing viewpoints of officers from different countries is absolutely fascinating.