• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

The Thin Blue Line

Hundreds of Met firearms officers downing their weapons after the murder charge against one of their colleagues.
 
I know, in the grand scheme of things, a trial in Jan is pretty damn fast but shame they couldn't get it sorted even quicker to get this over with

I'm interested in hearing what comes out of it - from the news reports it sounds like the officer was justified in his actions, but then the Jean Charles de Menezes situation sounded justifiable at first too so who knows
 
Even the police need to be held to account for their actions and application of the law. I had an email from my local police team making up the Highway Code deeming there to be a slow enough speed to be safe to overtake without giving a cyclist the full 1.5m space.

If they can do that for something relatively minor they can make up shooting someone without due cause - even a mistaken shooting and have not action taken against the officer.
 
A valiant effort to crowbar a reference to not passing cyclists closer than 1.5m I'll give you that.
 
A valiant effort to crowbar a reference to not passing cyclists closer than 1.5m I'll give you that.
yeh another complaint. Didn't think I'd have to battle the police as well as wrongdoers, however small their crime.

Culture is wrong in the police in the Met- that much has been made clear in Dame Casey's report . They are a law unto themselves. If it is so in the largest police force in the country what's it like in other police forces around the country?
 
Last edited:
Even the police need to be held to account for their actions and application of the law. I had an email from my local police team making up the Highway Code deeming there to be a slow enough speed to be safe to overtake without giving a cyclist the full 1.5m space.

If they can do that for something relatively minor they can make up shooting someone without due cause - even a mistaken shooting and have not action taken against the officer.
The problem is the application of the law is seen different by many people. Just because it's the law doesn't necessarily mean the Police are going to enforce it nor can they know every single law. One of the most valuable tools a cop has is using his discretion in accordance with standing orders and force policy. It might simply be the case you got an officer who doesn't know his stuff or they simply have other more urgent matters to deal with. It's a stretch to go from duff advice on the Road Traffic Act to a firearms incident.

Shooting someone is probably a horrible decision to make. Often under stress and in a split second. Most firearms cops i know fully believe they will face a trial if they shoot someone and likely a civil case as well. The met officers issues are they feel the burden of proof should be the criminal standard in civil cases as well and not tried on the balance of probabilities.
 
I'd rather have a police force with zero firearms than one not accountable for their use of them.

A full independent investigation followed by criminal charges if required should be made to any officer who has wounded or killed someone.

I would be happy to exempt them from civil cases though pending the investigation and appeal to that investigation.

If you don't want that level of vigor don't become a firearms officer. They should be ******* scared to use them its the only way to ensure that when do its because its absolutely necessary. *points to America exhibit A*
 
The problem is the application of the law is seen different by many people. Just because it's the law doesn't necessarily mean the Police are going to enforce it nor can they know every single law.
The problem is the lack of transparency though. I understand that they have to have discretion when applying and enforcing the law but that doesn't mean they don't have to be held accountable when they get that use of discretion wrong or applying their own criteria. That is why trust in the police has deteriorated to an all time low.

The perception in the case of the firearms' officers is they are throwing a hissy fit because one of their own is getting investigated and now being brought to trial.
 
Lot of "Police bad" narrative. Some of it clearly totally justified.

But bear in mind what they're up against though. Assault numbers have triggered this post - in 2021/2 there were 41,000 assaults on Police of which 11,000 were "with injury". There there's all the verbal abuse they have to take and all the highly distressing situations they have to deal with through crime or accident - you might be stressed in your job, but you probably haven't had to decide whether to pull a trigger in a split second, or tell someone their loved one has unexpectedly died or seen child abuse or deal with those whose lives have been wrecked by drugs or fraud, or had to put your own life on the line. Quite apart from the feeling of the judicial system being loaded against them.

It never has been, and never can be, a role for shrinking violets. Mental and physical toughness is required. With the stresses they face it's unsurprising that some end up damaged.

All for fairly modest remuneration.

Rotten cultures and rogue officers have to be weeded out and dealt with. But the vast vast majority of officers are in the job for the right reasons and do the best they can in trying circumstances.
 
Rotten cultures and rogue officers have to be weeded out and dealt with. But the vast vast majority of officers are in the job for the right reasons and do the best they can in trying circumstances.
1 in 33 met officers are currently suspended or on restricted duties. I think that number is way too high to dismiss the problem.

I appreciate good police officers a lot but its not about machoism or shrinking violets. We need people who can assess and think fast and accurately to the situation at hand and give it the care and consideration it requires. Its an extremely hard job but actually perpetuating the need for traits of "hard men" leads to the rotten core and isn't actually useful at all.
 
1 in 33 met officers are currently suspended or on restricted duties. I think that number is way too high to dismiss the problem.

Yes agreed although it also means 32 out of 33 aren't and I suspect that officers aren't getting the benefit of the doubt right now. I don't think anyone would dismiss the problems, but not should all be tarred with the same brush either.

I appreciate good police officers a lot but its not about machoism or shrinking violets. We need people who can assess and think fast and accurately to the situation at hand and give it the care and consideration it requires. Its an extremely hard job but actually perpetuating the need for traits of "hard men" leads to the rotten core and isn't actually useful at all.

"Hard men" stuff belongs in the 70s but they do have to take decisive control of difficult situations and be incredibly mentally and physically resilient in making rapid decisions under incredible duress when the adrenaline is often flying. Sometimes they will get those wrong, sometimes the impact of what they see and do will only become apparent months or years down the line.
 
The biggest skill a cop needs in communication, verbal and listening. You don't need to be a hard man you need to be both robust and compassionate.

People also never seem to take into account Police Officers are still just people. You can have all the training in the world to deal with specific situations. Yet when your on your 7th straight night, you've finished late four shifts on the trot, you've a new born child, you and your partner are worrying over money. Yet here you are 3 in the morning and some tw@t in Rushden has decided to pull a knife on you and a colleague. Your nearest back up is ten minutes away.

You've got to make the right decision. What use of force is acceptable, get in wrong you might end up suspended and in court yourself.

Welcome to the modern world of policing.
 
Top