New Met police video

[1TILL5 142]

Without going into too much detail about ongoing Criminal investigations I remember reading some time ago many Met officers were threatening to hand their firearms ticket in due to certain events.

 

If this still something being seriously considered? I do really think the Police need to push hard for better treatment whether it be stikes or soft quitting. Whilst the met have no handled themselves in glory is seems them and other forces never even get a fair hearing when it comes to their treatment. 

 

I used taser  multiple occasions and the scrutiny on one particular job was so incredibly ridiculous I felt about handing my ticket it.  

[Zulu 22 + 4,642]

59 minutes ago, 1TILL5 said:

Without going into too much detail about ongoing Criminal investigations I remember reading some time ago many Met officers were threatening to hand their firearms ticket in due to certain events.

If this still something being seriously considered? I do really think the Police need to push hard for better treatment whether it be stikes or soft quitting. Whilst the met have no handled themselves in glory is seems them and other forces never even get a fair hearing when it comes to their treatment. 

I used taser  multiple occasions and the scrutiny on one particular job was so incredibly ridiculous I felt about handing my ticket it.  

I believe that the Met have a serious problem with FA officers handing in their tickets.  I have to wonder if this had anything to do with them appointing the totally wrong and out of control officers like Couzens.

When things are going right you are the Bees knees but when there is a hitch of any kind you find that the backing from above is less than zero. The only backup comes from the Federation.  I can tell you from experience as it was a similar incident and lack of backing for me and one of my officers which led to me handing in my Firearms Authorisation.   It did two things though, it released a lot of anxiety and it also put a block on any further promotion.  You cannot ask officers to put their lives at risk and then fail to give them total backup and support. At the moment, as a senior officer and you back an officer you can find yourself ostracised.

When your decent officers hand in their authority you then find that they are often replaced with totally unacceptable officers who should not be in charge of a Pea shooter, never mind a lethal weapon.

Edited April 1 by Zulu 22

[Richhamdo + 878]

27 minutes ago, 1TILL5 said:

Without going into too much detail about ongoing Criminal investigations I remember reading some time ago many Met officers were threatening to hand their firearms ticket in due to certain events.

 

If this still something being seriously considered? I do really think the Police need to push hard for better treatment whether it be stikes or soft quitting. Whilst the met have no handled themselves in glory is seems them and other forces never even get a fair hearing when it comes to their treatment. 

 

I used taser  multiple occasions and the scrutiny on one particular job was so incredibly ridiculous I felt about handing my ticket it.  

@1TILL5  I have always been interested in use of force for defence  ever since our training officer told us  (over a couple of Wednesday evenings in the early seventies) about the ramifications of an appeal in a case ( Palmer v Regina) he had been following . I expect most people are aware of this case but in a nutshell and for the new ones to the job it was about Mr Palmer who was been chased by some ganga dealers after “making off without payment” after the deal went wrong apparently.

They we’re chasing him and some other guys and also throwing rocks and carrying big sticks with the intent of a bit of GBH I expect. It was alleged that Palmer shot one of them with a twelve bore as I recall .

I will come to the point. At the end of it all the arguments, Lord Morris said (and I quote)  “ If there  has been an attack so that defence is reasonably necessary ,it will be recognised that a person defending himself (or herself I presume)  cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his (or her) defensive action.
He went on to say that if a jury thought in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he (or she) honestly and instinctively thought was necessary that would be most potent evidence  that only reasonable defensive action had been taken. 
I note that Lord Morris said the word  “necessary” plenty of times so if the force used was “necessary” then that should go a long way as justification. 

Fortunately during my time in the specials I never needed to tell anyone in the corridors of power all this as I didn’t have cause to gas or asp anyone, but I had my cross blocks and takedowns down to a fine art 😀.Rich. 

 

[BlueBob + 701]

My quick take on AFOs. we know the public, police and politicians expect them to do the job, and drop them as soon as they actually do it.  Total respect that they have taken a step further  forward to expose themselves to those additional threats that I would not.   
 

 

[Zulu 22 + 4,642]

On 01/04/2023 at 12:34, Richhamdo said:

@1TILL5  I have always been interested in use of force for defence  ever since our training officer told us  (over a couple of Wednesday evenings in the early seventies) about the ramifications of an appeal in a case ( Palmer v Regina) he had been following . I expect most people are aware of this case but in a nutshell and for the new ones to the job it was about Mr Palmer who was been chased by some ganga dealers after “making off without payment” after the deal went wrong apparently.

They we’re chasing him and some other guys and also throwing rocks and carrying big sticks with the intent of a bit of GBH I expect. It was alleged that Palmer shot one of them with a twelve bore as I recall .

I will come to the point. At the end of it all the arguments, Lord Morris said (and I quote)  “ If there  has been an attack so that defence is reasonably necessary ,it will be recognised that a person defending himself (or herself I presume)  cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his (or her) defensive action.
He went on to say that if a jury thought in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he (or she) honestly and instinctively thought was necessary that would be most potent evidence  that only reasonable defensive action had been taken. 
I note that Lord Morris said the word  “necessary” plenty of times so if the force used was “necessary” then that should go a long way as justification. 

Fortunately during my time in the specials I never needed to tell anyone in the corridors of power all this as I didn’t have cause to gas or asp anyone, but I had my cross blocks and takedowns down to a fine art 😀.Rich. 

 

That case had happened in the West Indies (1971) and the man was convicted.  His appeal reached out High Court.  The finding was that you could defend yourself using reasonable force.  The appeal was dismissed as using a shotgun was not reasonable force.  Lets face it you do not just happen to have a shotgun handy in an everyday situation.

Palmer (1971) AC 814 Privy Council on appeal from the Court of Appeal of Jamaica

The appellant and two others were chased by three men after they stole some ganja. The three men had sticks and stones. During the chase the appellant fired shots. One of the men chasing them died of as a result of gun shot. The appellant's case was that he had not fired the shot which killed the man although the trial judge directed the jury on self-defence. The jury convicted him of murder. He appealed contending that the judge in directing the jury on self-defence should have put an alternative verdict of manslaughter to the jury.

Held:

Appeal dismissed. There is no option for a verdict of manslaughter where a defendant uses excessive force in self-defence. The defence either succeeds in its entirety or it fails. Juries may take into account the situation of the defendant in deciding if the force is excessive and in so doing may take into account the position of dilemma facing the defendant.


Lord Morris:

"If there has been an attack so that defence is reasonably necessary it will be recognised that a person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his necessary defensive action. If a Jury thought that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought was necessary that would be most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken."

 

Edited April 8 by Zulu 22

[SD + 714]

On 01/04/2023 at 11:18, 1TILL5 said:

Without going into too much detail about ongoing Criminal investigations I remember reading some time ago many Met officers were threatening to hand their firearms ticket in due to certain events.

 

If this still something being seriously considered? I do really think the Police need to push hard for better treatment whether it be stikes or soft quitting. Whilst the met have no handled themselves in glory is seems them and other forces never even get a fair hearing when it comes to their treatment. 

 

I used taser  multiple occasions and the scrutiny on one particular job was so incredibly ridiculous I felt about handing my ticket it.  

They won't do it because they'll get sent back frontline, it's hyperbole to make a point, nothing more. It's the same for most specialist roles.

[Ether + 1,437]

23 hours ago, SD said:

They won't do it because they'll get sent back frontline, it's hyperbole to make a point, nothing more. It's the same for most specialist roles.

This is exactly right!