I think that's something that is automatic after the police shoot someone. Would you rather they could shoot with no investigation??

Dave

For all the good it does - yes.
It would save money.

I just love these throw away comments,

What do you suggest as an alternative then?

Illegal gun crime is more common now since that **** Blair banned some legally held weapons after Dunblane

10 Years ago there wasn’t half as many gun crimes with Handguns as there is now!

Like it or not - Labour not only shafted the legal holders but also the general public by increasing the flow of illegal weapons onto the street & into gangs, fuelling these so called ‘Gangsters’ into making money from such crimes & the sale of such weapons

Its like telling a child “No Sweets” they only want them more

Seriously ?

This is not gonna be a full on Jean Charles investigation.
Its statements from the officers involved, authority to fire lethal shots, any witnesses that might disagree with it. Open the investigation for others "involved" to have their say, then signed off by some seniors.

Not quite as simple as it sounds, but very much needed to justify lethal force. Im sure you would want to be able to read such a document if someone you knew was shot dead.
Or would....."he scared us so we killed him" be ok with you ?

I can think of far greater wastes of tax payers money than having an independant comission to clarify that the use of some of the only legal firearms in the country (non military) were used to take a life, in a justified manner.

OR....

All the CO19 officers involved could be arrested for murder and conspiracy to murder, taken off duty on full pay. The matter be heard in a crown court over ooooh say 6 months, a full jury be paid, legal defence and prosecution....just to make sure they are not guilty of "murder" Which if the IPC did not get involved and clarify this, it would be.

It was a gun tootin Barrister?! What on earth is that all about?

When I heard about this my first thought was..... Oh there goes Drogba again :rolleyes:

Was it !! lol

Must go and check the news pages now. Was never gonna be chavs in Chelsea was it lol

I thought one of the shooters from that day took someone else out a year or so later?

In this case, what a sad waste of a "young" life.

It would be interesting to conject what would have happened if those involved in the Menezes case had indeed been subjected to a jury trial - alas we will never know.
Of course being in a democracy, we must be seen to go through the motions in these cases.
I guess I am just a bit of a cynic.
On a related note, does anybody worry about the psychological effects on these officers, who presumably go home to their families and have time to reflect on what they do on our behalf?
It can't be very nice for them.

£2.2 million pad....yup no chav there I think

Yeh, but that could be a bedsit in Chelsea.:D

The selection process is vigorous ans designed to test metal phsicologial as well as physical strengths and weaknesses.

I would imagine that is does play on their minds, in the same way that when any armed officer goes into work they may be put in a position where they have to save lives and maybe take them. The same could be said of the military although with the Police they have to prove each shooting was correct/legal, taken away from their job and put on administration/leave until cleared, all for doing their job! Yes, there needs to be a checking process and hese chaps are constantly being assessed for performance ans signs of stress/decision making mental sate as the should be.

I am not too sure i could do that for too long and i also have a lot of respect for those that do.

The change to the gun laws after Dunblane was never intended to reduce overall gun crime, as the government repeatedly stated at the time. It was intended solely to prevent another "spree" shooting. I'm sure there was the odd back-bencher who wasn't connected with the bill who might have claimed such a thing, but it was never claimed by the government. Which means you can hardly say it has failed at something it wasn't intended to do.


M

I would imagine the mental impact is definatly present. People think these people love being the ones responding to gun crime, being allowed to carry firearms etc, but few consider what you have.

As for the case making court. I believe it goes very much through the motions, but obviously under professional observation, rather than members of an untrained jury.

CO 19 do a bloody tough job, and I dont envy the decisions they are required to make.

That's a very interesting point you have made.
If I can recall correctly, these sprees are very uncommon - I can only think of two in this country in the last thirty years.(Dunblane and Hungerford)
I find it "odd" to think that laws which change the fundamental rights of all citizens in this country are made as a reaction to crimes which are horrific on the one hand, but on the other hand cause as many deaths every fifteen years or so as would be caused on average, every couple of days on the public highways, by road traffic accidents.
Having said that, I have no interest at all in owning a gun.
I suppose it would be nice to have the choice - living in a democratic society as we do.

Seems like it was a legally registered firearm that the suddenly psychopathic barrister was using to take pot-shots at CO19 :

BBC NEWS | England | London | Gunman 'deeply committed' to wife

So maybe there'll be more tightening of gun laws !

It was an illegal one earlier. Can't beat a bit of spin. :rolleyes:

Now believed to have been shot 5 times by police CO19..... cant knock their accuracy eh, and certainly not question their intentions either.

They like shooting people 5 times.

"Atleast" 5 times ;)
Guess its a nice safe number, make sure they are not a threat. Once you have put one bullet in someone.......

The bullets are of "different types" too. Not sure if thats hand pistols and MP5's using different ammo

The original BBC article:

Armed Police Shot At In West London |Sky News|UK News

States that the gunman strayed a nearby house with bullets. In the same article a witness said it was a shotgun as loads of pellets went through her window.

FYI shotguns dont fire bullets :)

Tbh if its a standard shotgun then they are easy to get hold off but youd be doing well to take a copper out from a flat window - effective range not more than 35-40 yards unless your using slugs but that would require a sect 1 certificate = proper firearm. Plenty of peeps have those for practical shotgun where you can have pump and semi shotguns that load more than 3 cartridges (limit on normal shotguns) and I believe allows you to acquire solid shot / slug type cartridges.

Simon

Mostly 9mm and 1 off, 7.62 round;)

strafed not strayed?
General public do not understand the difference, however a well placed pellet or two can really ruin your day.:)

Sounds like one marksman's round & the rest from MP5's, though I was under the impression CO19 had rolled out the 5.56mm G36C's to replace the MP5s, they have round here.

You wouldnt think they use 7.62 in a residential area even from a marksman. Esp if other officers are in close proximity with 9mm. More than likely media spin again as can you actually believe that a) the police reveal that level of detail or b) the press could get close enough to the corpse to establish this :)

Simon

Meant to put sprayed - typing too fast again :(

Simon

Anyone heard any rumours as to why Mr Psycho Barrister snapped....?

An awful lot of quotes saying 'husband and wife deeply committed to each other'...

Hmmmmm?

I reckon he must of walked in and caught the milkman hanging out the back of his mrs. ;)

I bet that cheating fecker Didier Drogba fell to the floor as soon as he heard a bang :lol1: