THE RIGHT RESULT
Two armed bank robbers have been shot dead by armed Police officers from the met’s flying squad.
No members of the public or police officers have been hurt during this incident, and a loaded firearm has been recovered.
This to me is a bloody good result, two armed scumbags are out of the game and all innocent parties are safe and unharmed. However I have little doubt that someone will say the Police have done wrong and point the finger at officers who have done a difficult job. We will get a chief constable make a statement saying that we must remember that someone else has been killed today.
If offenders take a loaded gun and attempt an armed robbery at a bank or anywhere come to that, then they must be responsible for their actions!!
This will send out a message to others who want to commit this type of crime.
Any death is not good, but lets not blame these Police officers who have protected others.
September 13, 2007 at 7:30 pm
Don’t forget as well that there can be no doubt that these 2 were guilty and we, the tax payers, have been saved the cost of a trial and long prison sentences. OK, the enquiry will cost a bit but I’m sure this result will save the country thousands and maybe make others think twice!!
September 13, 2007 at 7:41 pm
Unfortunately in the meantime the good old IPCC will make the officers lives difficult for doing the job that few are employed to do, and less are expected to do.
September 13, 2007 at 9:41 pm
You know how I feel about people who are armed with a weapon getting their just desserts!
September 14, 2007 at 6:52 am
And you know ‘Any death is not good’….Hmmmm Myra Hindley? Fred West? Both sounded good to me………But I do know what you meant
)
September 14, 2007 at 8:46 am
Totally agree.
September 14, 2007 at 11:52 am
I hear that one gunman was holding a loaded firearm to the head of a hostage. I bet that hostage will praise the police officer who pulled the trigger.
How can anyone criticise his decision?
September 14, 2007 at 1:51 pm
pcsouthwest- I totally agree with your comments but, unfortunately some bleeding heart liberal will no doubt remove their head from their a*** and comment about how brutal the police are becoming and suggest that those killed were misunderstood and in need of numerous meetings with the tree huggers in order to ‘come to terms with themselves’.
September 14, 2007 at 2:08 pm
Southwest, Bob, carrying loaded firearms requires ownership. As soon as a criminal is holding one of these to a hostage’s head, they as a risk, are potentially capable of murdering someone. Even prior to this, if they are in possession in a public place, en route, to the scene of the crime, and were stopped by a non firearm-carrying officer, who became suspicious, the chances are, they would have used it. That threat must be taken out. I think this is a clear-cut case.
September 16, 2007 at 9:56 am
Talking about deaths . . .
Here’s a shockingly detailed article about British policemen needlessly being killed.
http://tottenhamlad.blogspot.com/2007/08/pc-jonathan-henry_02.html
September 16, 2007 at 8:55 pm
from my understanding of this incident, the Police were waiting for the robbers to turn up, and then shot them. Obviously they had intelligence the robbery was going to happen, so why not intercept the would-be robbers earlier? A cynic might think the Police wanted an opportunity for some target practice…..
September 17, 2007 at 9:42 am
What did I tell you, wouldn’t take long for some bleeding heart liberal to remove their head from their a*** and stop reading the Guardian momentarily to make an unqualified comment.
September 17, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Freeluncher maybe you should ask the officers instead of drawing your conclusions with absolutely no evidence.
With no specific information of what intelligence they had and not knowing how soon they were presented with it before the event took place, it is not right to lay criticism.
All that really matters is no innocents were hurt, only scum bags, who to be quite frank I don’t give a fuck about!!
September 17, 2007 at 6:14 pm
pcsouthwest, if you read my comment, you will note it contains no concrete conclusions or assertions. Only a question and some speculation. I know we are becoming an increasingly illiberal country, but I am sure questioning and speculation are still legal!
After some high profile and fatal ‘mistakes’ by armed Police in the past, I think it is entirely legitimate to ask questions in this sort of incident. Especially whem, if the comments on this blog are any guide, serving officers have seem quite happy to kill suspects, or scum bags as they are called by the no doubt decent, loving, tolerant, and humane Bob…
September 17, 2007 at 6:23 pm
You are right, it is ok to question and speculation is still legal. And yes I would not mourn a gun slinging scumbag. I would be willing to kill in order to protect another.
I can only imagine how an officer would feel having taken a life, and I would give my full support to these fine officers.
I am surprised any officer would want to put himself in that difficult position these days, they certainly have my respect.
September 17, 2007 at 7:05 pm
before I get flamed, I wanna point out that I have respect for the near impossible job rank and file police officers have to do. I generally get on well with the Police who arrest me for siting in the road at anti-nuclear demonstrations!
But, I do have concerns about the politicians and high commanders who direct police policy.
As a civilian, I am not allowed to “kill in order to protect another”, even if I wanted to. I’m willing to break the law to protect another though lol
September 17, 2007 at 7:09 pm
Have a look at section 3 of the criminal law act. You will find that you can use force that is reasonable in the circumstances. That may well be lethal force in some cases such as this one.
September 17, 2007 at 8:11 pm
Any person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large.
September 17, 2007 at 9:10 pm
An awful lot hangs on the meaning of the word “reasonable” there. I suspect members of our government of war crimes, how far can I go in effecting their arrest?
I am finding your blog fascinating, pcsouthwest, I hope you dinnae mind ‘bleeding heart liberals’ perusing your site?
September 17, 2007 at 9:20 pm
Ah yes reasonable is somewhat vague is it not? well you can work it out really. Is it reasonable to hit a fleeing shoplifter with a crowbar, no of course it’s not. Is it reasonable to hit a burglar with a baseball bat if he is armed with a knife? I should say it is very reasonable in the circumstances.
Just like shooting an armed robber who is holding a loaded firearm to the head of a hostage is reasonable, as a Police officer I feel I would owe that hostage that much in the line of my duty, and It would be very reasonable.
There are several pieces of legislation that allow us to use force, I wont go into them all or it will feel like a training session in tactical defence or something. I am a great believer in fair treatment and in dealing with serious criminals appropriately when they are prepared to take lives for their own gain.
September 17, 2007 at 9:31 pm
Freeluncher this blog is open to anyone who respects common decency and freedom of speech.
I will never stop people from posting comments as long as they abide by that simple rule. I welcome healthy debate and views from all.
September 17, 2007 at 11:32 pm
pcsouthwest, thats awfy decent of ye, if only all cops and bloggers thought like that!
I accept what you are getting at about reasonable force, and also accept that if some idiot is going to wave a gun about the High St he might just get shot by the Police. Fair enough. But I think because of some high profile mistakes ovr the years, the Police have to accept a certain level of scrutiny over these incidents. The Jean Charles de Menezes episode sadly showed that some Police officers judgement, and dare I say it, honesty, is a little too lacking for comfort. That no officer was held to account for the de Menezed thing is highly troubling for some of us.
September 19, 2007 at 8:28 pm
Freeluncher- In response to you post 6.14Pm on the 17th September.
I’m tolerant and humane. What I am actually is a police officer who, like numerous colleagues that I work with , is totally disillusioned with continually being criticised for taking the wrong cause of action when dealing with any given situation. We, police officer, now live a twilight area where we cannot do right for doing wrong and most, if not all, of that criticism comes from people who have never been involved in front line policing.
The police service should , correctly, be accountable as should EVERY police officer. Not just the front line officer but ACPO rank as well.
I posse a hypothetical question for you. Firearms police officers are called to an incident when persons have firearms on them.
What should the officers do,
A, discharge their firearms, using lawful authority and grounds and as a result the offenders are killed.
B, attend the scene do not discharge their firearms and in the process an innocent hostage is killed by the offenders.
C, do not attend the scene immediately but, wait for senior management to conduct a Health & safety and risk assessment review. This scenario took place a few years’ ago when people died while H&S and risk assessments were being conducted.
It is your country that I and other officers police. What do you want the choice is yours as it is for every other citizen but please when society makes it choices please do not criticize the officers’ actions taken on your behalf.
September 19, 2007 at 9:42 pm
Bob, I do not generally go in for criticising Police Officers. As I said I understand the predicament they find themselves in, and can understand why you may be disillusioned. I think those most responsible are the politicians and tabloid media, not bloggers horrified by the unaccountable slaying of Jean Charles de Menezes. I do not think rank and file officer are responsible for the formulation of Operation Kratos!
Regarding your hypothetical question, may I answer “none of the above”, and posit an option D?
D – attend the scene, and using lawful authority and grounds, the alleged offenders are arrested. In extreme circumstances Officers may have to discharge their weapons in order to stop, as opposed to kill.
September 19, 2007 at 10:47 pm
Freeluncher at first glance we, although I do not know you nor you me, may appear to be opposite ends of some spectrum, we may not be. I fully understand your comments as I hope you understand mine. Society has now come to am impasse and what direction it takes will have significant implications on us all.
I fully understand your response to my question and it is valid and cannot and should not be disregarded. As I have asked what would society, the public, do in that split second moment when that awful decision has to be made. I’m not a firearms officers but, I have and do make split second decisions.
As I have stated what can we do, allow a hostage to be killed or conduct a pre-emptive strike.
September 19, 2007 at 11:54 pm
Bob, I don’t know that we are on opposite sides of any spectrum. I’d guess we both want to see a fairer, more just and lawful society, both domestically and internationally. Maybe we might differ on how to get there? Anyway, yes, I fully understand your comments.
As for the “what can we do”? Phew, if I knew that my friend, I would not be sitting here now! lol But no, I do not think a hostage should be allowed to be killed, though neither am I a great fan of the notion of pre-emptive strike. Is that not a route to the American way of “shoot-now ask questions later”? I do not feel the question is a straight choice between pre-emption and inaction. At the risk of sounding a little Blairite (spit!) there has to be a third way. In the circumstances you describe for example, is there not a way to discharge a weapon at someone which can instantly incapacitate without being lethal?
September 20, 2007 at 1:55 pm
It will be typical of the IPCC if the officers are suspended and a murder trial is carried out!
I feel for armed officers! They have a split second decision to make which if resulting in a murder charge the jury can take as long as they want to make the same decision in a comfortable setting.
September 20, 2007 at 5:09 pm
Excuse my ignorance, Response Plod, but when was the last time the IPCC recommended a Police officer be charged after an incident such as this??
From what I see, that is an extreme rarity.
September 21, 2007 at 12:44 pm
freeluncher – the IPCC have never recommended a firearms officer be charged with murder since they have been in charge for exactly the same reason that no Police officer has ever been convicted in the UK of murder after using a firearm in the execution of his duty, despite a couple of high profile cases (naked drug dealer and Harry Stanley for example)
Our firearms officers are in the position of having the LEGAL and LAWFUL authority of using a lethal weapon when the situation and the information dicatate that it is right to do so, as written in law. If a Police officer were to walk up to someone and shoot them in the head for target practice as you so eloquently put, then they would be charged with murder. No one else in this country – including soldiers – are in that position and yet everyone is an expert because they saw something on tv once about the subject. I’ve used firearms from a young age but am in no way an expert on the training or experiences of being a firarms officer and having to actually shoot at a person in order to get them to stop doing something. Do you think that if there was some magical method of making someone stop instantly without killing them then we wouldn’t be doing it already???
You clearly have no concept of the role that firearms let alone standard officers do and believe that you live somewhere like Mexico or Brazil, where the Police DO actually walk up to people and shoot them, or drag criminals behind cars after being captured and execute them. FACT
If you think that the IPCC is in anyway construed in the favour of the Police then quite frankly you don’t know what you are talking about.
Funnily enough we dont go to work and get told “right lads and lasses, cause as much pain and death as you can, just don’t get caught, but then if you do don’t worry becuase the IPCC have your backs anyway….”
You said that its still a free country to express an opinion about something and you are right, but if you were to walk into a operation room or an A&E in any hospital and start spouting opinions or recommendations that were not only insulting but had no basis in fact or experience then you would be told in no uncertain terms to get lost, and I would be surprised if you wouldn’t agree that it would be right.
September 21, 2007 at 5:51 pm
Metcountrymounty, you are seriously misrepresenting my comments, and I think you know it.
“Funnily enough we dont go to work and get told “right lads
and lasses, cause as much pain and death as you can, just
don’t get caught, but then if you do don’t worry becuase the
IPCC have your backs anyway….” ”
Where and when did I suggest that? I think you miss the context of my last post, which followed the comment of Response Plod, which said -
“It will be TYPICAL of the IPCC if the officers are suspended
and a MURDER trial is carried out!
I feel for armed officers! They have a split second decision
to make which if RESULTING IN A MURDER CHARGE the jury can take
as long as they want to make the same decision in a comfortable
setting.”
Metcountymounty goes some way to making the point I was making, when he wrote -
“the IPCC have NEVER recommended a firearms officer be
charged with murder since they have been in charge for exactly
the same reason that NO Police officer HAS EVER BEEN CONVICTED
IN THE UK FOR MURDER AFTER USING A FIREARM.”
Which contradicts somewhat the comment by Response Plod. Someone care to explain that?
September 21, 2007 at 7:10 pm
freeluncher, I wasn’t trying to wind you up, I did misread what you said. what response plod was referring to was the fact that the IPCC have seen fit to go completely against their title in being the Independant Police Complaints Commision. They aren’t independant at all, they seem to take every opportunity to critise the Police whenever they can without considering the real world consequences of their statements or suggestions or the impact on Police morale. I have no doubt that there are some justified complaints to them, however they, like the media, make judgements with the benefit of hindsight and completely fail to recognise the role that we do and the nature of the incidents that we deal with, because very few if any of them have ever expeirenced it first hand.
The only reason that they haven’t recommended charges as yet against any firearms officers is purely because of the complete focus surrounding any investigation and that they are obligated to attend the scene, along with a great number of experienced officers. This is different to virtually everything else they deal with which seems to be taken on the word of the complaining member of the public who has little, if any, context or knowledge of the reason that officers have taken a course of action that they are complaining about.
September 23, 2007 at 11:24 am
Metcountymounty, I am not sure I understand what you mean. Could you explain more what you mean with this? -
“The only reason that they haven’t recommended charges as yet against any firearms officers is purely because of the complete focus surrounding any investigation and that they are obligated to attend the scene, along with a great number of experienced officers.”
Are you saying they are out of their depth?
October 18, 2007 at 12:26 am
GET RID OF POXY PCSO’S !!! GET RID OF POXY PCSO’S !!! GET RID OF POXY PCSO’S !!! GET RID OF POXY PCSO’S !!! GET RID OF POXY PCSO’S !!! GET RID OF POXY PCSO’S !!!GET RID OF POXY PCSO’S !!!
October 31, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Flobo,
Your language appears to be somewhat limited and unjustified. This states to me that you have an issue with a job that you clearly don’t understand.
Perhaps if you understood the different roles within the Police Service and took time to educate yourself on the role of a modern Police Service, you may be able to provide a valuable opinion, and commit to a debate rather than brandishing useless comments, which further damages future deveolpment / and any justified arguments to the next set of changes within our service.
Approach with caution, educate yourself then you may reply with more of a just cause.