Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
i agree with the general sentiment expressed, it's xmas after all
Police shoot man in 'intelligence-led operation' in London
- Thread starter frogwoman
- Start date
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
The British army routinely sent patrols out in Northern Ireland with unloaded weapons. We carried live ammunition, but could only load our weapons on permission from up the command chain.
In other words we were trained to "...risk getting shot rather than risk making a mistake". It wasn't ideal, but IMO it prevented a lot of needless injuries and deaths.
You'll never prevent all deaths, but you can minimise them through training.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
What is "crime"?
What are "criminals"?
As long as the state, with all of it's associations and affiliations to power, gets to define the above - and to populate the criminal justice system with those who accept that situation - your hungry shoplifter will be a criminal.
The state is a "proper criminal" - it sells guns and murders people - and yet functions within the law due to it's relationship to power. "Crime" and "criminal" are labels, and not particularly effective ones for analytical purposes, nothing more and nothing less. Just ponder what the words signify for a clue as to how ineffective they are as labels.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
The wrong sort of people become coppers because the criminal justice institution known as "the police" get to pick and choose who becomes a copper. I'm not an ACABer, but I do believe that to function within the institutional environment of a police service, an individual has to sublimate their individual morality for a group one, and that it's this that turns otherwise-okay people into bastards - the gang mentality writ large and legal.
If mention crime to the average person on the street they'll think of violence or theft. But in reality it's just another name for anything the government doesn't like.
'Crime prevention' sounds like a good thing if you use the first definition, but not such a good idea if you use the second.
ddraig
kicking against the pricks...
would love to see this boohoo brinksmanship tested!
Jermaine Baker death: Police warn of guns boycott if officer charged - BBC News
Jermaine Baker death: Police warn of guns boycott if officer charged - BBC News
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
Exactly the same bullshit they came up with over the Azelle Rodney murder. So I guess it's safe to say it's not the particulars of this one case that have the police worried, they just want to ensure that no copper can ever be charged with a crime for killing anyone.
Which relates nicely to the question of 'what is a crime' as discussed above. Here we have the police fighting to ensure that any murders they commit officially fall outside that category. And there's a good chance they'll get away with it.
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
The plods do not want to be second-guessing themselves in a 'Paris-style scenario' apparently. Noble sentiments I'm sure.
And yet they would be willing to leave us all defenceless in that very same scenario if they don't get yet another extrajudicial killing rubber-stamped.
And yet they would be willing to leave us all defenceless in that very same scenario if they don't get yet another extrajudicial killing rubber-stamped.
Lurdan
old wave
Anne Owers, Chair of the IPCC has responded in The Times to Hogan-Howe's call this week for armed officers to be given more public trust.
(The article is paywalled - here it is fwiw).
It includes this :
(The article is paywalled - here it is fwiw).
The police cannot shy away from proper scrutiny - Anne Owers
The debate over police use of firearms has generated a number of myths and selective facts.
This week Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, the outgoing Metropolitan Police commissioner, called for greater public support of firearms officers who, he said, were increasingly treated as suspects in investigations by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), which I chair.
The facts don’t support this.
Since 2010 we’ve completed 24 firearms investigations, eight of which related to fatalities. In all but three of them, including six of the fatal shootings, no firearms officer was ever treated as a suspect; they were all treated as witnesses.
Sir Bernard also complains about the length of time it takes to investigate shootings. This is something about which the police and the public are rightly concerned. But it is too easy to blame the IPCC alone. When police witnesses co-operate fully and early, we can complete our investigations much more quickly. By contrast, when they don’t — for example giving statements that simply say when they came on and off duty or refusing to answer questions at interview — it takes much longer. No one benefits, whether they are police officers or bereaved families.
Our investigation into the Met’s fatal shooting of Jermaine Baker in 2015 was completed within 12 months. That’s despite the fact that only one key police witness chose to answer questions at interview (it took many weeks to get full accounts from the others) and that we were unable to get some vital evidence from the police for ten months.
We have proposed fresh guidance to get the best evidence when someone dies or is seriously injured. It doesn’t treat police witnesses as suspects. It does aim to separate officers while they give their first accounts, to prevent conferring or contamination by other evidence. Doing it early ensures that we can secure necessary evidence. Of course in a major terrorist incident we would not expect to do this until the risk had passed.
We will do our bit to make sure that our investigations are both robust and timely and the proposed guidance will help to ensure this. Rigorous independent scrutiny is not a threat: it is a protection. If the police appear to shy away from this, there is a real risk to public trust. As Sir Bernard has said, our police officers rarely discharge firearms, and even more rarely with fatal effect. When they do, it is in everyone’s interest that this is thoroughly investigated, with early and full co-operation from those involved.
Dame Anne Owers is chairwoman of the IPCC
The debate over police use of firearms has generated a number of myths and selective facts.
This week Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, the outgoing Metropolitan Police commissioner, called for greater public support of firearms officers who, he said, were increasingly treated as suspects in investigations by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), which I chair.
The facts don’t support this.
Since 2010 we’ve completed 24 firearms investigations, eight of which related to fatalities. In all but three of them, including six of the fatal shootings, no firearms officer was ever treated as a suspect; they were all treated as witnesses.
Sir Bernard also complains about the length of time it takes to investigate shootings. This is something about which the police and the public are rightly concerned. But it is too easy to blame the IPCC alone. When police witnesses co-operate fully and early, we can complete our investigations much more quickly. By contrast, when they don’t — for example giving statements that simply say when they came on and off duty or refusing to answer questions at interview — it takes much longer. No one benefits, whether they are police officers or bereaved families.
Our investigation into the Met’s fatal shooting of Jermaine Baker in 2015 was completed within 12 months. That’s despite the fact that only one key police witness chose to answer questions at interview (it took many weeks to get full accounts from the others) and that we were unable to get some vital evidence from the police for ten months.
We have proposed fresh guidance to get the best evidence when someone dies or is seriously injured. It doesn’t treat police witnesses as suspects. It does aim to separate officers while they give their first accounts, to prevent conferring or contamination by other evidence. Doing it early ensures that we can secure necessary evidence. Of course in a major terrorist incident we would not expect to do this until the risk had passed.
We will do our bit to make sure that our investigations are both robust and timely and the proposed guidance will help to ensure this. Rigorous independent scrutiny is not a threat: it is a protection. If the police appear to shy away from this, there is a real risk to public trust. As Sir Bernard has said, our police officers rarely discharge firearms, and even more rarely with fatal effect. When they do, it is in everyone’s interest that this is thoroughly investigated, with early and full co-operation from those involved.
Dame Anne Owers is chairwoman of the IPCC
It includes this :
Similar threads
