Greater Manchester Police

howa243

Well-Known Member
I am not a Police knocker as its not a job I could do, but at some point when an unarmed man is shot by them I would expect a prosecution.
 
if you accidentally shot someone's dog thinking it was a fox you would be prosecuted....

one rule for one and all that :rolleyes:
 
guys its hard to comment without the facts - the issue (as with the gangster Duggan) is whether the officer thought the person armed and what happened to make the officer feel threatened .....

my son is firearms authorised and gives me some understanding of their training and rules of engagement etc ...

also with terrorism rife ... you can be unarmed but wearing a semtex jacket that is not obvious.

please don't be quick to judge - the police are not always at fault.

Tony
 
guys its hard to comment without the facts - the issue (as with the gangster Duggan) is whether the officer thought the person armed and what happened to make the officer feel threatened .....

We'll never know the facts, but there's more to it than mistaken identity.... some mention of a memory stick with names of Police informants?
but don't worry, I doubt this thread will get the chance to gather any momentum.
 
To be honest, I'm surprised that police forces throughout the country get enough officers wanting to be firearms officers.

Shooting someone, never mind killing them is something I hope no police officer wants to do. And if it happens, you just know there's going to be a circus descending on you. Your clothes will be seized, you'll be suspended from work, no contact with colleagues (who may be witnesses), skin swabbed, etc. etc. Then it's a waiting game, being interviewed, with your life in turmoil month after month. And that's just for the most straightforward incident where it's clear the officer had no choice.


Of course it's right that any use of such force by the police should be scrutinised. Many forces only have enough firearms officers by making it a requirement of another job. For example, if you want to apply for a job on the traffic department, fine, but you have to successfully pass a suitability course and become a firearms officer. Then there's the regular re-testing. Fail that and you job is on the line.

Then of course, there's always the risk that you make a wrong decision and a full investigation ensues. The media frenzy, all the people with axes to grind getting on the bandwagon, your livlihood and indeed your freedom at risk, your family also.... Not something I'd want, for sure.
 
To be honest, I'm surprised that police forces throughout the country get enough officers wanting to be firearms officers.

Shooting someone, never mind killing them is something I hope no police officer wants to do. And if it happens, you just know there's going to be a circus descending on you. Your clothes will be seized, you'll be suspended from work, no contact with colleagues (who may be witnesses), skin swabbed, etc. etc. Then it's a waiting game, being interviewed, with your life in turmoil month after month. And that's just for the most straightforward incident where it's clear the officer had no choice.


Of course it's right that any use of such force by the police should be scrutinised. Many forces only have enough firearms officers by making it a requirement of another job. For example, if you want to apply for a job on the traffic department, fine, but you have to successfully pass a suitability course and become a firearms officer. Then there's the regular re-testing. Fail that and you job is on the line.

Then of course, there's always the risk that you make a wrong decision and a full investigation ensues. The media frenzy, all the people with axes to grind getting on the bandwagon, your livlihood and indeed your freedom at risk, your family also.... Not something I'd want, for sure.

And the truth is that armed police officers are trained to stop....ie...kill....
 
I heard a statistic the other day that over the last year, firearms were fired only 5 times by the police. Not much really. Not saying that they should be unaccountable, merely that we live in a relatively safe society compared to many
 
I am not a Police knocker as its not a job I could do, but at some point when an unarmed man is shot by them I would expect a prosecution.

I would say the complete opposite - if acting on duty with a person failing to co-operate criminals should expect to be shot, and the officer should be 100% immune from presecution. These 'gangsters' don't fear the police, maybe if they knew if they didn't co-operate with the police they would get shot it might improve their attitude.

Law abiding citizens need not worry.
 
If you weren't there keep it shut until you know the ENTIRE facts. If you were there, gob off as much as you like if you witnessed the events; otherwise you are regurgitating what someone else has told you or perceived.
 
Providing they are not meandering home half ****ed through a rally or taking a chair leg home.......

dont go there..
 
I would say the complete opposite - if acting on duty with a person failing to co-operate criminals should expect to be shot, and the officer should be 100% immune from presecution. These 'gangsters' don't fear the police, maybe if they knew if they didn't co-operate with the police they would get shot it might improve their attitude.

Law abiding citizens need not worry.

I thought they had other means of incapacitating these days without having to resort to a firearm. Not sure that Stephen Waldorf would agree with you.
 
I think it is only right that when things go wrong the bosses / organisation that put the officers in that position are held to account. By the time the officer is in a position that they need to make that split second decision it's too late, the operational decisions have been made and those that made them need to account for them. In most cases they can probably justify the actions and decisions but it is the burden of rank and responsibility that is theirs.
If the wrong person / an innocent party gets shot someone has to take responsibility for it. I'm not going to comment of the rights or wrongs of the Manchester case but it grates that an innocent man can be shot multiple times in the head and the bosses that made the decision get promoted and that a gangster gets shot and the officers get dragged through the courts (all be it in the coroners court).

Win Mod 70
 
I would say the complete opposite - if acting on duty with a person failing to co-operate criminals should expect to be shot, and the officer should be 100% immune from presecution. These 'gangsters' don't fear the police, maybe if they knew if they didn't co-operate with the police they would get shot it might improve their attitude.

Law abiding citizens need not worry.

That's right.......... Take em out and do it fast... The ones that scream "there's gotta be another way" the loudest will be the quietest when it comes time take care of the cop's family if he had not have made that split second decision and the guy was actually armed... Always a good idea to follow instructions in situations where you could get shot.....
 
That's right.......... Take em out and do it fast... The ones that scream "there's gotta be another way" the loudest will be the quietest when it comes time take care of the cop's family if he had not have made that split second decision and the guy was actually armed... Always a good idea to follow instructions in situations where you could get shot.....

I agree if someone is pointing a gun at you and it becomes a "him or me" situation.... but an unarmed man sat in a car? He may have been a wrong 'un but he was someone's brother, uncle, father and the fact remains, he was unarmed.

The cop who pulled the trigger gets my sympathy, he's the one who has to live with the fact that he killed an unarmed man. As they say - **** rolls down hill, but the boss who gave the order should be held to account.
 
I agree if someone is pointing a gun at you and it becomes a "him or me" situation.... but an unarmed man sat in a car? He may have been a wrong 'un but he was someone's brother, uncle, father and the fact remains, he was unarmed.

The cop who pulled the trigger gets my sympathy, he's the one who has to live with the fact that he killed an unarmed man. As they say - **** rolls down hill, but the boss who gave the order should be held to account.
never read the story, but could it be that the cop told him to get out? Or maybe put his hands up where he could see them? How did the cop know that there wasn't a gun in the guy's lap ready to rearrange his belt buckle.... I feel bad for the cop and the innocent family of the guy shot, but have no sympathy for the guy....
 
I agree if someone is pointing a gun at you and it becomes a "him or me" situation.... but an unarmed man sat in a car? He may have been a wrong 'un but he was someone's brother, uncle, father and the fact remains, he was unarmed.

The cop who pulled the trigger gets my sympathy, he's the one who has to live with the fact that he killed an unarmed man. As they say - **** rolls down hill, but the boss who gave the order should be held to account.

Sorry if you are told to put your hands up where they can be seen and you then put them where they can't be seen, expect to be shot.
 
If you weren't there keep it shut until you know the ENTIRE facts. If you were there, gob off as much as you like if you witnessed the events; otherwise you are regurgitating what someone else has told you or perceived.

+1 from DJC on that
 
I would say the complete opposite - if acting on duty with a person failing to co-operate criminals should expect to be shot, and the officer should be 100% immune from presecution. These 'gangsters' don't fear the police, maybe if they knew if they didn't co-operate with the police they would get shot it might improve their attitude.

Law abiding citizens need not worry.

So all criminals failing to cooperate should expect to be shot? The shoplifter who does a runner, the brawling drunken lad on a Saturday night, and the fraudulent banker who doesn't readily cooperate with producing documents? We wouldn't need prisons, courts or probation services - just lots of very large cemeteries. And lots of apologies for getting the 'wrong guy'.

This is supposed to be a sophisticated civilised society not a despotic police state.
 
So all criminals failing to cooperate should expect to be shot? The shoplifter who does a runner, the brawling drunken lad on a Saturday night, and the fraudulent banker who doesn't readily cooperate with producing documents? We wouldn't need prisons, courts or probation services - just lots of very large cemeteries. And lots of apologies for getting the 'wrong guy'.

This is supposed to be a sophisticated civilised society not a despotic police state.

This ^^^^
 
Back
Top