Shootings

Absolute nonsense, I proved to you those figures were false

You didn't and haven't.

Again your arrogance and ignorance is showing through, were you at the shooting to be able to judge them, no you wasnt. Of course you will defend your colleagues.:roll:

No, but I just happen to know the process, policies and procedures involved in both the courts and police firearms usage.

Yes he ruled out unlawful killing, the jury ruled that the killing was not lawful which brought an open verdict, thereby preventing the police shooters from being prosecuted. Not one armed copper has ever been brought to justice for killing

Why does someone need to be prosecuted because someone died?

"Sir Michael said a verdict of unlawful killing could only be considered if jurors could be sure a very serious crime, such as murder or manslaughter, had been committed.
He said these factors did “not allow” him to offer unlawful killing as a possible verdict."

It seems pretty clear to me.

Yet again BS, everyone of those is a police shooting. The heading gives it away:-
List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United Kingdom

It says KILLINGS not shootings. You can kill someone without shooting them. Seriously, are you really as thick as pig sh*t?

Edson Da Costa 21 June 2017, Beckton, London - NOT A SHOOTING

Olaseni Lewis 3 September 2010, London- NOT A SHOOTING

Ian Tomlinson 1 April 2009, London - NOT A SHOOTING

Sean Rigg 21 August 2008, Brixton, London - NOT A SHOOTING

How silly did you feel now? :lol:

You say and I quote ""You do realise that not all of those deaths listed are police shootings?"" Yet in the next breath you say "" you'll find that most of those shot was because they were brandishing a weapon or had stabbed/killed someone."":-?

Yes, because MOST of them were shot so therefore not ALL of them were shot.

You've got your facts wrong, not me. How awkward for you. :D

Are held accountable? thats b******te and you know it, as I keep proving to you not one armed copper has been brought to justice for killing someone. Civilians have proven to be safer with firearms then the so called trained police

Yes they are held accountable. Anytime a police firearm is discharged, it is independently investigated by the IPCC.

No I havent faced a suicide bomber yet you ignore the fact that I defended lives by NOT shooting someone, unlike trigger happy police.

Did you have a gun pointed at you?

The police in the UK aren't trigger happy. They only discharged firearms 10 times in 16,000 incidents.

In your link, people were shot for pointing a weapon at the police or were not compliant.

Where shall we go next regarding British police?

I'm not interested in discussing it further with you.
 
:sarc:

That proves nothing this is a government report. :sarc: Apart from that it fails to list the shootings and the reason behind them. Again you are talking absolute rubbish.

Why is it rubbish? If that's the figures then that's the figures. If they don't suit your agenda then thats not my fault. You talk bollocks and then look stupid when the facts are produced.

69 deaths in 28 years. Yeah, trigger happy police eh. :roll:

Fatal Police Shootings (England & Wales) 1990-date
Year Total
2018 1
2017 6
2016 4
2015 3
2014 1
2013 0
2012 1
2011 2
2010 1
2009 2
2008 3
2007 5
2006 1
2005 6
2004 2
2003 2
2002 2
2001 4
2000 2
1999 3
1998 2
1997 0
1996 2
1995 2
1994 1
1993 3
1992 3
1991 3
1990 2
Total: 69

Source: INQUEST casework and monitoring.

INQUEST’s figures are derived from our monitoring and casework and are independent of those produced by the Home Office and other government agencies.
 
You didn't and haven't.

Yes I did, you hate to admit it

No, but I just happen to know the process, policies and procedures involved in both the courts and police firearms usage.

Thats why the IPCC is being replaced because of incompetence.

Yes he ruled out unlawful killing, the jury ruled that the killing was not lawful which brought an open verdict, thereby preventing the police shooters from being prosecuted. Not one armed copper has ever been brought to justice for killing[.]

Why does someone need to be prosecuted because someone died?

If it is excessive force which the police are fond of these days. Remember the news paper seller who was attacked and killed by a copper, who's record of violence with arrests was kept quiet.

"Sir Michael said a verdict of unlawful killing could only be considered if jurors could be sure a very serious crime, such as murder or manslaughter, had been committed.
He said these factors did “not allow” him to offer unlawful killing as a possible verdict."

It seems pretty clear to me.

By reading the evidence in depth there is proof that excessive force was used, CCTV went missing, one copper lied, it goes on and on.

It says KILLINGS not shootings. You can kill someone without shooting them. Seriously, are you really as thick as pig sh*t?

Edson Da Costa 21 June 2017, Beckton, London - NOT A SHOOTING

Olaseni Lewis 3 September 2010, London- NOT A SHOOTING

Ian Tomlinson 1 April 2009, London - NOT A SHOOTING

Sean Rigg 21 August 2008, Brixton, London - NOT A SHOOTING

How silly did you feel now? :lol:

Is that the best you've got numbnut FOUR non shootings. You really are grasping at straws


"Yes they are held accountable. Anytime a police firearm is discharged, it is independently investigated by the IPCC.

The IPCC is being replaced.


Did you have a gun pointed at you?

The police in the UK aren't trigger happy. They only discharged firearms 10 times in 16,000 incidents.

In your link, people were shot for pointing a weapon at the police or were not compliant.

UK cops 'trigger happy'
2005-09-18 12:56
London - British ex-special forces soldiers used to train the nation's armed police on Sunday condemned many of the officers as "trigger happy" and psychologically unsuitable to carry weapons.

The stinging criticism follows the shooting dead in London in July of an innocent Brazilian man by police who feared he was a suicide bomber.

Electrician Jean Charles de Menezes was shot a number of times in the head by anti-terrorist officers as he boarded a London subway train on July 22, when tensions in the capital were high in the aftermath of deadly bombings on July 7.

The case - which deeply shocked a nation where the vast majority of police never carry guns - is being investigated by Britain's Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC).

In a written statement handed to The Sunday Times newspaper, two former members of the British Army's elite Special Air Service (SAS) list their worries about the armed officers they trained.

The men said they believed the officers who killed De Menezes were likely to be among their former charges, although they could not be sure.

The ex-SAS soldiers said many of the police they trained in using guns, who they did not have the authority to fail, had poor skills and were not properly vetted as to their psychological suitability.

"When the tension starts to rise and the adrenaline is flowing, the 'red mist' seems to descend on armed police officers, who become very trigger happy," one soldier wrote in the statement.

"This has been shown time and again in training exercises."

The second soldier was equally scathing.

"We thought that police firearms officers were far more concerned with their personal image, dressing in body armour and looking 'gung ho', than their professional capabilities," he wrote.

"I'm not surprised at the number of mistakes over the years. There is no assessment of physical fitness, no psychological profiling, nothing. It's a major problem."

The statement described a training exercise in which police had to "rescue" hostages from an armed terrorist group which, unknown to them, had been told to surrender without a fight.

In the exercise the police "began firing at everything" although no one had moved.

"The response would have resulted in the unnecessary deaths of all the make-believe terrorists and the hostages alike. So much for the rule of minimum force," the statement said.

The police being trained would often pose for photographs with guns at the training college bar, the statement added.

Superintendent Phil Manns, the head of the CO19 armed unit of London's Metropolitan Police, rejected the criticism, saying his officers received "rigorous" training.

"The nature of the role done by a member of the SAS and a police officer who carries firearms is incredibly different and should not be compared," he added.


Seems the SAS whom I trust a lot more then you reports British police unfit to carry firearms

I'm not interested in discussing it further with you.

Awww I miss our little fights making you look more stupid then you already are :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
Thats why the IPCC is being replaced because of incompetence.

Yes he ruled out unlawful killing, the jury ruled that the killing was not lawful which brought an open verdict, thereby preventing the police shooters from being prosecuted. Not one armed copper has ever been brought to justice for killing[.]

If it is excessive force which the police are fond of these days. Remember the news paper seller who was attacked and killed by a copper, who's record of violence with arrests was kept quiet.

By reading the evidence in depth there is proof that excessive force was used, CCTV went missing, one copper lied, it goes on and on.

Police officers have been charged numerous times for shooting someone dead and have gone on trial. Every time they have been found not guilty. Blame all the jurors if you don't like it. Or maybe they acted lawfully and you just can't accept it.



Is that the best you've got numbnut FOUR non shootings. You really are grasping at straws

That's four more than you said there were. :D

As I've already posted, police firearms haven't been discharged more than 10 times in a year for the past 8 years.

The IPCC is being replaced.

And?

UK cops 'trigger happy'
2005-09-18 12:56
London - British ex-special forces soldiers used to train the nation's armed police on Sunday condemned many of the officers as "trigger happy" and psychologically unsuitable to carry weapons.

The stinging criticism follows the shooting dead in London in July of an innocent Brazilian man by police who feared he was a suicide bomber.

Electrician Jean Charles de Menezes was shot a number of times in the head by anti-terrorist officers as he boarded a London subway train on July 22, when tensions in the capital were high in the aftermath of deadly bombings on July 7.

The case - which deeply shocked a nation where the vast majority of police never carry guns - is being investigated by Britain's Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC).

In a written statement handed to The Sunday Times newspaper, two former members of the British Army's elite Special Air Service (SAS) list their worries about the armed officers they trained.

The men said they believed the officers who killed De Menezes were likely to be among their former charges, although they could not be sure.

The ex-SAS soldiers said many of the police they trained in using guns, who they did not have the authority to fail, had poor skills and were not properly vetted as to their psychological suitability.

"When the tension starts to rise and the adrenaline is flowing, the 'red mist' seems to descend on armed police officers, who become very trigger happy," one soldier wrote in the statement.

"This has been shown time and again in training exercises."

The second soldier was equally scathing.

"We thought that police firearms officers were far more concerned with their personal image, dressing in body armour and looking 'gung ho', than their professional capabilities," he wrote.

"I'm not surprised at the number of mistakes over the years. There is no assessment of physical fitness, no psychological profiling, nothing. It's a major problem."

The statement described a training exercise in which police had to "rescue" hostages from an armed terrorist group which, unknown to them, had been told to surrender without a fight.

In the exercise the police "began firing at everything" although no one had moved.

"The response would have resulted in the unnecessary deaths of all the make-believe terrorists and the hostages alike. So much for the rule of minimum force," the statement said.

The police being trained would often pose for photographs with guns at the training college bar, the statement added.

Superintendent Phil Manns, the head of the CO19 armed unit of London's Metropolitan Police, rejected the criticism, saying his officers received "rigorous" training.

"The nature of the role done by a member of the SAS and a police officer who carries firearms is incredibly different and should not be compared," he added.


Seems the SAS whom I trust a lot more then you reports British police unfit to carry firearms

How the military use firearms is completely the opposite way that the police use them.

Awww I miss our little fights:mrgreen:

You need to get out more. :D
 
Police officers have been charged numerous times for shooting someone dead and have gone on trial. Every time they have been found not guilty. Blame all the jurors if you don't like it. Or maybe they acted lawfully and you just can't accept it.

Yet not one has been convicted, that to me is suspicious

PThat's four more than you said there were. :D

Now that is grasping at straws

As I've already posted, police firearms haven't been discharged more than 10 times in a year for the past 8 years.

Thats ten times too many for trigger happy coppers


Goes to show its flawed

How the military use firearms is completely the opposite way that the police use them.

What blast away at anything that moves???

You need to get out more. :D

Awww thats nice of you, are we friends now??:mrgreen:

I thought you wasnt going to debate with me anymore.
 
Yet not one has been convicted, that to me is suspicious

Or it proves that the police officers have all acted lawfully?

Now that is grasping at straws

Says the man who was adamant earlier that they were all shot......

Thats ten times too many for trigger happy coppers

How can they be trigger happy when they've only discharged their firearms 10 times out of 16,000 incidents? :???:

Goes to show its flawed

The IPCC has ended the careers of many police officers when they've done wrong.

What blast away at anything that moves???

That's how the military operates yes.

Awww thats nice of you, are we friends now??:mrgreen:

I thought you wasnt going to debate with me anymore.

Friends? :lol:

I was taught to be respectful to the elderly. :D
 
Froggy, over here in the states it's bad. I know a few places where I can be totally unarmed, fully cooperative, hands in the air, and every cop that gets "there" to the call out site, EVERY COP will have their weapon drawn on me. In fact. that is exactly what happened when I reported a theft from my truck.
If cops are so damned trigger happy, they need to find a different job. Some of them are looking for an excuse to kill someone.




But is that an indication of something drastically wrong in society when police forces have become too afraid to trust anyone including the victim?


I think since 9/11 police forces have moved from maintenance of law and order to counter terrorism organisations and I am not entirely sure many of your average police recruits are capable psychologically to fill that role.
 
Or it proves that the police officers have all acted lawfully?

It proves no such thing


Says the man who was adamant earlier that they were all shot......

4 were stabbed? Now you really are clutching at straws.:rolleyes:

How can they be trigger happy when they've only discharged their firearms 10 times out of 16,000 incidents? :???:

It doesnt matter how many times a firearm is discharged, The ex-SAS soldiers said many of the police they trained in using guns, who they did not have the authority to fail, had poor skills and were not properly vetted as to their psychological suitability.

The IPCC has ended the careers of many police officers when they've done wrong.

It needs to end a few more. "When the tension starts to rise and the adrenaline is flowing, the 'red mist' seems to descend on armed police officers, who become very trigger happy," one soldier wrote in the statement. The police being trained would often pose for photographs with guns at the training college bar, the statement added.

"This has been shown time and again in training exercises."

That's how the military operates yes.

"We thought that police firearms officers were far more concerned with their personal image, dressing in body armour and looking 'gung ho', than their professional capabilities," he wrote.

"I'm not surprised at the number of mistakes over the years. There is no assessment of physical fitness, no psychological profiling, nothing. It's a major problem."

The statement described a training exercise in which police had to "rescue" hostages from an armed terrorist group which, unknown to them, had been told to surrender without a fight.

In the exercise the police "began firing at everything" although no one had moved.


Friends? :lol:

I was taught to be respectful to the elderly. :D

I was taught to trust a policeman.......YEAH RIGHT, as far as I could throw one.:D
 
Last edited:
It doesnt matter how many times a firearm is discharged, The ex-SAS soldiers said many of the police they trained in using guns, who they did not have the authority to fail, had poor skills and were not properly vetted as to their psychological suitability.

It needs to end a few more. "When the tension starts to rise and the adrenaline is flowing, the 'red mist' seems to descend on armed police officers, who become very trigger happy," one soldier wrote in the statement. The police being trained would often pose for photographs with guns at the training college bar, the statement added.

"This has been shown time and again in training exercises."

"We thought that police firearms officers were far more concerned with their personal image, dressing in body armour and looking 'gung ho', than their professional capabilities," he wrote.

"I'm not surprised at the number of mistakes over the years. There is no assessment of physical fitness, no psychological profiling, nothing. It's a major problem."

The statement described a training exercise in which police had to "rescue" hostages from an armed terrorist group which, unknown to them, had been told to surrender without a fight.

In the exercise the police "began firing at everything" although no one had moved.

Potential police firearms officers undergo psychological assessments and profiling before being allowed to join. So what you've posted above is false.

Are you 100% certain that the people saying this were actually ex-SAS? They don't sound like it to me.

Why do I think that? Because of this:

"The police being trained would often pose for photographs with guns at the training college bar, the statement added"

Anyone who has been on any military base, will know that weapons are not taken into any mess bar. So why would some claiming to be ex-SAS say something that simply doesn't happen?
 
To bring up the guns and the debate about them can activate the Americans here. If I were living state side, and being an American, I would probably have an AR-15. Not for safety though. I would have it only for having fun at a shooting range.
So...if someone breaks into your house it would stay in the safe?

In the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy, President Obama issued a list of Executive Orders. Notably among them, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) was given $10 million to research gun violence.


“Year after year, those who oppose even modest gun-safety measures have threatened to defund scientific or medical research into the causes of gun violence, I will direct the Centers for Disease Control to go ahead and study the best ways to reduce it,” Obama said on Jan. 16.

As a result, a 1996 Congressional ban on research by the CDC “to advocate or promote gun control” was lifted. Finally, anti-gun proponents—and presumably the Obama Administration—thought gun owners and the NRA would be met with irrefutable scientific evidence to support why guns make Americans less safe.

Mainstream media outlets praised the order to lift the ban and lambasted the NRA and Congress for having put it in place.

It was the “Executive Order the NRA Should Fear the Most,” according to The Atlantic.

The CDC ban on gun research “caused lasting damage,” reported ABC News.

Salon said the ban was part of the NRA’s “war on gun science.”

And CBS News lamented that the NRA “stymied” CDC research.

Most mainstream journalists argued the NRA’s opposition to CDC gun research demonstrated its fear of being contradicted by science; few—if any—cited why the NRA may have had legitimate concerns. The culture of the CDC at the time could hardly be described as lacking bias on firearms.

“We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes,” Dr. Mark Rosenberg, who oversaw CDC gun research, told The Washington Post in 1994. “Now [smoking] is dirty, deadly and banned.”

Does Rosenberg sound like a man who should be trusted to conduct taxpayer-funded studies on guns?

Rosenberg’s statement coincided with a CDC study by Arthur Kellermann and Donald Reay, who argued guns in the home are 43 times more likely to be used to kill a family member than an intruder. The study had serious flaws; namely, it skewed the ratio by failing to consider defensive uses of firearms in which the intruder wasn’t killed. It has since been refuted by several studies, including one by Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck, indicating Americans use guns for self-defense 2.5 million times annually. However, the damage had been done—the “43 times” myth is perhaps gun-control advocates’ most commonly cited argument, and a lot of people still believe it to this day.

So, the NRA and Congress took action. But with the ban lifted, what does the CDC’s first major gun research in 17 years reveal? Not exactly what Obama and anti-gun advocates expected. In fact, you might say Obama’s plan backfired.

Here are some key findings from the CDC report, “Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” released in June:

1. Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker:
“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”

2. Defensive uses of guns are common:
“Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”

3. Mass shootings and accidental firearm deaths account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths, and both are declining:
“The number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths. Since 1983 there have been 78 events in which 4 or more individuals were killed by a single perpetrator in 1 day in the United States, resulting in 547 victims and 476 injured persons.” The report also notes, “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”

4. “Interventions” (i.e, gun control) such as background checks, so-called assault rifle bans and gun-free zones produce “mixed” results:
“Whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue.” The report could not conclude whether “passage of right-to-carry laws decrease or increase violence crime.”

5. Gun buyback/turn-in programs are “ineffective” in reducing crime:
“There is empirical evidence that gun turn in programs are ineffective, as noted in the 2005 NRC study Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. For example, in 2009, an estimated 310 million guns were available to civilians in the United States (Krouse, 2012), but gun buy-back programs typically recover less than 1,000 guns (NRC, 2005). On the local level, buy-backs may increase awareness of firearm violence. However, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for example, guns recovered in the buy-back were not the same guns as those most often used in homicides and suicides (Kuhn et al., 2002).”

6. Stolen guns and retail/gun show purchases account for very little crime:
“More recent prisoner surveys suggest that stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals. … According to a 1997 survey of inmates, approximately 70 percent of the guns used or possess by criminals at the time of their arrest came from family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market.”

7. The vast majority of gun-related deaths are not homicides, but suicides:
“Between the years 2000-2010 firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearms related violence in the United States.”

Why No One Has Heard This
Given the CDC’s prior track record on guns, you may be surprised by the extent with which the new research refutes some of the anti-gun movement’s deepest convictions.

What are opponents of the Second Amendment doing about the new data? Perhaps predictably, they’re ignoring it. President Obama, Michael Bloomberg and the Brady Campaign remain silent. Most suspicious of all, the various media outlets that so eagerly anticipated the CDC research are looking the other way as well. One must wonder how media coverage of the CDC report may have differed, had the research more closely fit an anti-gun narrative.

Even worse, the few mainstream journalists who did report the CDC’s findings chose to cherry-pick from the data. Most, like NBC News, reported exclusively on the finding that gun suicides are up. Largely lost in that discussion is the fact that the overall rate of suicide—regardless of whether a gun is involved or not—is also up.

Others seized upon the CDC’s finding that, “The U.S. rate of firearm-related homicide is higher than that of any other industrialized country: 19.5 times higher than the rates in other high-income countries.” However, as noted by the Las Vegas Guardian Express, if figures are excluded from such anti-gun bastions as Illinois, California, New Jersey and Washington, D.C., “The homicide rate in the United States would be in line with any other country.”

The CDC report is overall a blow to the Obama Administration’s unconstitutional agenda. It largely supports the Second Amendment, and contradicts common anti-gun arguments. Unfortunately, mainstream media failed to get the story they were hoping for, and their silence on the matter is a screaming illustration of their underlying agenda.



Read more: http://www.gunsandammo.com/politics/cdc-gun-research-backfires-on-obama/#ixzz5Lz0srHSi
despite the "epidemic' of shootings, it's not a desease. No jurisdiction for the CDC.

My figures came from The Violence Policy Center (VPC) .
Just another Anti-gun group pushing its agenda.


Sawed off shotguns are on the restricted list because they were ruled unfit for military use, this seems to disagree. https://www.businessinsider.com/vie...-tiger-shotgun-2018-7?amp;utm_medium=referral
 
Potential police firearms officers undergo psychological assessments and profiling before being allowed to join. So what you've posted above is false.

Are you 100% certain that the people saying this were actually ex-SAS? They don't sound like it to me.

Why do I think that? Because of this:

"The police being trained would often pose for photographs with guns at the training college bar, the statement added"

Anyone who has been on any military base, will know that weapons are not taken into any mess bar. So why would some claiming to be ex-SAS say something that simply doesn't happen?

Correct, in the military firearms are not taken into any mess bar, but those police are not military.
 
Former military is better with guns than those with no military. Those with no military are salivating, praying, for a chance to kill someone. To them it makes them "a real man". To me it takes more of a man to avoid shooting someone. But then, I'm not a cop.
 
Former military is better with guns than those with no military. Those with no military are salivating, praying, for a chance to kill someone. To them it makes them "a real man". To me it takes more of a man to avoid shooting someone. But then, I'm not a cop.

There's a different mindset in the UK. Shooting is a last resort and if a police officer does discharge then a full investigation takes place into EVERY shooting.
 
Here cops don't care if you're unarmed. BTDT. Impossible to respect them after they draw down on ya. Just wanna twist their scrawny heads off and piss down their throats.
 
Massachusetts is the only state that generally requires that all firearms be stored with a lock in place.
Mass. has draconian gun Laws that would give you all sorts of thrills! If someone is driving across the State on back roads & the cops find a round of pistol ammo, even w/o a gun that can fire it they can get jailed for a year. Vermont, right next door has permitless carry & few gun laws. Less crime there. If you were a burglar would you feel safer breaking into homes in Vermont or Mass.? https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/crime-and-corrections/public-safety

Capt Frogman;706922No one takes firearms into an armoury.[/QUOTE said:
How do they get in?
 
Back
Top