Disappointed, but not surprised that policemen have so little faith in the law that they think they should be above it when they shoot people. He was shot in the head wasn't he? Sounds like murder tbh, however , the reaction of armed police suggests we haven't got the full picture? 0 Vote up! Genuinely, no one knows until the evidence becomes clear at trial. Bodycam footage should be pretty determinative. 0 Vote up! "...sounds like murder...". Seriously? 0 Vote up! Well yes. He shot someone in the head. I also believe they were unarmed. So yes. That does sound exactly like murder 1 Vote up! He has literally been charged with exactly that crime 1 Vote up! Are you a lawyer? 0 Vote up! Head of the CPS. Hth 1 Vote up! Clearly. 1 Vote up! It's not clear what outcome they expect to achieve here 0 Vote up! Avoiding being charged with murder themselves presumably. 0 Vote up! No one who is willing to continue carrying a gun for the Met after this is the kind of person you'd want carrying a gun (ie they are mad). 1 Vote up! If it's purely that they want to remove themselves from any legal jeopardy then fair enough, though surely the risk of being the subject of legal action is always entailed when you decide to take on a job that might require you to shoot people. Maybe they've only just realised this. 0 Vote up! I don’t think the average punter realises quite how much the truth is open to distortion in the hands of vested interest groups who don’t actually have to take any decisions under pressure facing possible death. Most people commenting on here can’t even cross the road without looking four ways. 4 Vote up! Look at the fuss also when those cops shot the demon dogs. The acab culture permeates London (sure, cos most are). And who wants to serve life for trying to save one scumbag from another? 2 Vote up! I mean looking each way and checking doesn't sound that daft. Maybe if that cop had been a bit more thorough he would not have shot? I guess we find out in due course 0 Vote up! He’d be dead rog 0 Vote up! How exactly? He didn't have a gun did he 0 Vote up! Wasn’t he driving straight at the copper? 0 Vote up! Nope. Stationary 1 Vote up! the met are all wayne couzens tbf hopefully every officer who has turned in their firearm is having their pay adjusted downward to reflect this 1 Vote up! I think a lot of people are probably confusing the Kaba case with the Parisian teen case. Anyway I think a tede will be along in a minute to point out that it's probably contempt of court to opine in too much detail. 0 Vote up! Well it will all come out in court then. 0 Vote up! Read this and thought “seems strange he’d be sitting stationary and shot in the head, that does sound like murder”. However, a quick Google confirms he was trying to ram through a police block when the shot was fired…. 0 Vote up! Car was boxed in....not moving 0 Vote up! Quite a few coppers get done for dangerous driving causing death. Funny they don't ask to for a transfer to foot patrol. There is a case to answer here. Shameful that they are all trying to avoid scrutiny. 1 Vote up! Easy to say “petulance” and the rest. 0 Vote up! Shooting someone should be a last resort. And when it happens it should be subject to legal scrutiny. No-one should be above the question of whether there is a realistic prospect of conviction. 0 Vote up! Armed cops are dicks but they exist to deal with bad bastards and I can't picture you doing it (oh let's be REASONABLE). London is probably going to have to deploy soldier to deal with civilian incidents which is suboptimal imo. 0 Vote up! You don't know me, Clergs. I have carried a side arm on duty. 1 Vote up! Oh wow your backstory as a g4s intern in Texas in 1997 totally changes everything. 3 Vote up! y rn’t they trained 2 shoot 2 disable rather than kill? 0 Vote up! Because if you have to shoot someone it is because you have no choice but to kill them. That's how it's supposed to work. 0 Vote up! well that’s not actually an answer 2 the q now is it 0 Vote up! Wrong you shoot the hostage 0 Vote up! If you had knowledge that the car had been involved in an armed altercation earlier and it was a stolen car and when stopped by the police the driver attempted to ram the officers rather than surrendering would those be circumstances where lethal force should be authorised or should the armed police wait and only fire when fired upon ? 0 Vote up! There is no evidence online to support the assertion that the car was stationary. That is fairly significant in the context of the CPS case, as the defence argument will likely be that the officer fired in fear for their life and was unable to move out of the way in time. My guess is most of those now refusing to carry guns have some visibility on what happened (and would have probably done the same thing in that situation). 0 Vote up! “Quite a few coppers get done for dangerous driving causing death. Funny they don't ask to for a transfer to foot patrol.” Driving is a core for every officer. Carrying a firearm is purely for volunteers. Also they have to self-declare if they feel they are unfit mentally to perform their duties. Sounds like that’s what they’ve done. 0 Vote up! y rn’t they trained 2 shoot 2 disable rather than kill? Cos it's a really stupid idea and they aren't trained to shoot to kill anyway. They're taught to shoot to stop the threat. Shoot someone in the leg? Could have three outcomes. They stop, they carry on doing whatever they were doing anyway, or they die cos you've just put a big bullet hole in the femoral artery or the bit of the thigh bone you just shattered puts a hole in the femoral artery. 1 Vote up! Seems a good way of exerting pressure to stop these investigations and prosecutions. Chimp isn’t it a bit like the paeds Reg a few years ago - everyone up in arms over a prosecution and conviction for something anyone of us could do on a bad shift? 0 Vote up! Just think of all the shit takes we’re missing out on this from now departed roffers. When I was in government 0 Vote up! Massive decision to charge with murder rather than manslaughter. There must be loads of footage from an incident like that so presumably they think they have a good case. Time will tell I guess. As an aside it is interesting how wide the injunction against identifying the cop is. 0 Vote up! Or the cps and police and politicians think the jury will acquit and putting this poor man up for trial shows they’re not afraid to ensure justice is seen to be done - the fact he’s been bailed on a murder charge points to this 1 Vote up! Seems a good way of exerting pressure to stop these investigations and prosecutions. Well, that’s exactly what I mean with my question above. Exerting pressure to protect armed police officers from the possibility of criminal charges would make a mockery of the rule of law. The Bawa-Garba case was different as that was about disagreement with the outcome once the case had been heard. No doctors were downing tools simply because there was an investigation into a death. 0 Vote up! Not question but comment about what they expect to achieve here. I agree that resigning from firearms duties definitively protects them from the possibility of being prosecuted for shooting someone in the line of duty, and if they don’t want to take that risk then fair enough. If they are doing this to “exert pressure” on the justice system not to pursue criminal charges which it would otherwise have pursued…that’s not great 0 Vote up! Do you think the decision to charge in a high profile case like this is made by Max Hill? 0 Vote up! I’d like to agree with you new chimp. But the reality is there is a media battle going on. You are unlikely to hear anyone standing up for the charged officer on the BBC whereas you will hear comments in the other direction from the local MP. I think there is a lack of faith in the legal process/rule of law on all sides 0 Vote up! Diceman: Traditionally, no. In practice there is a lot of autonomy. DPP has a kind of “tell me why?” veto over the prosecutor running the police/sensitive cases team. It would really stand out if the DPP did anything as gauche as directing a prosecution. Not saying influence isn’t directed at sensitive cases though. my opinion is based on v historic knowledge though 0 Vote up! That’s not right, Dicers. Twice this week there have been ex-armed coppers on the Today programme giving it: “Wah, Wah Wah, I put a lot on the line, I’ve got a family, I want to protect people therefore I should be allowed to shoot people with impunity” I truly hope that the evidence is put before a jury and that they find that the accused followed his training and opened fire within his terms of engagement. But if they don’t, it is right that he be punished. it is also right that the CPS applied the usual rules before changing him. To give the police (or anyone) exemptions leads to the horrific example across the pond. 1 Vote up! Cmon no way a decision is made either way without top brass sign off, which amounts to the same thing. Presume England has the concept of malicious prosecution. 0 Vote up! In the US they'd have decided there was no case to answer before even arriving at the scene but in the US they would also have fired several hundred shots so it would be impossible to tell which one actually killed him. Our armed police are incredibly restrained compared to most of the world so I have some sympathy for what they have to go through on the rare occasions they do shoot. I used to sail with a Heathrow armed copper and he shot a guy who had stolen a police car and was waving what turned out to be a fake gun out of the window. He never worked again for the police as he couldn't bring himself to go back after the huge amount of time he'd spent on suspension while they investigated. 2 Vote up! Thanks asturias 0 Vote up! Peter, noted on the today programme. It’s still a media battle though. I’d be interested to look at the rules the cps apply. And what analysis is done to check that those rules are applied consistently for different types of offence 0 Vote up! Summer, it would be interesting to know how many officers carry on as an armed officer after killing someone 0 Vote up! Or the cps and police and politicians think the jury will acquit and putting this poor man up for trial shows they’re not afraid to ensure justice is seen to be done - the fact he’s been bailed on a murder charge points to this That he's on bail means that there is considered to be no risk of him failing to turn up to court or interfering with witnesses or committing another crime whilst on bail. It doesn't say anything about what CPS/police/politicians think the jury will find. 1 Vote up! Or he's been reassured it will go his way so no need to worry... 0 Vote up! What's the point being an armed police officer? No extra pay, risk to life, risk getting banged up for murder if you make the wrong split second decision. Who would really follow guidance to the letter if they're in the sort of situation where they feel they need to shoot? 2 Vote up! He has been hung out to dry in order to placate the media mob. The other officers know this and have decided its just not worth the hassle. The self defence standard is the same for everybody; he just happened to have a firearm handy. The alleged breach of any firearms protocol is likely to be used to suggest this isn't the case, but the defence will be quick to show otherwise. That is more of an internal disciplinary issue. And there is no such thing as "shoot to wound". People have clearly watched too many Hollywood movies. You aim for centre mass every time; to improve the chance of a hit, which is the basic point of discharging a weapon. A trained sniper with the correct weapon and with a clear shot will try to aim for the brainstem "apricot" to try to ensure immediate cessation of muscle control, to minimise the risk a hostage is in turn shot by the crim, or the terrorist can depress the button on the vest. But everyday armed officers have worse optics and shorter barrels on their automatic rifles. 3 Vote up! George Graham25 Sep 23 10:28 Reply | Report What's the point being an armed police officer? No extra pay, risk to life, risk getting banged up for murder if you make the wrong split second decision. That's precisely what this is all about. Firearms officers were in fact paid less - to the tune of £400pcm - than ordinary coppers of the same rank because they were not required to do night shifts. This made it hard to get enough volunteers (it is a voluntary position) which also included, obviously, a lot of time being trained and tested. Once they had balanced the financials the position remained that they were paid equally (not more) despite then a higher level of complexity and risk in executing their role. This seemed to be something they were ok with until the equation tipped (in the withdrawing officers' minds) such that they were at risk of a murder charge arising out of split second decision making (by them and others in the command chain) and, importantly, serious criminal investigations. That last point is being heard in the media now. There is a resentment that they are in a poor position to defend themselves as often the shootings occur in the context of serious crime, terrorism etc and there is a level of control over what can be accessed in terms of evidence and said in terms of public statements of fact, pending ongoing operations. With respect I think that is somewhat overblown as PII can allow a defence without public disclosure of sensitive intelligence. I also think that a great deal of what a firearms officer does with the shooty end of his equipment is the product not just of his split second thinking but a chain of command which gives the go/no-go. There are also defences to murder available to officers in this situation (public defence, self defence) which turn on the facts and things are not as drastic as the situation suggests. Above all it should be entirely OK for officers with guns to be subject to check and challenge for their conduct, a high level of scrutiny over the balance of safeguarding the public and creating an unaccountable bunch of gun-toting officers. I dont think we can have an amnesty or public service carve out for armed police. Even the armed forces, in battle, are subject to rules of engagement. I think the better course here would be to be much more careful about the processes which permit an armed officer to pull the trigger and the evaluation of the capabilities and psychological competence of those selected and trained. I don't think they should be paid more, if that were what they were asking for (I dont think they are but I may be wrong) as some would call it danger money but others would be incentivised by the prospect of higher income. Not a basis for handing someone a gun. 0 Vote up! st John are you a former or current officer, a firearms specialist or just a fat larry with a smeggy black t-shirt and a sweaty face who spends all day gaming? 0 Vote up! If damaging the hydraulics/mechanics isn't going to achieve the objective given the nature of the threat, then turning off the electrical system is the preferred approach. That's what happened to Jean Charles de Menezes where most of not all of the errors were made before anyone got on the train carriage. Given that current blokey shot through the windscreen he may not have been aiming for the head at all given that bullets don't tend to carry on the same trajectory after compared to the one before they go through one. 0 Vote up! Why do you think the existing evaluations are inadequate and the processes have been given insufficient care? 0 Vote up! Was that to me? I don't think I do have any basis to conclude that. 0 Vote up! yes. I thought that was what you were advocating for in the first sentence of your last para. no matter 0 Vote up! Errrr, Mutters, St John Hawke was awarded the Purple Heart and Bronze Star with Oak Leaf Cluster. He served three tours in 'Nam for God's sake. 0 Vote up! I’d like to agree with you new chimp. But the reality is there is a media battle going on. You are unlikely to hear anyone standing up for the charged officer on the BBC whereas you will hear comments in the other direction from the local MP. I think there is a lack of faith in the legal process/rule of law on all sides OK, but that shouldn’t be encouraged should it? It can’t be right that if the local MP makes “comments in the other direction”, the response is to try to pressure the CPS into not investigating the case if they think there is a case to answer. The police need to be subject to the law. 0 Vote up! I didn't really mean more careful - bad lingo. I meant more focused on. If the current facts stand up to that scrutiny, good. If not, then criminal processes should follow as they would with anyone else acting outside the boundaries of the law. That's what I meant. Also if there needs to be any improvements in process it is perhaps the scrutiny of people coming into the Metropolitan Police, firearms or not. 0 Vote up! Mottled, I did join the forces, yes. The recruiting sergeant told me it would give me the opportunity to travel the world, meet nice, interesting people, and kill them. 1 Vote up! Chimp - I may be wrong but I have not seen any suggestion that this action has been taken to apply pressure to the legal system in any way. There have been no demands or requests. To me, it appears to be a watershed moment where the volunteer officers concerned have decided it’s not worth the risk to their lives to perform this role. If it is to try and get the officer out of a conviction then I agree 100% this is unacceptable. If, however, they’ve all just realised how precarious their role is (which is my take) then I can’t help but support them as I share the view that it’s not worth it 100% which is why I have never applied to join firearms. 1 Vote up! new chimp. as I understand it they have withdrawn their labour in terms of jobs requiring firearms. I don't think that should be encouraged or discouraged necessarily. It's just a free choice just as anyone can withdraw their labour. according to the BBC , the armed officers say it's a response to a shift in the approach of the CPS. If that's their perception, who are we to tell them they must carry on? muttley, I don't think anyone suggests that criminal processes shouldn't follow for anyone breaking the law. have they? 1 Vote up! I am not sure what, in fact, is being said/done here then. They are withdrawing their service as armed officers because it is not worth the risk. What is the risk? The risk is being prosecuted if they fall outside the legal boundaries by which they do their job. As you say, nobody sensible is suggesting that should not be the framework. And if that is their concern then where do they stand on ordinary beat officer risk: arresting someone who goes into cardiac arrest when restrained, hitting someone in the legs to stop them who then falls and hits his head and dies of a subdural haematoma... this would be investigated and could be prosecuted. Not worth the risk.... then where do we go. Nobody wants to be a policeman of any sort. what are they actually asking for... 0 Vote up! Yes I agree with Muttley. If the “risk” they are worried about is the possibility of facing criminal sanctions in accordance with the normal workings of the justice system - well this was always a risk and if they didn’t realise this before they weren’t very switched on. 0 Vote up! Being firearms trained means being deployed to the riskiest situations every day and having a significant chance that they will kill or be killed. Your average plod (*waves) might come across such a situation a handful of times in their 30-year career (I’ve probably had 6 or 7 in 18 years where I genuinely feared for my life). Firearms (depending on role) have this annually at least I’d guess. The risk of being involved in such a case is hugely higher. The fact that they do not have to do everyday policing, nightshifts, interviews etc added to the prestige of being an armed cop is worth it for some (or has been). The media reaction to this incident and all the negative comments from MPs, charities and members of the public appear to have swung their views the other way now. Nobody believes cops should be above the law but most cops don’t want to be armed and I’m grateful to those who volunteer as, without them, we’d probably all be armed as part of our terms of service. 3 Vote up! TBF I have just learnt that they don’t get extra pay for the extra responsibility of being armed. In the Navy I got extra pay for being a diver, and another extra when the accommodation was rough (“hard lyers allowance”). Not sure I’d do it for nowt 1 Vote up! there's quite obviously a big difference between the risk in being an ordinary copper and the risk in being a shooty one. 0 Vote up! I'm not sure how I feel about this The current media narrative is all cops are racist and sex offenders. Some are. Most aren't So I guess if you are an armed cop and you shoot someone (at the time believing it was the right thing to do) but the media call you all sorts of names without evidence Then I can see why they don't want to be armed anymore That said anyone stepping outside the parameters of the law should be banged up and we need those who will stay within the law to be enforcing it 5 Vote up! rare agree with davos 2 Vote up! The UK has one of the lowest numbers of police killings in the world ( low single figures ). I think this probably indicates the system works well, but at the same time as they are so rare they make headline news. 0 Vote up! From what I've read, their objection is that they are put into extremely high pressure situations (already taking on risk of getting killed, for no extra pay) and then, add to that, that they could have someone sitting at a desk poring over the fine print of the guidelines to determine whether they breached anything. Why bother? I wouldn't. Maybe the law takes this into account. I don't know. I doubt many people would always follow guidelines to the letter in the rare situations where they feel they need to shoot. At this same time, I'd agree that they can't operate outside the law. 1 Vote up! Fair point T Pot 0 Vote up! That’s a fair point chimp re the protest being over the outcome but I do think there was a push back against medical manslaughter as a whole. I personally have a lot of sympathy with people making split second decisions. We’ve both done it but arguably not to the same extent as an armed police officer. I guess it would be like you having to report a trauma pan scan but instead of just the ED team having around the console they may kill you if you get it wrong and on the other hand a tiny error may kill your pt! I’ve got a m9 who’s currently being investigated for medical manslaughter (don’t want to go into details on here but if you have a nonny Chimp I’ll happily discuss) and it’s really destroying her. This must be even worse with the MP and various characters “of the left” being allowed to mouth off unchallenged. 0 Vote up! Is it really the case that armed officers are taking or exposed to more risk that an ordinary police officer? I accept that they are placed in higher risk situations but they also benefit from a much higher degree of risk mitigation than the average copper on the average duty: they are armed, they are wearing ballistic vests, they are part of a team and rarely in an incident alone, they are (mostly) called to situations which are unfolding and where they have the opportunity to implement highly practiced strategies and tactics etc rather than being subjected to a surprise attack....etc 0 Vote up! As a follow up q which I could probably find the answer to, but when was the last time an armed police officer was killed (or even injured)? How does that compare to unarmed police? 0 Vote up! Practiced strategies are all good until you come up against something like London Bridge with a huge amount of confusion, lots of innocent bystanders and a rapidly changing situation. 0 Vote up! I totally agree - but even in that particular circumstance, would you rather have been part of the armed unit responding (and making the extremely difficult but correct decision to open fire), or an unarmed policeman wandering around Borough market who fought off one of the lunatics slashing a machete around? 0 Vote up! (It may be that we are talking at cross-purposes: my question is around the risk to personal safety at the time of the incident, rather than the risk of having a split-second decision secong-guessed by a legion of desk-jockeys) 0 Vote up! The risk is not that they will get shot The risk is that they are subject to huge scrutiny and have to make very tough calls - and that has an impact on them career wise and health wise Armed police have no powers beyond the right to carry the gun - they have to use their own judgement and its their decision to fire. They can only do so to preserve their own life or someone elses. In this case, it would appear that this officer was in front of the line of the car - as the bullet went in the windscreen - which would presumably be helpful in any explanation that he feared for his own saftey as the car was pointing at him. They could ask - could you not move out of the way? Of course, they could have let the driver go, but then what's the point of the armed police - are they only there with guns for purely self defence? and if someone armed if not pointing at them, do they let them go? If that's the argument made in court - he was driving his car at you - why didnt you just jump out of the way? Then how does he answer....? He has to say, that shooting was the only option to preserve his own life as he believed based on the evidence available that it (or that of others) was immediately under threat. The armed response unit has been driven to the scene because of the perceived threat - but have to then act like anyone else. That's understandable but strange at the same time. I dont know the rules in the US but it would appear you can be shot and killed for ignoring a lawful order to surrender. 0 Vote up! Remember also that the car was linked to gun crime so there was a reasonable belief that as well as trying to flee the driver might be armed. What good is jumping out of the way if someone then shoots you out of the window on their way past? In the US there does seem to be a presumption that any shooting is a "good shooting" and the process seems to take days rather than months or years. Here you can end up suspended for a couple of years whilst the process grinds its way onwards. 1 Vote up! I won't comment on the specifics of the Chris Kaba case, simply because I do not have access to the evidence and do not know what actually happened. However, it is entirely appropriate that where we have granted a (near) monopoly on (legal) violence to the armed forces and the police that they are scrutinised and subject to examination when they exercise that monopoly. Increasingly (and I hope in the Kaba case) there will be video evidence (bodycams, vehicle cameras etc) of what has actually happened: it will then be for the CPS/ a jury etc to decide whether the use of a weapon was reasonable in the particular circumstances. I would also anticipate that a jury would give a large amount of leeway to the police in this (probably more than I would personally wish for - but that is the system). As per above, if armed officers did not realise that is what they were signing up to they may not have been smart enough to have been given that responsibility. So, we agree that armed officers are taking a greater risk of being subject to enhanced scrutiny. My original question was really aimed at whether (as some of those who are handing in their "tickets" suggest") are exposing themselves to greater physical risk? 0 Vote up! There was body worn camera footage and his family have been shown it. 0 Vote up! I think a key part of the defence will be the daily briefing everybody receives. It may have been along the lines of "Keep a look out for this car. It has been positively linked to an armed incident. You should assume any occupant is armed. If spotted, you are to call for immediate tactical support, and a Gold Commander will be nominated". So everybody was alerted to this, and the threat/risk profile shifts. The hard stop was clearly a planned tactical decision, as was the deployment of the armed officers. If you get knocked down by a car, even if you survive the initial.contact you can be run over again, or else the occupant can put a round in you, like in Paris. At present, nobody on the outside is sure of anything. But there muat have been intelligence that weapons were likely to be found in the car. Which makes the decision to prosecute for murder just that little bit harder to understand, objectively. 0 Vote up! Tommy - if you were an armed policeman would you be happy to be charged with murder so a jury can decide whether or not you'd acted within your power or whether you had murdered someone. Have a think for a moment why armed policemen and women might object to that. 1 Vote up! American police have a saying: Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6. 0 Vote up! Consider the possibility that senior management are so scared atm that they thought better to prosecute than be accused of a cover up? We simply don’t know. 0 Vote up! “Is it really the case that armed officers are taking or exposed to more risk that an ordinary police officer? I accept that they are placed in higher risk situations but they also benefit from a much higher degree of risk mitigation than the average copper on the average duty: they are armed, they are wearing ballistic vests, they are part of a team and rarely in an incident alone, they are (mostly) called to situations which are unfolding and where they have the opportunity to implement highly practiced strategies and tactics etc rather than being subjected to a surprise attack....etc” Short answer is yes depending on role. If they are in an armed response vehicle (ARV) there will only be two of them rather than a team (and most officers are double-crewed nowadays). They will wear the same body armour as the rest of us as far as I am aware and they are often called as first response for a possible firearms job whilst locals are told to back off and wait for ARV. The fact that very few die compared to non firearms officers shows their training is excellent (so they know better than an average plod what to do in a firearms situation) and the fact there are so few of them compared to non armed police. Also, it’s not so much the possibility of getting hurt ourselves that means most of us don’t want guns, it is the possibility that, once we have one, we may have to use it. I don’t want that responsibility but am very grateful to those willing to take it on. The current media coverage shows why. 1 Vote up! ‘snip, whether armed men or women object to being subject to legal scrutiny isn’t the question. Of course they do; they will always want to make life easier, just like we object to the worst excesses of the SRA. The point is that they are not above the law; neither should they be. 0 Vote up! Of course they are not above the law. I never said that they should be. We need armed police Armed police do a difficult job They are judged to the same standard as everyone else - ie they make a decision to kill / not kill on the same basis that you or i do - its just they have a gun BUT - they should not expect when they use their judgement, to be charged with murder and judged by a jury. Obviously we do not know what evidence there is to assess whether the marksman crossed the line or not, but i think we shoudl all be agreeing that the default shoudl not be "charge with murder and let a jury decide" when a marksman has had a tough call to make and then made it. . 1 Vote up! They are judged to the same standard as everyone else they should not expect when they use their judgement, to be charged with murder and judged by a jury Eh? 0 Vote up! It’s not that the default is “charge with murder and let the jury decide”. The CPS has presumably brought this prosecution due to evidence in its possession. The assumption that they must have done so for some political reason, or due to insufficient regard for the difficult position of police marksmen, is hard to make out based on what we know at the moment. 0 Vote up! Are there any criminal lawyers on here? Suppose the facts are that the deceased ignored repeated police instructions and was driving a stolen car straight at the police marksman. Not really a situation you can practice/ train for. The marksman shot him. Let's guess that guidelines somewhere state that shooting must only be a last resort with no other options available. Two years after the event playing a slow mo video it can be shown that the marksman could have dived out of the way rather than shooting. Is this a murder? If so, is there at least some mitigation in sentencing? 0 Vote up! I'd say the marksman has made a mistake here but it's not really what the man on the Clapham omnibus would describe as murder. The marksman's state of mind can't have been helped by the same car being apparently linked to a firearms offence. 0 Vote up! Pagination Current page 1 Page 2 Next page next Last page last Refresh Back to board Join the discussion Login Register 1 Vote up!