Off-duty PSNI officer shoots robber dead

Wolfe Tone

Holybejaysus wrote: »

Did I say that? There is a well defined 'rules of engagement' that dictates when, and when not, an officer can open fire. Usually there will be an verbal warning to drop the weapon-refusal to do so it correctly interpreted as a threat. If a suspect has been given an opportunity to drop a weapon and doesn't, one must assume their intents are hostile, and act accordingly.

I think those rules are fine the way they are. Obviously every discharge of a firearm should be routinely investigated to eliminate the possibility of a bad apple gunning someone down illegally.

But you are proposing the laws are amended to let knife carrying criminals rob-an insane logic.

Thats no what I am saying at all, shooting someone must be a last resort, hopefully it was in this case.

CaseyRyback

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

hopefully it was in this case.

Why would there even be any doubt about that until such time as there is some evidence that it wasn't the last resort?

Wolfe Tone

CaseyRyback wrote: »

Why would there even be any doubt about that until such time as there is some evidence that it wasn't the last resort?

PSNIs history, people will automatically think the worst.

goldie fish

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

The cop didnt know any of that at the time so its pretty irrelevant.

As a cop, I'd say he had a fair idea.

funkey_monkey

As soon as you cross the threshold of someone's property - business or residence - in order to commit a crime (arrmed or otherwise) you are willingly waiving your rights.

It's about time people here stopped being so soft. The cop nailed a criminal in action armed with a knife. Tough luck to the guy - that's the risk he takes.

I'm not saying that everyone who is a crook should be killed, but if they do not surrender readily to an armed policeman then no one can really complain if this happens.

shampon

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

PSNIs history, people will automatically think the worst.

Yeah, The PSNI has had a rough time in the ten years of it's existence. Strange how certain people always run to the cover of the RUC in any situation where force is used. For Christ sake use of force can be legit...the past has nothing to do with this...

Kat1170

Funfair wrote: »

Zambia If off duty Police officers were not armed nobody would have being shot either

If he didn't rob the shop at knifepoint he wouldn't have been. Got his just deserts in my opinion.

shampon

Kat1170 wrote: »

If he didn't rob the shop at knifepoint he wouldn't have been. Got his just deserts in my opinion.

Main thing is a life is gone and regardless of his past...it was an idiotic waste.

ScouseMouse

CaseyRyback wrote: »

No big surprise here.
http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/local/man_shot_dead_had_extensive_record_1_2385809

Funfair wrote: »

I young fella armed with a knife gets shot dead.. on face value it sounds like an over reaction by the Police officer.. but as we don't know the details we'll have to wait and see before hanging the guy

shampon wrote: »

Main thing is a life is gone and regardless of his past...it was an idiotic waste.

A guy with with a long record (career criminal?) pulls a knife on innocent people and an armed cop happens to come upon it.

If the crook was holding a knife to someone, or ran at the cop, and he was shot, then tough. As a lot of people have said here, dont arm yourself unless you are willing to take the consequences.

If it turns out the cop was attempting to save an innocent persons life, or his own, then TOUGH, no pity for the thug.

If it turns out the poor robber was shot in the back while walking away (yeah right!), then the policeman has a case to answer.

Either way, the thug/robber/convicted criminal armed himself with a weapon - and lost.

Dont feel a bit sorry for him.

Funfair

goldie fish wrote: »

As a cop, I'd say he had a fair idea.

Yep as a Civilan I'd also say your spot on there.

shampon

The fact is many people see the reactions of this officer as difficult, heroic and proportionate while others could say it was un-proportionate and overtly violent.

That being said, If you can find me the man/woman who wants to take a knife to the throat/body/face, I will shake your hand, sir.

It is alleged that the assailant had a knife to the throat of an innocent civilian and then lunged at the officer...

Now I ask you, if it had of been you in the civilian's shoes, the assailants shoes and the officers shoes what would you have done?

We can't say what we would have done in each situation as we were not there and we are not aware of the contributing factors in each decision and movement that occurred during the incident, we can opinionate until the cows come home. The officer did not want to take a life when he got up that morning and the joe soap didn't want to have a knife held against his throat.

Funfair

shampon wrote: »

The fact is many people see the reactions of this officer as difficult, heroic and proportionate while others could say it was un-proportionate and overtly violent.

That being said, If you can find me the man/woman who wants to take a knife to the throat/body/face, I will shake your hand, sir.

It is alleged that the assailant had a knife to the throat of an innocent civilian and then lunged at the officer...

Now I ask you, if it had of been you in the civilian's shoes, the assailants shoes and the officers shoes what would you have done?

We can't say what we would have done in each situation as we were not there and we are not aware of the contributing factors in each decision and movement that occurred during the incident, we can opinionate until the cows come home. The officer did not want to take a life when he got up that morning and the joe soap didn't want to have a knife held against his throat.

If the guy lunged at the officer he deserved all he got, you’re right we don’t know how we would act if we were in the situation…
The more facts we’re learning about this particular case the more I’m siding with the Police Officer..

discus

If the crook was holding a knife to someone, or ran at the cop, and he was shot, then tough. As a lot of people have said here, dont arm yourself unless you are willing to take the consequences.

Exactly.

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Thats no what I am saying at all, shooting someone must be a last resort, hopefully it was in this case.

I've read your blog... For some reason, your feelings on Jean McConvilles murder didn't come across as strong as they do in relation to this case.

funkey_monkey

Don't bring a knife to a gunfight.

999nobody

If you commit a violent crime while armed with any weapon you must accept the consequences.
Well done to the officer concerned.

He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword.

pah

Funfair wrote: »

Originally Posted by goldie fish
As a cop, I'd say he had a fair idea.

Yep as a Civilan I'd also say your spot on there.

LOL goldie fish meant as a cop - the cop would have a fair idea not that goldie's a cop. :P

Funfair

pah wrote: »

LOL goldie fish meant as a cop - the cop would have a fair idea not that goldie's a cop. :P

He should be arrested for impersonating a Guard

goldie fish

Funfair wrote: »

He should be arrested for impersonating a Guard

Tis 13 years since I was mistaken for a cop.. and I was one then...:cool:

Manic Moran

So they should gun down people robbing shops then?

It seems to me that it's at least something of an occupational hazard. After all, most robberies are carried out with weapons, the threat is 'I do not consider life to be worth your property'. If you want to play that game, you have to accept the possibility that you will lose the bluff.

Now I ask you, if it had of been you in the civilian's shoes

Pet peeve. All persons involved as far as I can tell were civilians.

There has been 'creep' of the definition of 'civilian' into what should be 'private citizen'. The true definition is effectively 'Not military.'

NTM

docmol

As someone who was attacked by three scumbags while working in an off-licence, admitedly unarmed but three of them and one of me, my first sympathy goes to the staff of the shop. If the attacker was armed he got what he deserved and I wish that police officer had been in my shop when I needed help. I hope the police officer recovers from this and can put it behind him.

Funfair

Manic Moran wrote: »

Pet peeve. All persons involved as far as I can tell were civilians.

There has been 'creep' of the definition of 'civilian' into what should be 'private citizen'. The true definition is effectively 'Not military.'

NTM

I read this post a couple of times and still can't make sense of what your talking about

Also what is NTM ?

shampon

Funfair wrote: »

I read this post a couple of times and still can't make sense of what your talking about

Also what is NTM ?

He's referring to the usage of the term 'civilian' by members of the military, I think.

CaseyRyback

Manic Moran wrote: »

It seems to me that it's at least something of an occupational hazard. After all, most robberies are carried out with weapons, the threat is 'I do not consider life to be worth your property'. If you want to play that game, you have to accept the possibility that you will lose the bluff.



Pet peeve. All persons involved as far as I can tell were civilians.

There has been 'creep' of the definition of 'civilian' into what should be 'private citizen'. The true definition is effectively 'Not military.'

NTM

I believe the context was civilian as opposed to the police officer.

The Oxford English definition;

Pronunciation:/sɪˈvɪlj(ə)n/
noun

a person not in the armed services or the police force.

pah

shampon wrote: »

He's referring to the usage of the term 'civilian' by members of the military, I think.

He's referring to the (incorrect) usage of the term 'civilian' by members of the general public, I think.


Definition

noel farrell

sorry for his family he got his just reward, he who lives by the sword dies by the sword .

Manic Moran

Funfair wrote: »

I read this post a couple of times and still can't make sense of what your talking about

The legal definition of 'Civilian' is 'not military.' Both in civil and military law. (Note even there the distinction: Police enforce civilian laws, military police enforce military law)

However, there has been growing use of the term 'civilian' to mean anyone who is not a member of the various uniformed services, to include military, police or fire service. This took off in the US a while back, and has started to filter into common English in Europe as well. As a result, if you look up Webster's today, (Or the Oxford link two posts up) it will say 'not military, police, fire service', but if you look up a Webster's from 1980 it will just say 'not military'. Black's Law Dictionary, however, still defines 'civilian' as 'not military', and the various international treaties currently in force use a similar distinction. There already is a perfectly good term for someone who is not acting on behalf of the government, and that is 'private citizen.'

This shift is already causing angst in the US as it's perceived as reinforcing a separation between police forces and the public. Granted, US police forces have a slightly different culture, for example the California Highway Patrol web site blatantly says it's a paramilitary organisation, but most European agencies seem to stick with the Peelian notion that "police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen"

Also what is NTM ?

My intials. I sign the end of my posts.

NTM

CaseyRyback

Manic Moran wrote: »

The legal definition of 'Civilian' is 'not military.' Both in civil and military law. (Note even there the distinction: Police enforce civilian laws, military police enforce military law)

However, there has been growing use of the term 'civilian' to mean anyone who is not a member of the various uniformed services, to include military, police or fire service. This took off in the US a while back, and has started to filter into common English in Europe as well. As a result, if you look up Webster's today, (Or the Oxford link two posts up) it will say 'not military, police, fire service', but if you look up a Webster's from 1980 it will just say 'not military'. Black's Law Dictionary, however, still defines 'civilian' as 'not military', and the various international treaties currently in force use a similar distinction. There already is a perfectly good term for someone who is not acting on behalf of the government, and that is 'private citizen.'

This shift is already causing angst in the US as it's perceived as reinforcing a separation between police forces and the public. Granted, US police forces have a slightly different culture, for example the California Highway Patrol web site blatantly says it's a paramilitary organisation, but most European agencies seem to stick with the Peelian notion that "police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen"

Interesting view.

I see much of Europe's police as paramilitary in particular the French and Germans and to a lesser degree the Italians and Spanish. Peelian principles tend not to be as visible in these places.

Where does reserve military feature on your civilian-v-non-civilian-ometer?

Funfair

Manic Moran wrote: »

The legal definition of 'Civilian' is 'not military.' Both in civil and military law. (Note even there the distinction: Police enforce civilian laws, military police enforce military law)

However, there has been growing use of the term 'civilian' to mean anyone who is not a member of the various uniformed services, to include military, police or fire service. This took off in the US a while back, and has started to filter into common English in Europe as well. As a result, if you look up Webster's today, (Or the Oxford link two posts up) it will say 'not military, police, fire service', but if you look up a Webster's from 1980 it will just say 'not military'. Black's Law Dictionary, however, still defines 'civilian' as 'not military', and the various international treaties currently in force use a similar distinction. There already is a perfectly good term for someone who is not acting on behalf of the government, and that is 'private citizen.'

This shift is already causing angst in the US as it's perceived as reinforcing a separation between police forces and the public. Granted, US police forces have a slightly different culture, for example the California Highway Patrol web site blatantly says it's a paramilitary organisation, but most European agencies seem to stick with the Peelian notion that "police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen"



My intials. I sign the end of my posts.

NTM

Thank you for your efforts in writing all that just for me I used the word Civilian in my post, as I remember a Mate of mine in the Navy used it regular to describe everyone that wasn't in the Navy.

Your probably right I shouldn't maybe have used the word when talking about the police as it's more a Military term.

NTM
My intials. I sign the end of my posts.

OHH me stupid

Manic Moran

CaseyRyback wrote: »

Interesting view.

I see much of Europe's police as paramilitary in particular the French and Germans and to a lesser degree the Italians and Spanish. Peelian principles tend not to be as visible in these places.

Depends on the organisation. The Gendarmerie in France are part of the Ministry of Defence and not civilian. The Police Nationale are a civil organisation. Many people don't know that the Gendarmes are military as they are routinely tasked with civilian law enforcement duties and that is what they are mostly seen doing by the public but the distinction definitely exists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Police_(France)

The National Police is one of two national police forces and the main civil law enforcement agency of France, with primary jurisdiction in cities and large towns. The other main agency is the military Gendarmerie with primary jurisdiction in smaller towns and rural and border areas

Again, note the civil/military distinction. Bear in mind that the Gendarmerie have a combat role in the case that France is invaded.

Where does reserve military feature on your civilian-v-non-civilian-ometer?

On duty, military. Off duty, civilian.

NTM