Manchester synagogue attack

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

CXRAndy

Squire
I'll bet you were typing this one-handed.

That's how you deal with protestors that try and force through a line of security or police.

Whether it's teatowel lefties or far right thugs.

My preference is water cannon

View: https://x.com/MarineF18ret1/status/1972503475310432273?t=v5EQeeqzawNAVIDjOCtDrg&s=19


I missed the old days
:okay:
 

winjim

Welcome yourself into the new modern crisis
The implication of your post appeared to be that errors have occurred due to people making split second decisions when in reality they had time to reflect.
I pretty sure the rules of engagement are rigorous and unlikely to be improved by the input of you or me.

Two people are dead. Something's gone terribly wrong and we shouldn't simply shrug our shoulders. The reflection part should happen after every incident and inform the handling of the next one. That's not hindsight, it's continuous improvement or at least it should be.

I don't know what the rules of engagement are or whether they were adhered to, but I'm fairly sure that shooting dead the people you're supposed to be protecting is A Bad Thing and means that the entire operation needs to be looked at very, very carefully.
 

bobzmyunkle

Über Member
Two people are dead. Something's gone terribly wrong and we shouldn't simply shrug our shoulders. The reflection part should happen after every incident and inform the handling of the next one. That's not hindsight, it's continuous improvement or at least it should be.

I don't know what the rules of engagement are or whether they were adhered to, but I'm fairly sure that shooting dead the people you're supposed to be protecting is A Bad Thing and means that the entire operation needs to be looked at very, very carefully.

And that's part of the process isn't it?
 
And that's part of the process isn't it?

Here's a handy summary:

https://news.sky.com/story/what-hap...heir-guns-and-why-are-they-concerned-12969613

What happens to officers if they fire their guns?

Each AFO is "individually responsible and accountable for their decisions and actions", according to College of Policing.

When police use their guns and it results in serious injury or death, there is a relatively long process of accountability.

A mandatory referral is made to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC), which then carries out an investigation into the circumstances.

It can recommend a criminal investigation, which is prepared by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) before going to court.

The decision whether to launch misconduct or gross misconduct proceedings against the officer is referred back to the police force.

They will be suspended or put on restricted duties while they're ongoing and can ultimately see them sacked or having their rank reduced.

If someone has died, an inquest will likely be opened. The coroner doesn't launch criminal proceedings but can declare whether the person was unlawfully killed, which will result in a criminal case.

By contrast, AFOs have the right to refuse an order to use force or firearms and not face criminal or disciplinary proceedings.

If police chiefs are found to "know or should have known" their officers unlawfully used guns or force and didn't act to stop them, they can also be investigated.
 
Two people are dead. Something's gone terribly wrong and we shouldn't simply shrug our shoulders. The reflection part should happen after every incident and inform the handling of the next one. That's not hindsight, it's continuous improvement or at least it should be.

I don't know what the rules of engagement are or whether they were adhered to, but I'm fairly sure that shooting dead the people you're supposed to be protecting is A Bad Thing and means that the entire operation needs to be looked at very, very carefully.

There was an interview with a retired police officer with extensive firearms experience on Times Radio early afternoon Saturday.

He made several factual points about risks of using guns in a situation like that on Thursday.

As well as the obvious split second decision making and ID there are things like ricochets, or bullets going through glass, wood or metal. The velocity of the projectile and its type is such that even after hitting a target it can exit with sufficient energy to kill or massively injure another person whom it encounters.

Innocent people moving into into a line of fire is another.
 

PurplePenguin

Active Member
I know very little about guns, but it always struck me as strange that some unarmed civilians managed to tackle the bloke on London Bridge who was then shot with bullets that ricocheted through a bus.
 
  • Like
Reactions: C R
OP
OP
Beebo

Beebo

Guru
I know very little about guns, but it always struck me as strange that some unarmed civilians managed to tackle the bloke on London Bridge who was then shot with bullets that ricocheted through a bus.

They shot him at almost point blank range.
There is footage on line.
I would guess that the bullets hit the solid granite bridge wall and bounced back.
But it shows how dangerous the ricochet can be.
 
I know very little about guns, but it always struck me as strange that some unarmed civilians managed to tackle the bloke on London Bridge who was then shot with bullets that ricocheted through a bus.

You probably don't want to go Googling about how different bullets are 'engineered' to do different things when they meet human flesh. The science of killing people by various means is well funded.
 
  • Sad
Reactions: C R
Top Bottom