Posted By AHS http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/.../oxfordshire/8272110.stm I had hoped after the Menezes incident things may have changed regarding training of firearms officers.

Posted By Phil Rose The accident referred is pretty worrying but I don't think that the Menezes case, tragic and regrettable as it was, was simply a failure of the training of the firearms officers - was it?

Posted By Al.. When I learned to handle firearms it was the golden rule on the range that you never ever pointed a weapon at someone regardless of whether it was loaded or unloaded. To do so once produced such a ticking off that you would never do it again. This was drummed into me so strongly that even today I feel uncomfortable if a child points a toy gun at me. The man who was shot was part of a group of civilians being given a firearms demonstration. He told investigators later that the gun was aimed right at him. 'I was not happy, because it was drilled into us to never, ever point a gun at someone. I was getting up to move from my chair to move when I heard two clicks and then a loud bang,' he said. The police appear to have been running a pretty slack operation and it was a relatively small fine for some very significant organisational failings but I guess the Court took into account that it would have to paid out of public funds.

Posted By Phil Rose AHS - I think that the issue with the Menezes case is that the firearms officers were very much under the (mistaken) impression that the Mr Menezes was a 'combatant'. I don't want to get into the wider argument about that case, I was merely trying to point out that I don't think that the two cases have very little in common, other than the fact that someone was shot who shouldn't have been! ps - spent many years in the service of HM, so well aware about firearms training, live firing and ND's etc.

Posted By Phil Rose Oops - sorry should say ".. I don't think that the two cases have very MUCH in common.." Hopefully that makes more sense!

Posted By Phil Rose Hasn't the individual been held accountable? He has been found guilty and fined £8000 with £8000 costs. Hey, I don't know the DETAIL of the incident, other than what I have seen on the linked story, but there seems to have been some pretty rudimentary failings somewhere, and certainly with the individual as he must surely know the difference between a live round and a blank round! I like the quality street biscuit tin though. Is it me!

Posted By Phil Rose AHS - I don't think that there is any doubt that there were serious failings in the Menezes case, that much is obvious. I am not sure if the serious failings were with the firearms officers themselves though. My understanding is that there were convinced that Mr Menezes was a suicide bomber, who was about to explode a bomb (we now know that on both of these assumptions were wrong) and I also understand that they had essentially been 'ordered' to 'shoot to kill'. My understanding is that there was a reasonably complex chain of events and failings from many parts of the Police that led to this ultimately tragic shooting. I wish I had as much knowledge of the two cases so that I could also make such a simplistic judgement. But with the knowledge that I have, I can't see how the two cases are particularly comparable other than (as I have already said) the fact that they involve guns, and the shooting of someone who shouldn't have been shot.

Posted By Phil Rose Please. Lets not go down this tiresome route of posting Daily Mail links - we've been there too many times.

Posted By Phil Rose I don't think that anyone has a problem with genuine debate on H&S issues, but this forum has in the past been 'inundated' by tiresome posting of links to daily Mail stories that in the main weren't IMVHO worthy of my debate but was definitely worthy of lots of speculation. I am struggling to see the SIMILARITY between the tragic case of the killing of Mr Menezes and the 'boy racer' Policeman; other than the fact that they both involved the Police. I hate to say it but I doubt that you will be able to identify the root cause based based on the information in a DM report - but I could be wrong. Perhaps you could give your thoughts on any of the 3 cases so far mentioned

Posted By AHS I feel referencing is important. Training and Selection IMHO are the key issues in all these cases unless unsafe conditions such as as poor eyesight are not being picked up by Occupational Health. http://www.independent.c...d-man-in-bed-685719.html

Posted By AHS All the cases mentioned have been subject to Criminal proceedings and/or Public enquiries making your argument of inaccurate reporting unsustainable.

Posted By AHS Sticking with selection a direct quote from the Met Police website. Qualifications There are no formal educational requirements to become a Police Officer. Training A report by HM Inspectorate of Constabulary criticises police, stating "training in both tactics and the use of force needs to be adjusted to meet the challenges of 21st century protest". Ian Tomlinson died close to the Bank of England after being hit by police on the evening of April 1. He was not a protester but just trying to get out of a police cordon so he could go home. Have a Good Weekend!

Posted By Phil Rose I can't help but feel that is very simplistic response. Nobody is denying that an innocent person ended up dead. Many 'innocent' people end up dead every day but that 'outcome' doesn't necessarily mean that the events leading up to the outcome, are similar. Yes there is a similarity in that the cases mentioned involved the Police AND that people were killed but surely that's pretty much where the similarity ends. Of the 4 cases that have been mentioned. I would hazard a guess that the causative chain will be quite different in each case. While I am sure that training will be ONE factor but I will certainly not end there. Peter F makes a good point about training. I have learnt over the years that you can't always train all of the risks out of a task, situation or person as it relies so heavily on human behaviour. In saying that, I shall shoot myself in the foot somewhat (no pun intended) and say that training is obviously a/the key factor in the 'safe' use of firearms. However, when it comes to firearms situations in general and the Menenze case in particular we should also try to understand the context of the situation that the firearms officers were faced with. It is easy to pontificate from the comfort of a desk, and with the benefit of hindsight, and the benefit of plenty of time to do so, but these people are faced with rapidly developing situations, with little opportunity for any debate or consultation. They made a decision which as we now know was based in part on a number of errors by others and they ultimately shot an innocent person, but did so in the belief that they were trying to protect the lives of many other people. In saying that , the case at the very top of the thread is quite incredible and I can see little or no mitigation for such a situation arising. It is obviously a serious failing that beggars belief and borders on the farcical. I wouldn't want to make any excuses for that particular case (as reported) And at the risk of boring everyone, I don't see that the fact that a case has been through the courts or subject to an official enquiry, means that subsequent reporting will necessarily be accurate. To suggest that such a position is 'unsustainable' is frankly crass. It does happen, I am sure that most of us know it happens, for various reasons, sometimes simply because the reporter misinterpreting the facts and I have witnessed that VERY personally in the last few weeks. I will bow out gracefully!

Posted By John Richards We could also look at the Menzies case another way: The police *said* that the officers had been told that the suspect had a device on him that could be detonated. That statement caused the death to be downgraded to a mistake from [what would have been] a criminal offence. Given the lengths that the police have gone to in the past to cover-up mistakes, I would not discount that the officers may never have been given that information and that over-enthusiasm may have been the root cause for the excessive use of bullets. The IPCC even funded a report into firearms deaths in an attempt to attribute blame for many to "officer assisted suicide" http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/f...sreport.suicidebycop.pdf So, item one (Menzies) remains suspect. The "bad driving" death (a criminal offence) is nothing new: Police bad driving is quite common in spite of training. The firearm instructor case is again nothing new, it is a large cause of accidents in all industries: familiarity breeding contempt.

Posted By John Packer As one who has also previously made promises to her Majesty, the one thing that really jumps out in this case is the management of ammunition. How did live rounds end up in the classroom? In the armed forces live rounds are only issued WHEN NEEDED, they are counted out and counted in upon return and a declaration is made that the individual has no live rounds, empty cases or miss-fires in their possession. IMHO it appears that either the management of ammunition has failed or the police officer had live rounds that were not issued to him that day. He simply should not have been in possession of live ammunition in the classroom.

Posted By John Richards Segregated ? They do not even look the same. Live rounds have bullets on the end. Blanks do not.

Posted By Messy Shaw In recent years, I carried out a fire safety audit which involved a Police indoor firing range in a location which trained PCs who may be very likely to use their guns in anger. I found two fire safety matters in the firing range alone (both of which which I cannot detail here)which led to a notice being served. One matter related to a situation which created a high risk of fire within an ammunition store. Another issue related to poor maintenance which resulted in a credible risk of an explosion - albeit a small one - which could have caused serious personal injuries. In addition, the Police H&S representative who escorted me around, demonstrated a very poor knowledge of fire safety matters although it was his job to maintain FS at this and numerous other address across that Police force. He said his bosses would not take his word for it if he flagged up the issues such as I had discovered, so asked me to issue a notice (they were going to get one anyway!!) I was shocked at the 'laid back' approach to fire safety at this range and hoped that such a poor culture didn't extend to H&S on the range itself. This news item suggests that in some places, it does.

Posted By Brett Day John Packer, spot on ! Yes it is hard to tell a dummy round from a misfire. As for blanks, some do have a head shaped like a round but it has a 'crimped' finish - many blank rounds used for stage and theatre have these.

Posted By Phil Rose I don't think anyone, including me is questioning the intellect of people purely for reading the Daily Mail. The CONSISTENT point that I have always made in regard of the posting of such links is that we shouldn't be fooled into thinking that the publishing of the report is necessarily for entirely 'altruistic' reasons, but that there is, as is the case for many reports, something of an 'agenda' in the manner and accuracy (often as much about what they don't report as what they do report) of the reporting by many papers. Similarly, I personally find it difficult to form and objective opinion to be able to pass a fair judgement on the people concerned on that basis of these reports. The Daily Mail are renowned for such headline grabbing and are adept at 'Council knocking'. If you work for a Council then I am surprised that you aren't as frustrated at this as most seem to be at this papers uncanny ability to 'twist' stories for their own purposes. I am also completely and utterly puzzled at the assertion that just because a case has been to court or been the subject of an enquiry that any subsequent reporting of that case must be accurate. That seems to me to be quite a bizarre position to adopt. I can't help but feel that looking at the posting of links on this thread that it has been little more than a 'Police knocking' thread. I fully accept that the incident with the man getting shot during a training session, live bullets kept in a 'sweetie' tin demonstrates a lamentable lack of proper control of firearms and ammunition etc (I have spent quite a bit of my life handling these kind of weapons myself) but I fail to see genuine similarities in the cases other than the fact that the Police are involved and that people have been injured, killed or have otherwise died.

Posted By martinw I have been in the unfortunate position of having a member of my family arrested for a 'capital' crime and this was reported in the national press. The only aspects reported which were correct were his name and date of birth. Otherwise, the press and TV reported that he had been in the army(false), had previous convictions(false), had been married before(false) and had some of children removed by social services(also false). Bloody journalists knocking on my and other family members front doors. They made up what they wanted to, and that includes the main tv channels and news agencies; and the main broadsheets were as bad and as ill-informed as the tabloids. They simply do not care. All the reporting took place during the course of the investigation and court cases. Made no difference. I simply do not believe anything reported now unless other corroboration is available, which is almost never. Therefore to me this is an ambient thread in that it matters not what you think unless you can prove it, and that is the same about news reporting.