English police lay down the law

Dave!

MrPudding wrote:

It must be great to be sitting at your computer (maybe at your highly dangerous office job,) playing monday morning quarterback, focusing your perfect 20/20 hindsight and obviously huge intellect at the actions of a police marksman who had to make a life or death decision in a fraction of a second, based on the information he had right that second right in front of him, and decide (in your infinite wisdom, presumably bringing your extensive experience of dealing with armed criminals to bear,) that he got it wrong. Very satisfying I should imagine.

MrP

Agreed completely.

Pompey Magnus

MrPudding wrote:

It must be great to be sitting at your computer (maybe at your highly dangerous office job,) playing monday morning quarterback, focusing your perfect 20/20 hindsight and obviously huge intellect at the actions of a police marksman who had to make a life or death decision in a fraction of a second, based on the information he had right that second right in front of him, and decide (in your infinite wisdom, presumably bringing your extensive experience of dealing with armed criminals to bear,) that he got it wrong. Very satisfying I should imagine.

Fine. Do want to know what I think "in my infinite wisdom"? I think that a police officer should have no doubt that a person is an immediate threat before killing him, that is what I think, he should be obviously a threat. But I guess I am just soft on criminals for thinking that. I also don't think it is justifiable to kill someone because he might have a gun.

MrPudding

Depeche_Mode wrote:

But as the information came out that only one man was armed no-one from the opposite side of the argument has accepted that shooting the unarmed man dead is not acceptable.

I have not said I accept it becuase I don't accept it. I am perfectly happy with the guy being shot. Not because I believe the police should operate like an assasination squad, but because, given the situation they were in I would give the coppers the benefit of the doubt.

MrP

Dave!

Depeche_Mode wrote:

Fine. Do want to know what I think "in my infinite wisdom"? I think that a police officer should have no doubt that a person is an immediate threat before killing him, that is what I think, he should be obviously a threat. But I guess I am just soft on criminals for thinking that. I also don't think it is justifiable to kill someone because he might have a gun.

Well I believe that if you are an accomplice in an armed robbery (ie. a gun is known to be present) and you're doing anything short of lying on your face when the police come in, you should be treated as though you have a gun, and not given the benefit of the doubt, as you appear to be advocating :rolleyes: Call me a hard-liner, but I put the safety of the police before the life of an armed raider.

humanji

Depeche_Mode wrote:

Fine. Do want to know what I think "in my infinite wisdom"? I think that a police officer should have no doubt that a person is an immediate threat before killing him, that is what I think, he should be obviously a threat. But I guess I am just soft on criminals for thinking that. I also don't think it is justifiable to kill someone because he might have a gun.

And what happens when the police have no doubt, but it turns out the person wasn't a threat at all? Or is that too gray an area?

bushy...

Depeche_Mode wrote:

I think that a police officer should have no doubt that a person is an immediate threat before killing him, that is what I think, he should be obviously a threat. But I guess I am just soft on criminals for thinking that. I also don't think it is justifiable to kill someone because he might have a gun.

If there's few criminals outside a bank after robbing it , give one good reason why the police shouldn't hesistate at all to go straight for a guaranteed kill ?
Why take the chance ?
Why risk the life of police officer/bystanders in the slightest ?

seamus

DaveMcG wrote:

Well I believe that if you are an accomplice in an armed robbery (ie. a gun is known to be present) and you're doing anything short of lying on your face when the police come in, you should be treated as though you have a gun, and not given the benefit of the doubt, as you appear to be advocating :rolleyes: Call me a hard-liner, but I put the safety of the police before the life of an armed raider.

That's pretty much my viewpoint too. Just because you don't have a gun, if you're participating in a crime where weapons are being used, then you can expect to be treated as if you have a weapon. So when you're told to get down, you get down or expect to be shot.

I'm not going to weep for an armed raider on the basis of a technicality.

TerryTate

You mess with the bull you get the horns


shoot them

Pompey Magnus

DaveMcG wrote:

Call me a hard-liner, but I put the safety of the police before the life of an armed raider.

The unarmed armed robber? Where would the problem have been in waiting a few seconds? They terminated the immediate threat, fair enough, so why not wait a few seconds and see what the guy who was not an immediate threat would do? Why not shoot him to incapacitate him instead of to kill?

And what happens when the police have no doubt, but it turns out the person wasn't a threat at all? Or is that too gray an area?

Man with gun in hand and pointing it at the police or in the process of doing so = immediate threat

Man with nothing in his hands = not an immediate threat.

MrPudding

Depeche_Mode wrote:

The unarmed armed robber? Where would the problem have been in waiting a few seconds?

Do you have any idea how far a bullet travels in a few seconds? Or perhaps how many bullet a machine pistol can fire in a few seconds?

When the biggest and most dangerous decision you have to make in your day is "Are you sure you want to delete this file?" then yes, take a few seconds. When the decision you make has an impact on whether or not you, your colleagues or some innocent bystanders get home to their families, you might not have that luxury.

Depeche_Mode wrote:

Why not shoot him to incapacitate him instead of to kill?

Anyone that thinks marksmen in a situation like these guys found them in can or indeed should shoot to incapacitate is a moron. As I mentioned earlier, when the decision is made to shoot it should be to put them down hard, "shoot to stop" as someone else mentioned. You aim for the area of the body you are most like to hit, unfortunately this tends to correspond with the area most of the important bits are in...... Ah well.

Depeche_Mode wrote:

Man with gun in hand and pointing it at the police or in the process of doing so = immediate threat

Man with nothing in his hands = not an immediate threat.

Man refusing to follow instructions given to him by armed officers = moron. Darwinism in action TBH.

MrP

lemansky

If you fail to follow instructions you are considered hostile, and rightly so. Besides scum who attempt jobs like this know the dance that they have to break into when they see armed police. If they choose not to fall into step.......

Pompey Magnus

To be honest I think this topic has run his course, we seem to be rehashing the same arguments over and over at this stage, mine is that lethal force should be the absolute last resort, acceptable in the case of the man with the gun to the security guards head, but that the police should not have the right to shoot a seemingly unarmed person based on the assumption that he might have a gun, and that he might use it, while the opposite side feel either that it is his own fault for putting himself in the situation in the first place and he got what he deserved, or the much more palatable argument that perhaps the police did it out of necessity to save lives.

lemansky

There is no room in an armed confrontation to decide whether or not an armed raider has a gun. The police did what they have to. They confront armed raiders everyday but don't shoot them, so if they do shoot them like yesterday they must've had a very good reason.

Giblet

Depeche_Mode wrote:

The unarmed armed robber? Where would the problem have been in waiting a few seconds? They terminated the immediate threat, fair enough, so why not wait a few seconds and see what the guy who was not an immediate threat would do? Why not shoot him to incapacitate him instead of to kill?

Every shot is shoot to kill, regardless of what they say. You can't shoot to incapacitate, there are too many variables involved. What I mean is, every shot taken is a kill shot, because you have no idea what vital structure it could hit. Shoot to stop is the phrase used because shoot to kill sounds worse.

flo8s967qjh0nd

If you hold a gun to a security guard's head, you deserve everything thats coming to you and more.

Manic Moran

There is a legal concept around these parts called 'Felony Murder', which I believe applies to some extent in Ireland as well. For example, if John and Jim go rob a bank, and get involved in a shootout with the police, and John is shot and killed, Jim will be charged with his murder. Even if Jim did not even have a gun. By making an active choice to break the law, you are responsible for all the consequences thereto. Similarly, in Ireland, if someone breaks into a house and kills the homeowner in total self-defense (Homeowner was coming at him with a shotgun or something), he will still be charged with manslaughter as the initial illegal act was the catalyst for all which followed.

Indeed, for shared liability, you don't even need to do anything illegal. Let's say you have a business, yourself and your partner. Your partner, without your knowledge, does something dodgy and the partnership becomes liable. Though you have done nothing wrong, you will be held responsible as a member of the partnership.

Such is the case here. If one knowingly partakes of a robbery then one is knowingly partaking in all the risks inherent in such an act. This includes getting shot by police if your partner happens to have a gun, with or without your knowledge.

As far as the analysing over how many rounds were fired, that's stupid. On at least two separate occasions (One British, one US) the response to "why did you shoot him X many times" was "That's all the bullets we had" and can be justifiable in the circumstances. You either use lethal force, or you don't. There's no such thing as 'somewhat lethal' or 'a bit less lethal' If there's a threat, you start shooting, and keep shooting until it is obvious that the threat is gone. Shoot to Stop. If the guy happens to survive, so much the better for him.

NTM

Steez

Live by the sword die by the sword etc. etc. Except gun in this case

K-9

Depeche_Mode wrote:

I feel that I have been opened minded in this case and when I discovered that one held a gun to the security guards head I accepted that there was no real option but shoot him. But as the information came out that only one man was armed no-one from the opposite side of the argument has accepted that shooting the unarmed man dead is not acceptable.

The key is, "one held a gun to the security guards head". It was a fair assumption by the police that the others may have been armed.

Would it have been reasonable assumption for the police to assume they where unarmed in a bank robbery situation?

depeche_mode wrote:

I think that a police officer should have no doubt that a person is an immediate threat before killing him,

So, one of the robbers holding a gun to a mans head isn't enough proof that they are dangerous. Maybe they should have walked over and frisked them?:rolleyes: You believe that the other bank robbers should have been presumed unarmed?

depeche_mode wrote:

To be honest I think this topic has run his course, we seem to be rehashing the same arguments over and over at this stage, mine is that lethal force should be the absolute last resort, acceptable in the case of the man with the gun to the security guards head, but that the police should not have the right to shoot a seemingly unarmed person based on the assumption that he might have a gun, and that he might use it,

The problem is, he did have the gun! Bank robbers loose the right to be presumed innocent when there is the use of guns. Maybe we should forget about the police here, and blame the armed bank robber who held the gun to a mans head!:rolleyes:

Pompey Magnus

Seanies32 wrote:

So, one of the robbers holding a gun to a mans head isn't enough proof that they are dangerous. Maybe they should have walked over and frisked them?:rolleyes:

I'm sorry, you must have missed the dozen times already when I said that shooting the man with the gun was the right thing to do. Hopefully I won't need to repeat myself on that one again.

The problem is, he did have the gun!

Have you been following this discussion at all? I was focusing on the guy who didn't have a gun.

Celticfire

Depeche_Mode wrote:

But as the information came out that only one man was armed no-one from the opposite side of the argument has accepted that shooting the unarmed man dead is not acceptable.

So do you accept that it's only in hindsight that they could tell that only one of them had a gun?

I don't believe that x-ray specs or crystal balls are police issue as of yet.

K-9

Depeche_Mode wrote:

I'm sorry, you must have missed the dozen times already when I said that shooting the man with the gun was the right thing to do. Hopefully I won't need to repeat myself on that one again.
Have you been following this discussion at all? I was focusing on the guy who didn't have a gun.

The point of my post was, should the police have presumed the others where unarmed and was that a fair assumption giving that one of them had a gun to the mans head?

Or is it fairer, in the same circumstances, for the police to presume that the others where armed?

Which is the fairer presumption?

depeche_mode wrote:

Have you been following this discussion at all? I was focusing on the guy who didn't have a gun.

You seem to think that the robber with the gun is in no way related to the others.

And the rest of my quote that you ignored:
Bank robbers loose the right to be presumed innocent when there is the use of guns. Maybe we should forget about the police here, and blame the armed bank robber who held the gun to a mans head! for the incident

Maybe the robbers should have been more considered with their use of guns!

eroo

Depeche_Mode wrote:

Earlier in this thread I was asked what I would have done differently in this situation. Well assuming the police knew the raid was going to take place I probably would have ordered a raid on their homes beforehand. How about that for a mad idea?

And had it gotten to the stage where the raid happened I might have suggested not shooting the guy with no gun. Controversial decision I know, but I guess I just think outside the box in reckoning that a man without a gun is not really too much of a threat to justify killing him.

mate,odds are these fellas wouldnt have had weapons/equipment on them in their house.they arent that stupid.if they police had raided and found then these fellas would till be on the streets planinng their next robbery after having that one spoilt by a raid.
the only way to catch them so they'd get a lot of jail time was 'in the act'
simple as that!

Pompey Magnus

Celticfire wrote:

So do you accept that it's only in hindsight that they could tell that only one of them had a gun?

Of course it is only with hindsight that they could tell for sure that only one of them had a gun for sure. It seems to me that the main sticking point in this arguement is that I am arguing that until police know for certain that a gun is present they should refrain from killing, whilst the counter argument is if even only one member is known to be armed, the entire group should be killed. I don't accept this as being a justifiable use of lethal force, but obviously the consensus here is that it is, I am just giving my viewpoint and unlike suggested earlier I do not claim that I am neccessarily right or an expert in situations such as this, all I am saying is that I feel this is overkill (pun intended).

eroo wrote:

mate,odds are these fellas wouldnt have had weapons/equipment on them in their house.they arent that stupid.if they police had raided and found then these fellas would till be on the streets planinng their next robbery after having that one spoilt by a raid.
the only way to catch them so they'd get a lot of jail time was 'in the act'
simple as that!

So what do you suggest? Kill every bank robber because the police are unable to prevent crime from happening in the first place? In fact probably best if you don't answer that given some of the ignorant responses already given in this thread.

You say the only way to catch them was in the act so they get a lot of jail time. How much jail time will these guys get?

Seanies32 wrote:

The point of my post was, should the police have presumed the others where unarmed and was that a fair assumption giving that one of them had a gun to the mans head?

Or is it fairer, in the same circumstances, for the police to presume that the others where armed?

Which is the fairer presumption?

Which presumption proved correct? Is it the police's job to act on presumption or evidence? They presumed that a bank robber was carrying a gun. They were wrong. They presumed that Jean Charles de Menezes was a suicide bomber. They were wrong. Two men died because of their presumptions, one was guilty of participating in a bank robbery but was unarmed and as it turn out was of no danger to anybody, the other was a young man who was working in London to earn money to send home to his family in Brazil.

All I am suggesting is that police wait until they know someone is a threat before killing them, that is all. I really don't understand why everyone finds that so unreasonable and are painting me as somehow being soft on criminals? I have said time and again that if they produce a gun and aim then fine, kill them if needs be.

lemansky

Depeche_Mode wrote:

So what do you suggest? Kill every bank robber because the police are unable to prevent crime from happening in the first place? In fact probably best if you don't answer that given some of the ignorant responses already given in this thread.

You say the only way to catch them was in the act so they get a lot of jail time. How much jail time will these guys get?

That's not what eroo is suggesting as well you know. What he is saying is to let them go ahead with the raid, then apprehend them in the act. These guys decided to act the prick so this happened. It's not like it happens everytime something like this goes down. These guys just went and got themselves killed.

If they hadn't been stupid they would've been in the same situation as every other criminal who was caught in the process of plying their trade....ie doing more time than if they had been caught planning it.

RoyalMarine

tallus wrote:

If it doesn't work in countries where the cops are armed, what makes you think Ireland is going to be any different? and cops are armed here, uniformed gardai aren't but detectives are.
Personally I dont think they should be armed, and I am glad the bankrobbers got what they deserved, but would be pretty sure that the cops who shot the robbers weren't normal uniformed officers. So why should the gardai be armed? they showed how to disarm suspects in Sandyford without killing/shooting them.

thats just 1 of thousands of situations.

Chief--- wrote:

It is always shoot to kill.

There is no such thing as shoot to injure.

of course there is.

shoot them in the leg.

K-9

Depeche_Mode wrote:

Of course it is only with hindsight that they could tell for sure that only one of them had a gun for sure.

And isn't hindsight a wonderful thing! The police had done their investigating beforehand. One of them pulled out a gun and pointed it to a mans head. That is relevant to what happened. They couldn't deal with each one on an individual basis. Maybe the robbers should have chose their friends better!:rolleyes:

Depeche_Mode wrote:

It seems to me that the main sticking point in this arguement is that I am arguing that until police know for certain that a gun is present they should refrain from killing, whilst the counter argument is if even only one member is known to be armed, the entire group should be killed. I don't accept this as being a justifiable use of lethal force, but obviously the consensus here is that it is, I am just giving my viewpoint and unlike suggested earlier I do not claim that I am neccessarily right or an expert in situations such as this, all I am saying is that I feel this is overkill (pun intended).

There was a gun present. Maybe all robbers would choose to be unarmed if they knew there was less chance of being killed! There will be cases where the police will not know they are armed until the gun is fired at them. Most posters here are saying there is only so much the police can do and you're "knowing for certain" argument could actually lead to deaths.

I can imagine the scenario - police make absolutely sure the man is unarmed, in the process a gun that is well hidden is fired and kills innocent people and police. Cue, the police "f***ed up" and my son/daughter is dead"

Depeche_Mode wrote:

Which presumption proved correct? Is it the police's job to act on presumption or evidence? They presumed that a bank robber was carrying a gun. They were wrong.

Hindsight again. The evidence was that at least one gun was present, therefore they had no problem with firearms. If they had, they should have picked a robber who was unarmed.

depeche_mode wrote:

They presumed that Jean Charles de Menezes was a suicide bomber. They were wrong. Two men died because of their presumptions, one was guilty of participating in a bank robbery but was unarmed and as it turn out was of no danger to anybody, the other was a young man who was working in London to earn money to send home to his family in Brazil.

I know what a travesty of justice for that robber, he's the new de Menezes! How long are you going to use him as a defence, in 20 years time for cases like this? It has got nothing to do with this case. They made a mistake with de Menezes, they don't always get it right. Do you in your job? They often have to make split second decisions. The majority believe they where correct in this case. There never will be a 100% correct way in circumstances like this.

depeche_mode wrote:

All I am suggesting is that police wait until they know someone is a threat before killing them, that is all. I really don't understand why everyone finds that so unreasonable and are painting me as somehow being soft on criminals? I have said time and again that if they produce a gun and aim then fine, kill them if needs be.

Maybe the robber should have shouted he was unarmed? Even then, could the police believe him? What's unreasonable, is you're saying they have to basically pull the gun to be sure, because that is only way they will "know". What happens if somebody is killed when they pull the gun. Is the life of an innocent person more important than being 100% sure in cases like this?

K-9

RoyalMarineComm wrote:

of course there is.

shoot them in the leg.

So they do that. Man still has gun in his hands. Shoots 2 people. Great, the police did a great job and 2 people are dead.:rolleyes:

seamus

RoyalMarineComm wrote:

of course there is.

shoot them in the leg.

This isn't Counter-Strike. They're not trying to look cool in front of their mates or have cool stats at the end of the day.

Front-on, a leg is at most 6-8 inches across. The chest is at least 3 times that. You shoot for the biggest target you can find, otherwise innocent people get hurt.

Manic Moran

It seems to me that the main sticking point in this arguement is that I am arguing that until police know for certain that a gun is present they should refrain from killing, whilst the counter argument is if even only one member is known to be armed, the entire group should be killed

I don't think the Police agreed that the entire group should be killed either: Not everyone was shot. Pehaps guy number two made a sudden movement which the police interpreted as going for a gun. (And no, they can't wait for the firearm to be produced: At that point, they could well be outside the OODA loop) The point is that once people start playing with firearms, you must side with caution. Joe Copper very much would like to go home that night, and cannot be blamed for making what was not a huge leap of logic.

NTM

FX Meister

Varkov wrote:

They had a guy at gunpoint, what the hell are you supposed to do? These police officers used lethal force because it was nesicerry. (I cant spell)

Exactly, you cant spell, why should your opinion count?

K-9

FX Meister wrote:

Exactly, you cant spell, why should your opinion count?

Well, I got his point. Some people can't use apostrophes either.:rolleyes:

eroo

So what do you suggest? Kill every bank robber because the police are unable to prevent crime from happening in the first place? In fact probably best if you don't answer that given some of the ignorant responses already given in this thread.

You say the only way to catch them was in the act so they get a lot of jail time. How much jail time will these guys get?[Depeche Mode]

you cant go to jail for thinking about robbing a bank.if police had raided,you can be sure they'd have found nothing.sure they are supposed to stop a raid,but which is the better option;
1.stop them/raid houses etc. letting them know your onto them.then they dont go ahead with it and are still walking the streets.

OR

2.catch them during/after the act ensuring they are arrested and taken off the streets.obviously,the operation didnt go as planned,but thats how things go sometimes!

seamus

FX Meister wrote:

Exactly, you cant spell, why should your opinion count?

You're promoting a Paris Hilton forum. By default your opinion is worthless.

MrPudding

Depeche_Mode wrote:

Of course it is only with hindsight that they could tell for sure that only one of them had a gun for sure. It seems to me that the main sticking point in this arguement is that I am arguing that until police know for certain that a gun is present they should refrain from killing, whilst the counter argument is if even only one member is known to be armed, the entire group should be killed. I don't accept this as being a justifiable use of lethal force, but obviously the consensus here is that it is, I am just giving my viewpoint and unlike suggested earlier I do not claim that I am neccessarily right or an expert in situations such as this, all I am saying is that I feel this is overkill (pun intended).

Outside you your lovely black and white world things are not so simple.

What we had here is a scenario where the police believed a armed robbery was going to take place and they intercepted the robbers. They are now in a position where a number of armed police are facing a number of robbers in a fast moving and highly dangerous situation.

Now, at this point a few assumption have to be made. Why do assumptions have to be made? Well, the primary concern of the police is the safety of themselves, their colleagues, innocent bystanders and to a lesser extent, the criminals. In a situation like this there is not always time to think, therefore assumptions have to be made. Assumptions, for example about the type of people they are dealing with.

They are dealing with men who do not behave like normal people. Normal people do not rob people or places. Normal people do not hold guns to people's heads. I think it is fairly safe for the police to assume that the people they are dealing with do not really have a problem with putting other people in danger. Additionally, if ay of the robbers are "known" to the police or have past form, this information could also influence assumptions made by the police.

If you are dealing with an armed robbery and you see one weapon in the hands of one of the robbers but do not see any weapons in the hands of the others there are two assumption can be made. One that the others are armed, you just can't see them or two, they are not armed.

So, we have cops faced with robbers, it is an armed robbery. The criminals have already shown they don't care much for the law or other people. There is also 1 gun visible, you know, the one pointed at a guys head.

Remembering that the police have a duty of care primarily to themselves, their colleagues and inncocent bystanders, also remembering that a firearm does not need to be in plain sight to be used, also that the men that they are dealing with have already shown a disregard for innocent livesand that a weapon is visible, is it more reasonable to assume the other guys are unarmed or armed?

For me the reasonable assumption is that they are armed and dangerous. These guys lost the right to benefit of the doubt when they decided to take part in an armed robbery.

MrP

Giblet

RoyalMarineComm wrote:

of course there is.

shoot them in the leg.

No one in their right mind aims for a leg. And remember, there's important arteries in the leg. Every shot is shoot to kill, no matter where they aim. There is no accounting for the damage a bullet does. This isn't TV.

FX Meister

seamus wrote:

You're promoting a Paris Hilton forum. By default your opinion is worthless.

Look a little closer.