Met Police Firearms Officers

Are firearms officers given a gun and told to go out and shoot somebody, anybody, up to you or are they told to take down a specific individual who IS armed or IS a terrorist? Is so, it should be those passing on the intel to those officers who should be accountable because when a firearms officer shoots someone, it's either in self defence believing they are about to be shot or they have been passed the wrong information and are just doing their job.
If that's what you believe :rolleyes:

Meanwhile in the real world, take Cressida Dick for example...

Responsible for the botched operation that led to the execution of Jean Charles de Menezes...

So how come she then got promoted?

And other botched 'operations' and her failure to tackle racism and misogyny in the force she led...

Along with numerous other 'offences' such as withholding information and attempting to derail a report into a murder inquiry...

Under her watch the Met was found to be "institutionally corrupt"...

She was also elevated to the rank of 'dame'...

Tells you us you need to know about the 'system'!
 
Sponsored Links
The met ought to know better than anyone not to pre judge a case but are doing that precisely by handing in their permits. Nobody knows the facts until the case is heard.

Blup
 
So Cruella coming out and saying that plod “mustn’t fear ending up in the dock" isn't messing with the rights of the victim and family?

What about the rights of the policeman and his family?

If you must quote, stop being selective and show the whole quote for context.

She's correct in that an armed officer mustn’t fear ending up in the dock - if they are doing their job correctly.

"Under the law, armed police officers have the right to discharge a firearm to make a lawful arrest, defend themselves from unlawful violence and to protect others from harm - if they have reasonable grounds for believing there is an imminent danger to life".

Are you saying you know all the facts on this event or are you going to wait until the evidence is produced in court? You seem to be always on the side of the wrong 'un - remember how you charged to the defence of lorry driver Mo Robinson? No? I do:

Lorry driver 'Mo' Robinson, 25, dialled 999 30 minutes after pick-up having gone to get his cargo paperwork and finding 39 dead bodies piled up inside...

Apparently he'd parked up at the industrial estate in Essex and had gone to fetch the paperwork from a pocket on the inside of the lorry door. When he opened the container up and saw all the dead bodies, he was absolutely horrified - as anyone would be - and called the ambulance service who in turn alerted the police."
He could very well be innocent...

An interesting radio interview this morning with someone who was in various lorries, and sometimes the driver knew and sometimes they didn't.
Ah, so guilty until proven innocent then?

How about applying the same rule to the policeman this time?
 
How about applying the same rule to the policeman this time?
You're missing the point...

Cruella is suggesting that the police shouldn't be in the dock at all regardless !
 
Sponsored Links
I must have missed that bit. Can you show us where she says that?
It's buried deep inside ellal's head. You might want to tie a rope around your waist. Good luck with finding someone willing to anchor the other end.
 
She's correct in that an armed officer mustn’t fear ending up in the dock - if they are doing their job correctly.
"They mustn't fear ending up in the dock for carrying out their duties"

Is what she said.

Opinions may differ, as to whether shooting dead an unarmed man is part of their duties.

Cruella actually didn't say.
 
"They mustn't fear ending up in the dock for carrying out their duties"

Is what she said.

Opinions may differ, as to whether shooting dead an unarmed man is part of their duties.

I say old boy, is that a gun in your pocket or are you just pleased to see me?
 
What’s the victims story ??
Is it
Prison sentence for domestic violence ?

Stopped in a car carrying a knife ?and

Imitation fire arm ?
Ect ect

Just asking ?
 
What about the rights of the policeman and his family?

What rights have been lost?
Not followed this closely, so please enlighten me.

Armed coppers are usually deployed in life or death situations, terrorism or danger to life. Most occasions they are given the order to fire, that removes their responsibility and liability, they were obeying orders, the person who gave the order accepts liability. Occasionally they have to make a decision on their own, is a victims life at risk, is their own life at risk, they don't have your luxury of mulling it over for a few days and writing a risk assessment, they have to make a judgement in less time than it takes most of us to blink.

On rare occasions, very rare occasions, they will make a mistake.

If, every time that happens, they face a murder trial, it's not worth doing the job, not worth being banged up and losing your family.

The British armed police are the best trained and most restrained in the world.

It could be that this copper was rogue, I doubt it, but we don't know the story, some fools on here think they do but they really don't, we will eventually but that's a long way off.

My personal opinion, I'd rather have them than not have them, I feel safer with them than without them.
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top