Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

SignUp Now!

Met Police officer shoots himself in the leg

Howardk

Longterm Registered User
Joined
Jan 12, 2012
Messages
640
Likes
9
So one of your arguments is that Police Officers shouldn't wear medals in case it upsets terrorists?

In my opinion all police should wear their ribbons and a Union Flag/Jack, its our country if you don't like the flag, its tough s***e
It is our policy that we wear our commendations with our class B uniform (regular uniform)....the U.S. flag, specialty team insignia and certain military medals are also acceptable. I currently have 14 or 15 commendations and it's a PITA to wear em every day. Thankfully I wear a class C uniform for K9 so I don't have to deal with the medals on a daily basis. Medals and commendations usually have good stories behind them....most involve pain, terror or loss of flesh in some form or another. To crack on an officer for being proud of the job they do by wearing their achievements is jealously I think. JMO
 
Last edited:

TommyS

Forum Supporter
Joined
Jun 14, 2008
Messages
639
Likes
285
Have seen a few NDs in my time and only one where the weapon was not being handled, a rifle was being carried on a bag and before arriving at loading bay to be unloaded the trigger caught on something on the bag and discharged the round. It was suspected that the safety had been accidentally knocked off in the car prior to the incident and had not been noticed

It is better that someone else clears the weapon once there has been an ND as the person who has let off the round is usually not in a state to do it with a very high risk of letting off another



TommyS
 

Oasis

Longterm Registered User
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
488
Likes
58
Wow, just came across this thread; It certainly does bring out the 'Police knockers' but I guess they are never far away.
I was a police firearms officer for over 22 years and a firearms tactics advisor and I can honestly say that although I didn't necessarily want to swap spit with everyone I worked with, the standards of safety and professionalism were always very very high.
I never had an ND, only saw one and that was a blank during training and was severely dealt with.
Subsequently I have been around people using firearms in many places since then, police, military and civilians, UK and abroad and have been appalled at the safety procedures I have seen (or not, as the case may be).
There will always be someone who puts their own biased slant on anything they were 'involved in' (especially if they have been arrested) but some of the crap I have seen on here beggars belief, but whatever you all think, check the records, unlike many other countries the facts are painfully revealed by the UK police, NDs wrongful shootings, blunders, lost weapons, warts and all.
I have seen people put on a warning to have their firearms authority revoked for an ND with a taser!
They are still probably the most professional and well trained armed police officers in the world.
As for having your weapon loaded while you are on duty;..... rather than five minutes in the pub debating such a contentious issue, Police National Firearms Tactics advisors and ACPO PUF (association of chief police officers Police Use of Firearms) have debated this subject hard and long before coming to this decision. Anecdotally, on one occasion an IRA ASU was alerted to the presence of armed police when someone cocked his weapon, for starters. The threat has already been assessed and the answer is that weapons will be made ready, and I for one wouldn't have liked it any other way. Sounds great sitting in your fat armchair, warming your arse by the fire, playing Line of Duty on your Nintendo; "If they weren't loaded they wouldn't have an ND!" That's like saying that if we all walked everywhere there wouldn't be any car accidents!! get a F**kin life.
 

Sabre

Forum Supporter
Joined
Jan 8, 2011
Messages
1,247
Likes
27
Something that worries me Oasis is I feel it is only a matter of time before we see a coordinated terrorist attack again in the UK. How well equipped are our Police to deal with an attack, for example one similar to the Westgate incident in Kenya? Are they trained in these types of scenarios, a lot of the training I have seen usually involves one or two hostiles outnumbered by several Armed Police, what if the tables are turned? Would control be handed to a Military QRF?
I appreciate it`s a touchy subject for an open forum, just looking for some reassurance!
 

Visioneer

Super Moderator
Joined
Apr 16, 2010
Messages
6,782
Likes
376
Something that worries me Oasis is I feel it is only a matter of time before we see a coordinated terrorist attack again in the UK. How well equipped are our Police to deal with an attack, for example one similar to the Westgate incident in Kenya? Are they trained in these types of scenarios, a lot of the training I have seen usually involves one or two hostiles outnumbered by several Armed Police, what if the tables are turned? Would control be handed to a Military QRF?
I appreciate it`s a touchy subject for an open forum, just looking for some reassurance!
With the number of 'radicalised' kids returning from Iraq that at least have a passing acquaintance with an AK, I sure as hell hope they've plans in place.

The biggest issue may well be with the 'unradicalised'. The kids with a serious attitude problem.

V
 
Last edited:

SCT

New Member
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
3,945
Likes
948
With the number of 'radicalised' kids returning from Iraq that at least have a passing acquaintance with an AK, I sure as hell hope they've plans in place.

The biggest issue may well be with the 'unradicalised'. The kids with a serious attitude problem.

V
Let's get one thing out of the way. I am not anti-police in any shape of form, quite the opposite. I am, however, anti-socialist, anti-appeasement, pro-freedom and a great believer in calling a spade a spade.

If they are not ready, it won't be the fault of the police. Successive governments implementing a policy of political correctness have destroyed police forces by conditioning officers to regard ethnic minorities as untouchables with special needs and requirements. Brits are foreigners in their own country. Law enforcement has been pussified beyond recognition. I am sure that there many on here in my age group (I'm 58) that remember when plod were in charge of their own thought processes instead of being the willing slaves of the great god PC.

In what fcuking version of reality is it OK to suppress the rights of the indigenous population to the benefit of of a resident hostile minority? Are you fcuking serious? In what version of reality are you not allowed to name the enemy?

Political correctness belongs in the trash.
 
Last edited:

Oasis

Longterm Registered User
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
488
Likes
58
Something that worries me Oasis is I feel it is only a matter of time before we see a coordinated terrorist attack again in the UK. How well equipped are our Police to deal with an attack, for example one similar to the Westgate incident in Kenya? Are they trained in these types of scenarios, a lot of the training I have seen usually involves one or two hostiles outnumbered by several Armed Police, what if the tables are turned? Would control be handed to a Military QRF?
I appreciate it`s a touchy subject for an open forum, just looking for some reassurance!
Uk Police have been training for that eventuality ever since the Mumbai attack in 2008.
It is known as an 'Active Shooter' scenario.
Although it isn't possible to have teams of armed police on standby at every shopping mall in the country they are aware of the threat and are trained and equipped to respond.
Fortunately unlike Kenya with it's porous borders, or the US where its almost obligatory to have an armoury at home, we rely on the fact that there are not sufficient appropriate firearms and ammunition in circulation to facilitate a sustained attack, as we saw in Westgate where assault rifles and grenades were used.

As for Military QRFs, I think suffice to say, for the most part it will be left to the police. Other than UK SF, only the police are capable of responding appropriately and proportionately to an active shooter scenario, and the UK SF are usually fully deployed elsewhere in the world, although it is fairly common knowledge that there is always an SF CRW team on standby. Depending on the location, it would have to be a very heavy and prolonged attack before SF CRW team would be able to attend, and then there is the sticky issue of MACP (Military aid to the civil power) to be authorised.
Most of our strategy in the UK relies on good intelligence to detect, deter, or disrupt terrorist activity. Fingers crossed, it has worked reasonably well since 2005.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 12, 2014
Messages
86
Likes
1
Uk Police have been training for that eventuality ever since the Mumbai attack in 2008.
It is known as an 'Active Shooter' scenario.
Although it isn't possible to have teams of armed police on standby at every shopping mall in the country they are aware of the threat and are trained and equipped to respond.
Fortunately unlike Kenya with it's porous borders, or the US where its almost obligatory to have an armoury at home, we rely on the fact that there are not sufficient appropriate firearms and ammunition in circulation to facilitate a sustained attack, as we saw in Westgate where assault rifles and grenades were used.

As for Military QRFs, I think suffice to say, for the most part it will be left to the police. Other than UK SF, only the police are capable of responding appropriately and proportionately to an active shooter scenario, and the UK SF are usually fully deployed elsewhere in the world, although it is fairly common knowledge that there is always an SF CRW team on standby. Depending on the location, it would have to be a very heavy and prolonged attack before SF CRW team would be able to attend, and then there is the sticky issue of MACP (Military aid to the civil power) to be authorised.
Most of our strategy in the UK relies on good intelligence to detect, deter, or disrupt terrorist activity. Fingers crossed, it has worked reasonably well since 2005.
As soon as a Mumbai style attack was launched UK SF would be moving towards anyway, waiting for the MACP, planning just in case. But I agree the Police would do their best to keep the control.

I believe that the police would take casualties like never before in such an attack, and eventually that would change both the Govt and public perception of firearms issued to the police.
 

Oasis

Longterm Registered User
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
488
Likes
58
Let's get one thing out of the way. I am not anti-police in any shape of form, quite the opposite. I am, however, anti-socialist, anti-appeasement, pro-freedom and a great believer in calling a spade a spade.

If they are not ready, it won't be the fault of the police. Successive governments implementing a policy of political correctness have destroyed police forces by conditioning officers to regard ethnic minorities as untouchables with special needs and requirements. Brits are foreigners in their own country. Law enforcement has been pussified beyond recognition. I am sure that there many on here in my age group (I'm 58) that remember when plod were in charge of their own thought processes instead of being the willing slaves of the great god PC.

In what fcuking version of reality is it OK to suppress the rights of the indigenous population to the benefit of of a resident hostile minority? Are you fcuking serious? In what version of reality are you not allowed to name the enemy?

Political correctness belongs in the trash.
FYI "Plod" are still in charge of their own thought process, never more so than when they are holding a gun; and theirs or someone else's life is at stake, they and they alone, make the decision to pull the trigger based on perceived threat and proportionality.
And 'Willing' slaves of the great god PC is total bollocks. They believe in fair play, without fear or prejudice. They may be constrained by over zealous PC but hardly 'enslaved' and certainly not willing.
Based on your anecdotal evidence I don't think you are in a position to make such sweeping statements about UK police. As an 'insider' I am, and totally honest about my views, and (as you will have seen on this website) I will be the first to criticise them where criticism is due.
 

Oasis

Longterm Registered User
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
488
Likes
58
As soon as a Mumbai style attack was launched UK SF would be moving towards anyway, waiting for the MACP, planning just in case. But I agree the Police would do their best to keep the control.

I believe that the police would take casualties like never before in such an attack, and eventually that would change both the Govt and public perception of firearms issued to the police.
Roger Dodger, on what do you base your beliefs about police casualties and how will it change the government perception of firearms issued to the police?
I see you were in the police, can I ask where? Were you an AFO?
 
Joined
Mar 12, 2014
Messages
86
Likes
1
FYI "Plod" are still in charge of their own thought process, never more so than when they are holding a gun; and theirs or someone else's life is at stake, they and they alone, make the decision to pull the trigger based on perceived threat and proportionality.
And 'Willing' slaves of the great god PC is total bollocks. They believe in fair play, without fear or prejudice. They may be constrained by over zealous PC but hardly 'enslaved' and certainly not willing.
Based on your anecdotal evidence I don't think you are in a position to make such sweeping statements about UK police. As an 'insider' I am, and totally honest about my views, and (as you will have seen on this website) I will be the first to criticise them where criticism is due.
Its the perception of some people I am afraid, but those people fail to see the lengths that individual police officers go to, often at great risk to their own personal lives.
 
Joined
Mar 12, 2014
Messages
86
Likes
1
Roger Dodger, on what do you base your beliefs about police casualties and how will it change the government perception of firearms issued to the police?
I see you were in the police, can I ask where? Were you an AFO?
All my firearms experience is military I am afraid, but I deal with policies around policing and security on a daily basis.

Having worked closely with Armed Police units, I do not think they would be in a position (outside London) to react in such a manner that would quell a Mumbai Style attack at an early opportunity. Firearms officers are thin on the ground and having used them before the response times are hugely extended in places.

All this with the NCALT/Online attitude to police training that seems to be the norm, I just do not think most officers would believe it is actually happening.

I think one attack of this sort and the public would want cops with guns and the Govt wouldn't argue. After all far more peaceful countries than the UK have armed all their officers.

Civilised discussion, who would have thought it :)
 

Howardk

Longterm Registered User
Joined
Jan 12, 2012
Messages
640
Likes
9
All my firearms experience is military I am afraid, but I deal with policies around policing and security on a daily basis.

Having worked closely with Armed Police units, I do not think they would be in a position (outside London) to react in such a manner that would quell a Mumbai Style attack at an early opportunity. Firearms officers are thin on the ground and having used them before the response times are hugely extended in places.

All this with the NCALT/Online attitude to police training that seems to be the norm, I just do not think most officers would believe it is actually happening.

I think one attack of this sort and the public would want cops with guns and the Govt wouldn't argue. After all far more peaceful countries than the UK have armed all their officers.

Civilised discussion, who would have thought it :)
Not from the UK but I have to agree with this 100%....not because I am ignorant to the policing dynamic in the UK, but from real life experience with real people in real situations. Fact is...the longer the threat is allowed to continue, the more people (even police) are in danger of losing their lives due to being unarmed or insufficiently armed. It's simple, those with more guns and ammo will invariably win over those with less until that force is met with greater force or skill. Waiting for a specialty team to arrive just gets more people killed by those that would do the killing.

We train for active shooting situations here. We go in teams of 3 to 5 depending on the situation. We don't always go in with the equal amount of armament as the bad guys. We have handguns and semi auto AR15s. If the bad guy has a full auto we go in anyway. If we don't go in then more lives are lost. We may lose ours but while engaging the bad guy at least innocent civilians can hopefully escape. That's the job we signed up for. Unarmed police are useless in those situations. Ask any potential victim, at the very point in time that they are staring down the business end of a gun held by a psycho radical, whether they want to wait for an armed specialty team to arrive or have an armed officer engage right now? I think you know the answer. Real situations require real solutions, not some pencil pushers idea of what needs to be done on a playing board in the comfort of tea and A/C.
 

Oasis

Longterm Registered User
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
488
Likes
58
All my firearms experience is military I am afraid, but I deal with policies around policing and security on a daily basis.

Having worked closely with Armed Police units, I do not think they would be in a position (outside London) to react in such a manner that would quell a Mumbai Style attack at an early opportunity. Firearms officers are thin on the ground and having used them before the response times are hugely extended in places.

All this with the NCALT/Online attitude to police training that seems to be the norm, I just do not think most officers would believe it is actually happening.

I think one attack of this sort and the public would want cops with guns and the Govt wouldn't argue. After all far more peaceful countries than the UK have armed all their officers.

Civilised discussion, who would have thought it :)
I'm inclined to agree to some extent, hence my earlier remarks about detect, deter and disrupt and the use of 'Intelligence' as a weapon, the problem is that as you and I know, even in countries where the police are armed, they haven't been able to carry out effective intervention in time to stop mass killings even by deranged school kids! I don't think that more arming of the police will do much to prevent an Active Shooting' attack by determined jihadists, especially if they already have some experience under fire.
Contrary to some 'alternative' perceptions on this site, our 'Intelligence' and CT agencies have a pretty good grip on most extremists by infiltration and observation, but sooner or later someone will get an attack home, but I don't think more armed cops is the answer.
Historically the more you clamp down on ethnic and religious minorities the harder becomes their resolve. For an example just look at how professional and effective the IRA became, and compared to the greater Islamic diaspora, Catholic extremists in Northern Ireland came from a pretty small population group.
 
Joined
Mar 12, 2014
Messages
86
Likes
1
Not from the UK but I have to agree with this 100%....not because I am ignorant to the policing dynamic in the UK, but from real life experience with real people in real situations. Fact is...the longer the threat is allowed to continue, the more people (even police) are in danger of losing their lives due to being unarmed or insufficiently armed. It's simple, those with more guns and ammo will invariably win over those with less until that force is met with greater force or skill. Waiting for a specialty team to arrive just gets more people killed by those that would do the killing.

We train for active shooting situations here. We go in teams of 3 to 5 depending on the situation. We don't always go in with the equal amount of armament as the bad guys. We have handguns and semi auto AR15s. If the bad guy has a full auto we go in anyway. If we don't go in then more lives are lost. We may lose ours but while engaging the bad guy at least innocent civilians can hopefully escape. That's the job we signed up for. Unarmed police are useless in those situations. Ask any potential victim, at the very point in time that they are staring down the business end of a gun held by a psycho radical, whether they want to wait for an armed specialty team to arrive or have an armed officer engage right now? I think you know the answer. Real situations require real solutions, not some pencil pushers idea of what needs to be done on a playing board in the comfort of tea and A/C.
The argument for arming the police in the UK will forever go on I fear until its too late, but at the min Police Officers wear vests and always carry their cuffs, batons, spray, taser at all times when on frontline duties because the rational is when you need it, its the only day you won't have it, and because if you need it, you don't have time to go get it. So with that in mind the idea of waiting for an armed officer seems ludicrous.

The real reason, isn't public perception, its money, the costs of equipping and maintaining the training.
 
Joined
Mar 12, 2014
Messages
86
Likes
1
I like your argument, and I see what you mean, especially as you use the NI example.

The UK Intelligence network is immense, and it has historically shaped how the entire world gather int, the real risk isn't groups, its the lone individual who has been radicalised online, or self radicalisation, those are the one's we cannot see.

I think issuing every Bobby a Glock 'may' give someone (Policeman included) the chance to live, I agree that a battle hardened extremist would probably not be to concerned at a few 9mm heading his way, but like we have said its more likely to be a lone lunatic who is successful.

Its a very sticky subject with so many variables everyone who has an opinion on it is right in some way, and equally wrong.
 

Oasis

Longterm Registered User
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
488
Likes
58
I like your argument, and I see what you mean, especially as you use the NI example.

The UK Intelligence network is immense, and it has historically shaped how the entire world gather int, the real risk isn't groups, its the lone individual who has been radicalised online, or self radicalisation, those are the one's we cannot see.

I think issuing every Bobby a Glock 'may' give someone (Policeman included) the chance to live, I agree that a battle hardened extremist would probably not be to concerned at a few 9mm heading his way, but like we have said its more likely to be a lone lunatic who is successful.

Its a very sticky subject with so many variables everyone who has an opinion on it is right in some way, and equally wrong.
Rodger Dodge, you whacked the nail right on the head when you said;
"The real reason, isn't public perception, its money, the costs of equipping and maintaining the training".

I have made this point on this site many times before, to try and make it succinct;
To arm every 'bobby' in the UK you have two choices,
1. Lower the training standards to come into line with the rest of the world (more wrongful shootings, NDs, danger to the public)
2. Raise the bar on the selection process to include Firearms competence at todays high standard in basic training. (You would have to increase police pay to attract better recruits, you would have a massive 'fail rate' (even now the attrition rate on police firearms courses is very high), you may lose potential police officers with other valuable skills, and above all the cost in maintaining training standards based on present requirements would be horrendous and totally unpalatable to a government that is hell bent on replacing cops with private sector security guards)
 

Howardk

Longterm Registered User
Joined
Jan 12, 2012
Messages
640
Likes
9
I'm inclined to agree to some extent, hence my earlier remarks about detect, deter and disrupt and the use of 'Intelligence' as a weapon, the problem is that as you and I know, even in countries where the police are armed, they haven't been able to carry out effective intervention in time to stop mass killings even by deranged school kids! I don't think that more arming of the police will do much to prevent an Active Shooting' attack by determined jihadists, especially if they already have some experience under fire.
Whenever I read this first sentence all I can think of is the "Paul Blart, Mall Cop" movie. In theory it sounds good but per your further statement regarding "deranged school kids" well, I refer back to my original last post about the victim staring down a barrel. How is intel gonna help this poor person RIGHT NOW. It's not. An armed cop may, or may not but I bet the would be victim will take the 50/50 odds over zero chance.

Contrary to some 'alternative' perceptions on this site, our 'Intelligence' and CT agencies have a pretty good grip on most extremists by infiltration and observation, but sooner or later someone will get an attack home, but I don't think more armed cops is the answer.
What is the answer? Aiding/protecting the public is the officers primary goal. How is not being able to neutralize a threat, and more casualties going to look? In the aftermath the police are going to take it in the shorts by the public and many will demand change.


Historically the more you clamp down on ethnic and religious minorities the harder becomes their resolve. For an example just look at how professional and effective the IRA became, and compared to the greater Islamic diaspora, Catholic extremists in Northern Ireland came from a pretty small population group.
To me this is a cop-out (no pun intended). We cannot fear harder resolve from a criminal just because we adjust out tactics and training. Why even do the job then? Let the crims run amok so we don't offend them.
 
Joined
Mar 12, 2014
Messages
86
Likes
1
Rodger Dodge, you whacked the nail right on the head when you said;
"The real reason, isn't public perception, its money, the costs of equipping and maintaining the training".

I have made this point on this site many times before, to try and make it succinct;
To arm every 'bobby' in the UK you have two choices,
1. Lower the training standards to come into line with the rest of the world (more wrongful shootings, NDs, danger to the public)
2. Raise the bar on the selection process to include Firearms competence at todays high standard in basic training. (You would have to increase police pay to attract better recruits, you would have a massive 'fail rate' (even now the attrition rate on police firearms courses is very high), you may lose potential police officers with other valuable skills, and above all the cost in maintaining training standards based on present requirements would be horrendous and totally unpalatable to a government that is hell bent on replacing cops with private sector security guards)
That really is the point, a good Police Officer may not shoot too well, but may be a superb investigator, the trouble is evolution is inevitable and its time to move on or move over. Modern policing isn't modern at all, it is old dressed as modern. Some excellent work is done every day in the UK by the Police, lifesaving and life changing work that is overlooked. To put it in perspective Afghanistan was in the news daily, Brit troops are monitored for PTSD, in reality a large proportion haven't come across anything more distressing than the kitkats running out, of course combat troops have seen horrendous things, but having been there quite a few times, I am qualified to say that. Truth is a Bobby will see more distressing things daily, and no medals are given, no thanks and few mental health checks. It truly is sad.

I don't know what is the answer, I witnessed a PSNI re-qual one day as I lead a multiple, and I have never witnessed a one handed shoot with such lack of tactical awareness and lack of consideration for cover, my troops were far better suited to be used than the PSNI officers I watched.

So it goes to show lowering the standard isn't necessarily a good thing.
 
Top Bottom