Plod happy to risk killing an old bloke for a carrying walking stick

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jardin said:
I wasn't there, but there must be something they can do to protect the disabled whilst keeping us all safe. Was it split-second in this case? I think that if a warning is shouted, you have to be clear that the person is aware it is them being warned, or the warning itself serves or has served no purpose.
Click to expand...
This
 


dangermows said:
The police said the two clubs were the ones wanting early kick offs and for away fans to be on buses only. Both clubs released a statement saying this was a lie and it was always the police insisting on this.

So, now you know the crack why do you think the police lied to the public?
Click to expand...
Do you have a link to where the clubs called the police liars?
 
Jardin said:
I wasn't there, but there must be something they can do to protect the disabled whilst keeping us all safe. Was it split-second in this case? I think that if a warning is shouted, you have to be clear that the person is aware it is them being warned, or the warning itself serves or has served no purpose.
Click to expand...

If they don't respond to a verbal warning do you call skinchies and then ask to see a doctors note?
 
duff_man said:
If they don't respond to a verbal warning do you call skinchies and then ask to see a doctors note?
Click to expand...

When you say "don't respond" there are a few ways of interpreting it surely. Their behaviour might not change at all, like they aren't aware it is them. They could make no response whilst in an aggressive stance or ready to rush someone etc. I'd imagine it isn't (or shouldn't be) as clear cut as just shouting, counting to a split second and firing unless there is some extreme sudden threat. What counts as no response? How is that no response to then be interpreted? I'm glad I don't come up with the procedures though cause it sounds like my number one suggestion of calling skinchies isn't going to go down well.
 
Last edited:
Jardin said:
When you say "don't respond" there are a few ways of interpreting it surely. Their behaviour might not change at all, like they aren't aware it is them. They could make no response whilst in an aggressive stance or ready to rush someone etc. I'd imagine it isn't (or shouldn't be) as clear cut as just shouting, counting to a split second and firing unless there is some extreme sudden threat. What counts as no response? How is that no response to then be interpreted? I'm glad I don't come up with the procedures though cause it sounds like my number one suggestion of calling skinchies isn't going to go down well.
Click to expand...

Thats the thing though. Coppers, especially taser equipped or AFO's, only get a split second to take in all of the information which is constantly changing, they then have to make a judgement call knowing what could potentially happen. Do you think an AFO goes to work on a morning wanting to shoot someone? They know in the back of their mind that if they do pull the trigger then their life is on hold for 18 months to two years. The media will be all over the incident as will the IPCC and armchair detectives like on the SMB, all of whom have the benefit of hindsight and the gift of slow time. The IPCC have leaked officers details in the past to victims families etc putting not only the officer but also their families at significant risk.
If calling skinchies is going to be procedure, please try and get the other side to agree to it too
 
duff_man said:
Thats the thing though. Coppers, especially taser equipped or AFO's, only get a split second to take in all of the information which is constantly changing, they then have to make a judgement call knowing what could potentially happen. Do you think an AFO goes to work on a morning wanting to shoot someone? They know in the back of their mind that if they do pull the trigger then their life is on hold for 18 months to two years. The media will be all over the incident as will the IPCC and armchair detectives like on the SMB, all of whom have the benefit of hindsight and the gift of slow time. The IPCC have leaked officers details in the past to victims families etc putting not only the officer but also their families at significant risk.
If calling skinchies is going to be procedure, please try and get the other side to agree to it too
Click to expand...

The other side have been asking for it ever since tasers came in ;)

In some cases they only get a split second due to imminent danger, but the argument here is over the perceived danger and the qualifying of it. Let's be clear, the police force doesn't want to shoot disabled people accidentally, not just because they are splendid people, but also because it tarnishes the public perception quite badly. The trouble with hindsight is that it can be used as an excuse to cover just about any poor decision making. I still hope they come up with a procedure which ensures it doesn't happen again.
 
Great to see a good discussion finally ongoing. Strange to see that the agenda driven wums dont want to participate in normal, civilised discussion
 
RTRsBM said:
There was a copper sacked in nottingham last week for lying. It was tried to be covered up with "management action" but an appeal to the IPCC meant a very different outcome to that planned internally.
Click to expand...

Doesn't surprise me in the slightest.
 
Last edited:
dangermows said:
This. Closing ranks tactic failed this time.
Click to expand...
You can hardly say its closing ranks when the misconduct hearing will have been held in public can you?

BlackOps said:
Its like when the old chestnut 'closing ranks' comes out yet all disciplinary evidence has come from a fellow officer.
Click to expand...
Is it a lack of basic understanding or an unwillingness to shift from a pre-determined view regardless of what facts are available
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top