Can the (Met) police ever change?

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

Re Cris Kaba case:

"A spokesperson for the Met Police Federation said being a firearms officer in London was "one of the world's toughest jobs", and that decision would "leave serving Metropolitan Police colleagues concerned as they go about their incredibly difficult and dangerous work".

Dangerous for whom?

I ask because I'm struggling to recall the last time I heard of an armed officer dying on duty.

So your suggesting they should die more often so you can see the seriousness of their job?
You seem to be willing to ignore basic facts which includes that armed police isn't a standard practice they are only called in when the police have a serious reason to call in these specially trained officers.

And indeed, the victim was being followed by the police(you know sirens stop sings multiple police cars) , and only stopped when he was blocked by an other police car, so maybe there is a little bit more to this story, i mean if he was just a construction worker why wouldn't he simply stop on the side of the road?
I don't say he deserved to die or something but

Armed Met police seem unhappy that they can be called to account. This strike action in all but name almost amounts to blackmail.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ort-from-army-after-officers-turn-in-firearms

Nope that's not what is says, apparently many armed officers, don't feel protected enough hand in their weapons. Nowhere it claims their against being held to account. They are being held to account for years apperrently something has changed now and that result into them turning in their weapons. So that mean either their wrong and the Police needs the MoD (an agreement they already have now) in the interim and train new weapon officers long term or they have a point and the policy needs changing.

 

[Ian H]

Nope that's not what is says, apparently many armed officers, don't feel protected enough hand in their weapons. Nowhere it claims their against being held to account. They are being held to account for years apperrently something has changed now and that result into them turning in their weapons. So that mean either their wrong and the Police needs the MoD (an agreement they already have now) in the interim and train new weapon officers long term or they have a point and the policy needs changing.

Obviously they wouldn't actually say out loud that they should be able to kill with impunity.

 

[matticus]

Armed Met police seem unhappy that they can be called to account. This strike action in all but name almost amounts to blackmail.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ort-from-army-after-officers-turn-in-firearms

Are murder charges the best form of accountability?

 

[Rusty Nails]

Obviously they wouldn't actually say out loud that they should be able to kill with impunity.

Because nowhere has it even been suggested that they should.

It is far too complicated for soundbites, whether on this forum, or from Braverman.

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

Obviously they wouldn't actually say out loud that they should be able to kill with impunity.

So due to the lack of facts you fill in the motives for them, nice one!
Let me remind you of something, accountability for Armed officers didn't came falling out of the blue skies, it has been part of parcel for a long time.
So if so many officers hand in their weapons after this case, which is a step above a ''protest'' like you called it because defacto they give up (part) off their job.
Once again one in which left wing media gets to portray the victim as an absolute angel, the initial report which says he failed to stop until he couldn't go any further because he was blocked makes it look otherwise.

 

[Ian H]

Are murder charges the best form of accountability?

Only if they've murdered someone.

 

[matticus]

Only if they've murdered someone.

Thank you for this nuanced yet highly productive discussion.

I've learned a lot.

 

[Ian H]

Thank you for this nuanced yet highly productive discussion.

I've learned a lot.

Show me the nuance in a fatal gunshot.

 

[Rusty Nails]

Show me the nuance in a fatal gunshot.

A soundbite disguised as an aphorism.

The nuance is not in the gunshot, as you know, but in the circumstances leading to it and the decisions made by the authorities/justice system.

 

[Ian H]

A soundbite disguised as an aphorism.

The nuance is not in the gunshot, as you know, but in the circumstances leading to it and the decisions made by the authorities/justice system.

"Split-second decision" was a phrase I read in relation to this murder. Not much time for 'nuance'.

 

[theclaud]

It is far too complicated

What is? Not shooting unarmed civilians?

 

[Rusty Nails]

"Split-second decision" was a phrase I read in relation to this murder. Not much time for 'nuance'.

That's OK then, let's not bother with the bigger picture and the details, but base opinions on "a phrase I read".

Not being an expert on people being killed by armed police or even soldiers I would have imagined that most deaths are due to "a split second decision" but that gives no indication of the circumstances leading up to it or what are the agreed rules of engagement/protocols.

As with any other case that may go to trial I find it much better to wait until arguments and evidence are aired before making disingenuous comments.

I believe the comments by @matticus about nuance were not about the actual gunshot itself but about the level of debate in this thread. But, hey, why bother with facts when there's a point to be laboured.

 

[Rusty Nails]

What is? Not shooting unarmed civilians?

Yes.

See previous post.

 

[multitool]

So your suggesting they should die more often so you can see the seriousness of their job?

Ah, strawman, I see.

You seem to be willing to ignore basic facts which includes that armed police isn't a standard practice they are only called in when the police have a serious reason to call in these specially trained officers.

I'm absolutely certain I know more about the operation of armed police in the UK, than you do.

And indeed, the victim was being followed by the police(you know sirens stop sings multiple police cars) , and only stopped when he was blocked by an other police car, so maybe there is a little bit more to this story, i mean if he was just a construction worker why wouldn't he simply stop on the side of the road?
I don't say he deserved to die or something but

I've no idea why you think any of this verbal arsegravy has anything to do with me or what I posted

 

[matticus]

It's a bit of a cliché that Lefties will criticise plod whatever they do, but sometimes, well ...