11 ms·

The British 'firearms units' aren't trained to bring aggression to a situation. They're trained to properly identify targets before shooting, knowing that they

The British 'firearms units' aren't trained to bring aggression to a situation. They're trained to properly identify targets before shooting, knowing that they will be required to justify their actions in court. Completely different to SWAT team training in the US. Here in the UK, an officer shooting someone dead as soon as they answer the door won't fly in court. The number of police killings in the UK vs US is relatively less controversial by a significant margin.

krapp 9y ago
Just for the sake of accuracy, the victim here wasn't 'shot dead as soon as they answered the door[0].' Not that 'shot dead from across the street as soon as his hand twitched' is justifiable. [0]http://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/article192111974.html http://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/article192111974.html
- caf 9y ago
  The article you reference currently says just this: “A male came to the front door,” Livingston said. “As he came to the front door, one of our officers discharged his weapon.” Perhaps it previously had some other claim about the circumstances, but if so it has since been revised to remove it.
  - krapp 9y ago
    Watch the body camera video in the same article.
cookiecaper 9y ago
American SWAT teams are also trained to "properly identify targets before shooting", and officers are held accountable through a variety of systems (even though we may not always agree with the conclusion). We're not going to get anywhere with such silly caricatures, and they are dangerous in themselves -- just ask Dallas. May be something to keep in mind while we're on the subject of indirect culpability.
pvg 9y ago
UK armed police shot and killed and unarmed, innocent man in 2005. Nobody was charged or had to justify their actions in court. It happens far less often but when the situation does arise, it's not obvious British police are better trained and react better. What does work is the policy of restricting both firearms ownership and the number of armed police.
- scaryclam 9y ago
  If you're referring to the Jean Charles de Menezes shooting, then there were weeks of hearings where the police and officers involved had to justify their actions.
  - pvg 9y ago
    Perhaps you misread the claim in the comment. "They're trained to properly identify targets before shooting, knowing that they will be required to justify their actions in court." Obviously, they neither properly identified their target nor did they have to justify their actions in court.
    - bmsleight_ 9y ago
      There was a very long coroners inquiry on this shooting. In this coroners court the shooters had to explain in details. Yes, they got the identifications wrong, but this was not after some random telephone call, but after four suicide bomber had filled dozens of people. I think the balance is about right and nothing like the USA. More importantly the jury of peers, in the coroners court, thought the Met Police failed on Health and Safety grounds but not the individual shooters.
      - pvg 9y ago
        There are long inquiries and court cases in the US as well. Jury of peers, the whole lot. I'm not sure how the 'balance is about right and nothing like the USA'. When called upon in a moment of crisis, these people got onto a train and shot an innocent person in the the head half a dozen times, from close range. The big difference is, there are fewer opportunities for armed police to screw this up. There are far fewer of them (heavily armed police are the exception, rather than the default) and they are not nearly needed as often (the citizenry is not as heavily armed). The policy that largely prevents the mistakes is what really helps, rather than having better armed police or better post-cockup inquiries (both of which, to me, seem fairly debatable).

krapp 9y ago

Just for the sake of accuracy, the victim here wasn't 'shot dead as soon as they answered the door[0].' Not that 'shot dead from across the street as soon as his hand twitched' is justifiable. [0]http://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/article192111974.html http://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/article192111974.html

caf 9y ago
The article you reference currently says just this: “A male came to the front door,” Livingston said. “As he came to the front door, one of our officers discharged his weapon.” Perhaps it previously had some other claim about the circumstances, but if so it has since been revised to remove it.
- krapp 9y ago
  Watch the body camera video in the same article.

cookiecaper 9y ago

American SWAT teams are also trained to "properly identify targets before shooting", and officers are held accountable through a variety of systems (even though we may not always agree with the conclusion). We're not going to get anywhere with such silly caricatures, and they are dangerous in themselves -- just ask Dallas. May be something to keep in mind while we're on the subject of indirect culpability.

pvg 9y ago

UK armed police shot and killed and unarmed, innocent man in 2005. Nobody was charged or had to justify their actions in court. It happens far less often but when the situation does arise, it's not obvious British police are better trained and react better. What does work is the policy of restricting both firearms ownership and the number of armed police.

scaryclam 9y ago
If you're referring to the Jean Charles de Menezes shooting, then there were weeks of hearings where the police and officers involved had to justify their actions.
- pvg 9y ago
  Perhaps you misread the claim in the comment. "They're trained to properly identify targets before shooting, knowing that they will be required to justify their actions in court." Obviously, they neither properly identified their target nor did they have to justify their actions in court.
  - bmsleight_ 9y ago
    There was a very long coroners inquiry on this shooting. In this coroners court the shooters had to explain in details. Yes, they got the identifications wrong, but this was not after some random telephone call, but after four suicide bomber had filled dozens of people. I think the balance is about right and nothing like the USA. More importantly the jury of peers, in the coroners court, thought the Met Police failed on Health and Safety grounds but not the individual shooters.
    - pvg 9y ago
      There are long inquiries and court cases in the US as well. Jury of peers, the whole lot. I'm not sure how the 'balance is about right and nothing like the USA'. When called upon in a moment of crisis, these people got onto a train and shot an innocent person in the the head half a dozen times, from close range. The big difference is, there are fewer opportunities for armed police to screw this up. There are far fewer of them (heavily armed police are the exception, rather than the default) and they are not nearly needed as often (the citizenry is not as heavily armed). The policy that largely prevents the mistakes is what really helps, rather than having better armed police or better post-cockup inquiries (both of which, to me, seem fairly debatable).