Reminder Secure

Mark Duggan - Lawful killing

Paul Hodson is off-line
11 January 2014 18:04
mph
Photographer
mph
Location
United Kingdom
Cheshire
Crewe

Quote from tonycsm
Had that officer been at my firearms club holding his gun in that manner, he'd have been thrown out good and quick !  If that's the 'professional' level of training of police who handle firearms, then no one is safe!



In fairness, the guy in front of him might have been shagging his wife so.........
Amateur - happy to do TF with models with potential and enthusiasm. Website: www.mphodson.co.uk


Tony Stephenson is off-line
11 January 2014 18:15
tonycsm
Photographer
tonycsm
Location
United Kingdom
East Yorkshire
Driffield

Quote from mph
In fairness, the guy in front of him might have been shagging his wife so.........



Not for much longer by the looks of it!laugh

www.le-femme.co.uk


charley-marie is off-line
11 January 2014 18:22
charlotte90
Model
charlotte90
Location
United Kingdom
London
south london

Gun or no gun no1 deserves to be killed!!


Paul Hodson is off-line
11 January 2014 18:31
mph
Photographer
mph
Location
United Kingdom
Cheshire
Crewe

Quote from charlotte90
Gun or no gun no1 deserves to be killed!!



You might not feel like that if someone was pointing one at you!
Amateur - happy to do TF with models with potential and enthusiasm. Website: www.mphodson.co.uk


Skymouse is off-lineGold Member
11 January 2014 19:03
skymouse
Photographer
skymouse
Location
United Kingdom
London
London

Quote from photostore
Strangely for me as i'm not a police fan at all but I agree. gun or not in his hand at the time, if you drive about the streets armed with a firearm there is a good reason for anyone not to wait to get shot at !
Carry a gun in the street, expect the worst from the police or any rival.

guess the riots will start again this evening




Agree 100%.

But I wish the media would stop making connections between the shooting and the riots.

The riots were not IN ANY WAY "triggered" or "started" by the shooting. The riots started because a bunch of OPPORTUNISTIC CRIMINALS conspired to carry out serious and violent crimes. The only cause was in the criminality of the participants; it had no antecendent in a shooting, or in poverty, or any other alleged excuse.
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." - Groucho Marx.


Beaverray is off-lineSilver Member
11 January 2014 19:34
beaverray
Photographer
beaverray
Location
United Kingdom
Cambridgeshire


I don't think there is any doubt that the individual who lost his life was someone regularly on the wrong side of the law and who had several serious convictions to his name so the cries of 'he was a good boy really' don't ring true but that being said, for the police to use lethal force lawfully, the officer(s) who open fire must have a honest held belief that they or the public are in immediate danger of being shot and the facts are that Mark Duggan was not in possession of a firearm when he was shot.

Whether it was in the footwell, the boot, or discarded moments before the stop was made the officers have to be certain of the immediate danger before opening fire. It is all to easy for the public, the media and the IPCC to be able to take months looking at evidence after the event when the front line officers have a split second to make a life or death decision however then a firearms unit turns up to such an event they have several tactical options to consider, CS, Taser or firearm . I am in no doubt that the officer saw an object in the individual's hand that he believed to be a firearm but later turned out to be a phone but unless someone is 100% sure that the object is a firearm the non lethal options must always be considered.

All that being said......hindsight is a wonderful thing and none of us were in the position where we had that split second judgement call to make.


Tony Stephenson is off-line
11 January 2014 20:32
tonycsm
Photographer
tonycsm
Location
United Kingdom
East Yorkshire
Driffield

Quote from beaverray
I don't think there is any doubt that the individual who lost his life was someone regularly on the wrong side of the law and who had several serious convictions to his name so the cries of 'he was a good boy really' don't ring true but that being said, for the police to use lethal force lawfully, the officer(s) who open fire must have a honest held belief that they or the public are in immediate danger of being shot and the facts are that Mark Duggan was not in possession of a firearm when he was shot. Whether it was in the footwell, the boot, or discarded moments before the stop was made the officers have to be certain of the immediate danger before opening fire. It is all to easy for the public, the media and the IPCC to be able to take months looking at evidence after the event when the front line officers have a split second to make a life or death decision however then a firearms unit turns up to such an event they have several tactical options to consider, CS, Taser or firearm . I am in no doubt that the officer saw an object in the individual's hand that he believed to be a firearm but later turned out to be a phone but unless someone is 100% sure that the object is a firearm the non lethal options must always be considered. All that being said......hindsight is a wonderful thing and none of us were in the position where we had that split second judgement call to make.



A reasonable and balanced post with the exception that Duggan only had two minor convictions - one for poossession of canabis and one for handling some stolen goods....both of which were only modest fines and no imprisonment, the last conviction in 2007, so hardly serious convictions!

www.le-femme.co.uk


Iain Thomson is off-linePlatinum Member
12 January 2014 05:39
IainT
Photographer
IainT
Location
United Kingdom
Bedfordshire


Again I,m going to say its very easy for those who have never been, or ever will be in the situation to pass judgement.

It makes no difference how highly trained armed police officers are and UK officers are more highly trained generally than almost any other country and in the case of specialist units probably amongst the best armed Police units in the world, mistakes will occassionally happen....it s impossible to erradicate human error...but the stats show that in the UK human error amongst armed Police is about as low as it possibly could be.

You have no idea how closely supervised and micro-managed Police firearms units are. They are constantly evaluated and assessed for their continued suitability. Every part of deployment is strictly controlled down to the exact calibre, exact load and exact style of round they are allowed to use.

But when an armed officer confronts a threat, he or she is absolutely on their own, its absolutely their decission to open fire and the consequenses are absolutely their responsibility. But its a split second decission taken at a point of extreme stress. No amount of training, no matter how realistic prepares the officer for that moment.

And lets not forget, on this occassion the officer was confronting an individual who was known to be habitually armed and believed to be armed at that time.

In the circumstances it would be unthinkable for the Officer to face any form of criminal procedings.
I tend to be a modest man, but then I do have a lot to be modest about.


Steve Guy is off-line
12 January 2014 17:39
Sdeve
Photographer

Location
United Kingdom
Derbyshire
Derby

Quote from IainT
Again I,m going to say its very easy for those who have never been, or ever will be in the situation to pass judgement.

It makes no difference how highly trained armed police officers are and UK officers are more highly trained generally than almost any other country and in the case of specialist units probably amongst the best armed Police units in the world, mistakes will occassionally happen....it s impossible to erradicate human error...but the stats show that in the UK human error amongst armed Police is about as low as it possibly could be.

You have no idea how closely supervised and micro-managed Police firearms units are. They are constantly evaluated and assessed for their continued suitability. Every part of deployment is strictly controlled down to the exact calibre, exact load and exact style of round they are allowed to use.

But when an armed officer confronts a threat, he or she is absolutely on their own, its absolutely their decission to open fire and the consequenses are absolutely their responsibility. But its a split second decission taken at a point of extreme stress. No amount of training, no matter how realistic prepares the officer for that moment.

And lets not forget, on this occassion the officer was confronting an individual who was known to be habitually armed and believed to be armed at that time.

In the circumstances it would be unthinkable for the Officer to face any form of criminal procedings.



A balanced and reasonable post. I would agree that the officer shouldn't face criminal proceedings for any shooting related issue.

But (of course!) I would take issue with the suggestion that they are some of the best trained in the world. That is what they say, but then they would, wouldn't they. I agree they're good, but they are good only at what they are trained to do and that is not always the best thing to do, although the, of course would say it is. When the only solution you have is a hammer, then every problem starts to look like a nail.

DeMenezes is an instance. The shooters were beyond doubt acting with immense bravery but the wrong man was shot. The senior officer in charge was nevertheless promoted and given a medal. PC Ian Terry was shot and killed in a training exercise described as deeply flawed, as a result of negligence by the exercise instructor and he shooting officer, yet the only criminal action brought was under the Health and Safety legislation, as opposed to the manslaughter charge so richly deserved. Terry Nicholas was gunned down in a police operation, shot 20 times in the head and neck in an arrest plan that meant his death was inevitable from the time the first police vehicle moved forward. There's more, but that should give a flavour.

As for the quality of training and selection I can only say what I know. That many club ranges asked either refuse to allow police officers to train on their premises because of their negligent practices or don't allow them back a second time. As for carefully selected, did you look at that picture I posted. The same unit that was responsible for the death of PC Terry. Real quality selection there.

The final problem is the lie machine that swings into action to protect the officers involved. That is the most damaging thing of all, IMO.


Alan Johnson is off-line
13 January 2014 10:23
Alan_Jay
Photographer
Alan_Jay
Location
United Kingdom
South Yorkshire


Quote from Sdeve
A balanced and reasonable post. I would agree that the officer shouldn't face criminal proceedings for any shooting related issue. But (of course!) I would take issue with the suggestion that they are some of the best trained in the world. That is what they say, but then they would, wouldn't they. I agree they're good, but they are good only at what they are trained to do and that is not always the best thing to do, although the, of course would say it is. When the only solution you have is a hammer, then every problem starts to look like a nail. DeMenezes is an instance. The shooters were beyond doubt acting with immense bravery but the wrong man was shot. The senior officer in charge was nevertheless promoted and given a medal. PC Ian Terry was shot and killed in a training exercise described as deeply flawed, as a result of negligence by the exercise instructor and he shooting officer, yet the only criminal action brought was under the Health and Safety legislation, as opposed to the manslaughter charge so richly deserved. Terry Nicholas was gunned down in a police operation, shot 20 times in the head and neck in an arrest plan that meant his death was inevitable from the time the first police vehicle moved forward. There's more, but that should give a flavour. As for the quality of training and selection I can only say what I know. That many club ranges asked either refuse to allow police officers to train on their premises because of their negligent practices or don't allow them back a second time. As for carefully selected, did you look at that picture I posted. The same unit that was responsible for the death of PC Terry. Real quality selection there. The final problem is the lie machine that swings into action to protect the officers involved. That is the most damaging thing of all, IMO.



The image you posted requires some context.  It certainly appears to me to have been posed.  The 'target's' right hand position/geture suggests this very strongly.  As such,  it no more indicates the level of police training than any other image involving firearms as a prop.

As to shooting clubs not allowing training,  well in the 45 years I've been involved with firearms,  I've never heard of the police using a civilian shooting club for training.  I do know, and have heard, of a large number who have police officers amongst their members.

Like probably everyone on this forum,  I do not have detailed, first hand knowledge of the quality of training in the UK vs the rest of the world.  From the little knowledge I do have,  I would suggest that we do have one of the best trained armed police in the world.  Likewise that they deserve the enviable reputation that they have.
You can't buy happiness, but you can buy a motorbike and that's pretty close! :o)



23 Users currently online   Blue=Models Orange=Photographers Red=Agencies Purple=MUA/Stylists Grey=Studios Green=Moderators
HazelAries Krystald rob452 winX
bernadinism bob casell clarmike cliffc ianscales Impression James7799 Johnathons Kjoservices Lumen nemesis Nessie nunude ohkan orca_photography pellium Steveharratt Thunder_Photos