Thread: 10 People shot outside Empire State building, NY.

^^not that it matters, but that should be "pastime"

Originally Posted by Hampsha

Imagine if the guy had a fake gun and the police were the only ones shooting. It'll happen one day.

i'd be really surprised to learn if that hasn't happened already.

Originally Posted by Hampsha

If the 20-30,000 killed by firearms each year were the rich and famous you god-damn know that things would change.

no doubt.

Originally Posted by Hampsha

These shootings don't matter because the people dying are nobodys. It's the truth. When the wealthy, famed or connected die people politicians more attention. The poor are nothing. If the 20-30,000 killed by firearms each year were the rich and famous you god-damn know that things would change.

Several Presidential assassinations/attempts don't seemed to have changed things much. The most recent high profile figure being US Representative Gabrielle Gifford in 2011 at Tucson.

Originally Posted by Hampsha

Imagine if the guy had a fake gun and the police were the only ones shooting. It'll happen one day.

In the UK it is firearm or imitation firearm, i suspect things are much the same in the US. Once the suspect is pointing what appears to be a lethal weapon at a person the time for talking is over.

the ultimate power of persuasion comes from the barrel of a gun
and you can't really argue with that
it's the american way.

Originally Posted by billy the kid

and you can't really argue with that

but who's / which gun

Originally Posted by billy the kid

the ultimate power of persuasion comes from the barrel of a gun
and you can't really argue with that
it's the american way.

seems to be the way they like to run countries like afghanistan, pakistan, sudan, somalia all very nice place to live, where they have fully adopted the concept of freely available guns and rule by gun. NRA's heaven of earth.

Originally Posted by hazz

Originally Posted by The Big Fella

People seem to be missing the point of the fact that the majority of the shot people were shot by the police. The guy that did the shooting managed to hit the person he was aiming at unlike the police who seem to me to be trained simply to empty their magazine in the general direction of the target and hope for the best.
I seem to remember that the cop that shot the cannibal eating the face of that guy had to shoot him 12 times to kill him. Am I the only one that has a problem with it needing 12 shots from point blank range to take the guy out ?

in the UK we expect nothing less from our police and it's why we don't generally allow them to wonder round with guns. It makes the place a whole lot safer.
On the occasions we do let them loose with guns, they do have a habit of reenforcing the view that they are not very good at only shooting the criminals.

The main difference between police officers who are armed in the general course of their duty and those that specialise, such as units in the UK is the selection process and training involved. There are few similarities between both.

I am unsure as to what tactical firearms training is required for those officers who walk the streets of american states, however, for armed officers in the UK continual training/armed suspect exercises are part of the norm. Age is also a factor in the UK when specialising.

There are very few incidents in the UK where citizens are fatality shot or injured and this is mainly down to the quality of training they receive. Without this training things would be much different as can be witnessed by the most conscientious of officers who have received little or no training.

A video here

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/was-ny...shot-yesterday


of the dead suspect shooting one person. Seems everyone else , another 9 who were injured and 47 shots which missed, were shot by the police.

More shootings announced, in Chicago this time

Nineteen shot in Chicago night of mayhem



Nineteen people were shot in seven attacks overnight in Chicago, as the US city's gun violence epidemic continued.

Thirteen of the victims were shot within a half-hour period, including eight in a drive-by shooting on a single street.

Chicago officials have been battling a sharp increase in shootings and homicides, with some elected officials arguing gangs do not fear the police.

The city's murder rate has spiked 29% year-over-year as of this month.

By that time in 2011, 270 people had been killed in the city, according to data complied by the local newspaper RedEye Chicago.

In 2012, that number is 348.

Most of the violence has been in Chicago's troubled south and west sides, but there also have been a handful of incidents in the downtown area.

Originally Posted by koman

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

^
That's right! How many did that Norwegian kill? Seems like America has a lot of catching up to do...

The Norwegian victims were all confirmed socialists. Thats why Anders was judged to be sane and only sentenced to 21 years. (just over 3 months per victim)

In America you would get a life sentence for each victim (or death in some states) even if your victims were liberals or left wing activists. Norway clearly has a much more developed judiciary than the US.

He was doing his community sevrice when you killed these socialists

Originally Posted by Mr Lick

Originally Posted by hazz

Originally Posted by The Big Fella

People seem to be missing the point of the fact that the majority of the shot people were shot by the police. The guy that did the shooting managed to hit the person he was aiming at unlike the police who seem to me to be trained simply to empty their magazine in the general direction of the target and hope for the best.
I seem to remember that the cop that shot the cannibal eating the face of that guy had to shoot him 12 times to kill him. Am I the only one that has a problem with it needing 12 shots from point blank range to take the guy out ?

in the UK we expect nothing less from our police and it's why we don't generally allow them to wonder round with guns. It makes the place a whole lot safer.
On the occasions we do let them loose with guns, they do have a habit of reenforcing the view that they are not very good at only shooting the criminals.

The main difference between police officers who are armed in the general course of their duty and those that specialise, such as units in the UK is the selection process and training involved. There are few similarities between both.

I am unsure as to what tactical firearms training is required for those officers who walk the streets of american states, however, for armed officers in the UK continual training/armed suspect exercises are part of the norm. Age is also a factor in the UK when specialising.

There are very few incidents in the UK where citizens are fatality shot or injured and this is mainly down to the quality of training they receive. Without this training things would be much different as can be witnessed by the most conscientious of officers who have received little or no training.

For reasons I cannot go into, a while back I got to know a few of the police in birmingham's armed response cars. Their job is to turn up and provide armed response to reports of crimes which are associated with gun use, bank robberies for example and also secured sites such as list X sites.

The chaps I met were very professional, very highly trained and had a rather disturbing technical interest in guns, which I suspect was part their motivation to become firearm specialists. Their job was only to shoot to kill, none had actually done this and it was not something they were looking forward to because of the emotional and professional consequences doing so had caused to their colleagues.

The point is despite all of this training and skill, they still have what most people would regard as a suffently poor record of only shooting the right people, that we I have little enthusiasm to accept the consequences of generally arming the police with anything more than a stick and pepper spray.

When you're born you get a ticket to the freak show.
When you're born in America, you get a front row seat.

George Carlin

^^ I think we would tend to agree that 'police not shooting the right people' in the UK would cause notable headlines in the media and of course, cause much concern for government ministers.

Listed below are an example of those 'notable' events where firearms have been discharged and further investigation/complaints has been required/received since 1980.

An article in 'The Independant' in 2005 listed 30 people fataly shot by police in the proceeding 12 years. Another listing gives 54 fatal shootings by police since 1990 in England and Wales. The vast majority of them of course justified


Fatal incidents


Note: the following does not include killings by police in Northern Ireland.

• In June 1980, hostage Gail Kinchin and her unborn baby were killed in crossfire between West Midlands officers and her boyfriend.
• On 24 August 1985 John Shorthouse aged 5 was shot dead in a police raid on his home in Birmingham. The incident produced hostility towards the police over two days after John's death when a policewoman was dragged from her patrol car and beaten by youths. Following the Shorthouse case, West Midlands police abandoned its practice of training rank-and-file officers for firearms duties and formed a specialist squad.[28]
• On 15 January 1998 James Ashley, 39, was shot and killed by Sussex Police while naked and unarmed during a drugs raid at his flat. The officer who fired the shots was cleared of any wrongdoing after a trial at the Old Bailey.[29]
• In June 1999 Derek Bateman, 47, of Surrey was shot by a single bullet through the heart after his girlfriend went to a neighbour's house and telephoned the police, telling them he was armed and had been threatening to shoot her. It was later determined that the weapon he had brandished at the police was an air pistol.[30]
• On 22 September 1999 Harry Stanley, a painter and decorator, born in Bellshill near Glasgow, was walking home when he was shot dead by two Metropolitan Police officers following an erroneous report that he was carrying a sawn-off shotgun in a plastic bag. The officers challenged Mr Stanley from behind. As he turned to face them they shot him dead at a distance of 5 metres. It later emerged that the plastic bag actually contained a broken table leg that Stanley's brother had just fixed for him. Following numerous enquiries (in November 2004 a jury returned a verdict of unlawful killing) both officers were exonerated after 6 years of court cases and inquiries. It was found that neither officer was liable for criminal charges nor would face any disciplinary sanctions. However, the report did make notable recommendations to the police on the post-incident procedure to be followed after a shooting and about challenging members of the public from behind.[31]
• On 12 July 2001 Mr Andrew Kernan, 37, a gardener from Wavertree in Liverpool was shot dead in the street by the second of two shots fired by officers of the Merseyside Police Force. The officers had been called to the scene by the victim's mother, Marie Kernan, who had also requested a psychiatric medical team attend her home because her schizophrenic son, Andrew Kernan, was being aggressive. At least four police officers from the Merseyside force went to Mrs Kernan's flat but Andrew Kernan ran into the street, dressed in his pyjamas, wielding a Katana. Mr Kernan slashed off the wing mirror of one of the police cars. After negotiating with him for 25 minutes and using CS gas, officers fired two shots. The second bullet hit Mr Kernan in the chest and he died on the way to hospital. In the case of Andrew Kernan, the Chief Constable of Merseyside Police Norman Bettison took the unusual step of sending a hand-written letter to Marie Kernan with his apologies. The then Home Secretary David Blunkett ordered a review of how armed police were used, and the dead man's mother, Marie Kernan, 59, commented at the time: "You don't kill somebody with a mental illness. I demand justice for Andrew and won't rest until I get an answer." However, a verdict of lawful killing was returned by the jury at Liverpool District Coroner's Court on 9 December 2004, and the Coroner, Andre Rebello, praised the actions of the officers at the scene. The IPCA Commissioner for the North West, Mike Franklin, stated that “the officers involved in this case were presented with a rapidly evolving scenario... Firearms officers at the scene acted bravely and the investigation has found no evidence that their actions fell below that required or expected of them."
• On 22 July 2005, Jean Charles de Menezes, a Brazilian national living in London, was shot dead by unnamed Metropolitan Police officers on board an Underground train at Stockwell tube station, in the belief he was a suicide bomber. He was shot in the back of the head 7 times. Initially, police claimed incorrectly that he was wearing bulky clothing and that he had vaulted the ticket barriers running from police when challenged, but did not modify their statement until the correct information was leaked to the press. They later issued an apology, saying that they had mistaken him for a suspect in the previous day's failed bombings and acknowledging that de Menezes in fact had no explosives and was unconnected with the attempted bombings. Following an investigation by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), the Crown Prosecution Service announced on 17 July 2006, that no charges would be brought against any individual officers in relation to the death of Jean Charles. Sir Ian Blair, Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police when the shooting occurred will, however, face charges under Health and Safety legislation from his professional — rather than personal — capacity. The family of Jean Charles has called on the government to open a public inquiry into the shooting.[33]
• In June 2007 Anne Sanderson was shot dead by an armed officer in Sevenoaks, Kent after being seen with what was later identified as a ball bearing gun, which she refused to relinquish when challenged by police. It was the first fatal shooting of a woman by UK Police in 27 years (and first time ever that the shooting was deliberate).[34] A month previously police officers had found notes in Sanderson's car which had suicidal connotations, but no action was taken. A subsequent IPCC investigation noted this, as well as other procedural issues in the investigation, but stated that they "did not have a negative impact on the incident's outcome". In addition, the report said that officers involved "performed their duties conscientiously and diligently" and that an inquest jury returned a verdict of lawful killing.[35]
• On August 4, 2011, Mark Duggan was shot dead by the MPS, sparking massive riots across London. Four officers are being investigated in the incident, although it is speculated that they will be cleared of any criminal charges.[36]

Non-fatal incidents



Note: the following does not include incidents in Northern Ireland.

• On 17 January 1983 Stephen Waldorf was shot by police hunting David Martin, who absconded from custody at Marlborough Street magistrates' court where he was due to face a charge of attempting to murder a police officer. Waldorf was critically injured in a police ambush in a west London street after he was mistaken for Martin. He was shot five times, and then pistol whipped by an officer who had attempted to shoot him in the head, but had already used all his ammunition. Waldorf made a full recovery and eventually received compensation.[37]
• On 28 September 1985 Cherry Groce, a mother-of-six, was shot and paralysed by officers looking for her son. The shooting sparked riots in Brixton. The officer involved was cleared of all criminal charges.[38]
• On 2 June 2006, two family homes were raided in an operation involving 250 police in east London. One man, Abdul Kahar, was shot in the shoulder by police during the raid, but was later released without charge. The raid was based on faulty intelligence

On this evidence, in over 30 years of policing, very few notable firearms incidents involving police have taken place in the UK. Of course their are regular firearms incidents in the UK and i have recently posted the latest figures which show that 47 people were fataly shot in 2009(?) albeit very few by the police.

The facts are that there are very few incidents involving police/firearms where public safety becomes a serious matter for concern. Armed officers are trained not to fire their weapons on high streets during rush hour unless someones life is in immediate danger and no other course of action is available.

Most incidents take place well away from where the public are in great numbers. It is common that the first officer on or near the scene of an incident involving firearms would be unarmed. He/she would do the reporting and be the eyes and ears until assistance arrives.

I take your point on firearms officers almost unhealthy relationship with their weapons although this more than likely would have been generated during/after their initial training not before.
When one is living and breathing the high level of training/skills required and there is very little/no margin for error and yours/a colleagues or a member of the public's life depends upon your actons then one may possibly acknowledge the level of professionalism that is expected. It is not for everyone certainly.

Pepper sprays and batons whilst good tools for close quarter combat offer no defence for the public against a suspect carrying a firearm.

Where the 'shoot to kill' policy has been widely criticised in the UK, the more fashionable term used nowadays is 'Neutralise the Threat'. Additionally, whilst officers generally receive support from senior ranks in the event of a firearms incident they do need to justify their own actions in a court of law.

Of course the main point is: Would the UK public wish for no assistance if confronted with an armed suspect? Probably not!

^ I think it is a credit to the UK laws and the Police that shooting incidents over the last 30 years can be condensed into a single post. It would be interesting to know how many other countries can do the same...

^ That's not a complete list of all the people shot by British police. Compared to most police forces, they are rank amateurs at slaughtering members of the public but they're not quite as bad at it as the Wiki page suggests.

All in the run-up for the Obama campaign, what a coincidence!

Originally Posted by Mr Lick

Where the 'shoot to kill' policy has been widely criticised in the UK, the more fashionable term used nowadays is 'Neutralise the Threat'. Additionally, whilst officers generally receive support from senior ranks in the event of a firearms incident they do need to justify their own actions in a court of law.

What I was told was:

britsh police officers are covered by the same reasonable force requirement as the general public and have no more right to kill someone than you or i.e They are effectively only allowed to kill someone if they believe that person poses and immediate threat to the life(s) of others.

The police in the 'mobile armoury' (a police pusut car with enough guns and ammunition to start a small war) can only access their weapons after they have obtained verbal authorisation from a senior officer.

The concept of 'shoot to incapacitate' is a myth, it is impossible to reliably shoot someone to incapacitate them without a serious risk of death. Such a shot would be viewed by the courts as a shot to kill.

Therefore if someone poses an immediate risk to the lives to others, then the only shot that can reliably protect those at risk is a kill shot. If you don't need to kill, you have no business firing your gun. Hence the UK police only train to kill and only shoot to kill.

To me this is very is all very logical and very reasonable and personally I have no issue with this shoot to kill policy.

Talking of the emotional costs these officers face; they told me about a colleague who shot and killed a 5 year old boy. He was part of a team executing an arrest warrant at the home of the wanted man. he had a history of possessing and using firearms and more worrying from their point of view shooting at police officers.

They raided the house at 4 am and whilst securing the house, this officer saw movement under a duvet and shot it. This was the 5 year old son of the gent they were arresting. The option of the police investigation, the CPS and public in general was that the officer did the right thing under the circumstances, it was an unfortunate set of circumstances responsibility for which laid squarely with the father, his history of offending and lifestyle. The shooting officer didn't see it that way, never really forgave himself and was never quite the same man again.

You've got a very good memory Hazz.

Section 3 (1) Criminal law Act 1967 states:- 3. — (1) A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large

so yes, it does apply to any person and not merely police officers.

UK armed officers, it must be said, are not taught to wound a suspect by targeting limbs during range qualifcation. The centre body mass is the aim and therefore officers will never be criticised for justifiably killing an armed suspect rather than wounding. This doesn't prevent officers from wounding but one must realise that if an armed suspect is e.g. shot in the leg he may be still capable of harming someone.

British police also do not fire warning shots although verbal warnings are always given (where possible)

I believe the 5 year old boy you are refering to was shot in 1985. A very unfortunate death which resulted in a policy change to establish specialised armed units.

Another unfortunate event was the shooting of Gail Kinchild 5 years earlier. She was being used as a shield by her boyfriend who was descending a staircase which armed officers were ascending. He discharged a shotgun at the police and they instinctively returned fire in self defence killing Gail and her unborn child.

Again this was at a time when officers did not undergo specialist training.

Training has moved on significantly since the 80's. The professionalism in dealing with armed suspects has improved immensely and rightly so. It really is a last resort to have to fire ones weapon with the intention of harming/killing a human. An act that even highly trained officers don't relish.

Lets also not forget that over 80 British police officers have lost their lives in the line of duty since 1980.

Originally Posted by Jesus Jones

All in the run-up for the Obama campaign, what a coincidence!

It's a conspiracy I tells ya.

^I think jesus thinks life itself is a conspiracy, probably between god and the devil