Firearms Instructor PC Micklethwaite was to take a firearms awareness course and for this he needed weapons and inert ammunition. He was told that the 'demonstration ammunition' was in a clearly marked box in the armoury at Milton Keynes. When he went there he couldn't find it, but he did see a Quality Street tin that contained a mix of ammunition, which he assumed to be inert, because of the lackadaisical method of storage and that mixing live with inert was a 'sin, a no-no'. So he took the tin home and left it in his porch overnight, as you do. Next day, he loaded a weapon during a classroom session and eventually discharged the gun, hitting a member of the class. It becomes beyond satire when you find out that PC Micklethwaite attended a Firearms Instructors course as is required and failed it. And what pray tell did he fail on? Safety and weapons handling. The course Instructor recommended that TVP conduct a documented review of these aspects. Naturally, this never happened.
The IPCC felt that there was a case to answer and passed a file to the Crown Prosecution Service who decided not to proceed. The IPCC also passed a file to the Health and Safety Executive who did prosecute and extracted a fine for both the PC and Thames Valley Police. Much to their credit the IPCC carried on and now recommended a disciplinary hearing for misconduct, at which point PC Micklethwaite announced his intention to retire. Because they have to give notice of proceedings against an officer, TVP said that they wouldn't be able to proceed until after his retirement, so abandoned it. This decision was accepted by the IPCC, case closed.
Whilst scathing about PC Micklethwaite's assumptions, they were perfectly happy that ammunition was kept in a Quality Street tin as training requirements were not the same as operational. That Micklethwaite was an accident waiting to happen seems clear, but the IPCC doesn't exactly come across as balanced and fair.
The IPCC report into the shooting of Mr Stanley was a little less, um, searching. Admittedly it is subsequent to the old PCC investigation, the organisation that preceded the IPCC. This report agrees that the death of Mr Stanley was due to the use of force by police officers, which wasn't really an issue in so much that he was shot in the head by them. The document is defensive in tone and outcomes relevant to the police officers involved.
The background. Harry Stanley was drinking in a pub, whilst having with him a chair leg wrapped in a plastic bag. A member of the public (for whom no claims of firearms experience has been made) reported a suspicion that it may be a sawn-off shotgun. Firearms officers were despatched and Harry Stanley was challenged in the street, from behind with shouts from the armed officers. Not unnaturally Harry would not have known they were shouting at him and turned to see what was going on. This aggressive movement by an armed man caused the officers to open fire, hitting him in the hand and head.
In their investigation they claim to be impressed that the officers gave almost identical accounts of events despite also noting that the officers wrote up their notes together at 1:30am. I would have been amazed if they differed! This strange self-satisfaction continued into the reason the officers fired. Although the report warns against using hindsight let us allow ourselves to use that facility, to remind ourselves of the real situation as opposed to the reality invoked by the police and backed up by the IPCC. Harry Stanley was a painter and decorator by trade, I guess the officers confronting him didn't know that, rather than someone experienced in the use of guns and in a tactical manner or combat situation. He wasn't carrying a gun, but a chair leg and the officers certainty that he was carrying a firearm comes solely from a report by a member of the public. This certainty still doesn't explain why the officers said of Mr Stanley turning to them that he did so with a “fluid deliberate movement”, adopting a “classic firing position, boxer
stance”. I think, with hindsight, the police would have been more aware of that than he was. However, puffing themselves up, the IPCC in their report say that they asked several firearms experts and they agreed that the officers actions were reasonable, in the circumstances. It might, you would have thought, have been 'reasonable' to ask people who were specifically not firearms officers. The problem here is one of reinforcing. Having been told the man has a gun, police officers able to use lethal force and trained in weapons handling will read way more into innocent situations than anyone else. It is almost a guaranteed way of making a mistake. If I had a gun and an armed policeman came up behind me and shouted 'stop! Armed police' I would stop, stand still and do whatever else they wanted, because I know, pretty well that it is me they are after. However, if I didn't have a gun, I'm sure I would turn around, with a fluid movement or not, to see what was going on. In the situation in which Harry Stanley found himself, this thought never occurred to the police officers. If you ask why, there is no satisfactory answer, so the IPCC don't ask that question.
Too many incidents involving armed police prove that they are deployed in a very controlled manner and I don't mean in a good way. Senior officers are always quick to let you know that no-one can tell an armed officer to pull the trigger, it is their decision alone. That is not a comforting comment and it is not intended to be supportive or reassuring. The statement is designed to remove blame from the operational commanders. Yet these all too often hopeless 'leaders' send armed police to incidents wound up, with their finger on the trigger ready to pull it.
I remember a bomb threat to a disco, which was in a room on stilts. On checking the area we saw a car parked under the building stuffed with all sorts of paraphernalia, so we called for the owner to come forward. When no-one did, this 'likely hoax' suddenly started to look a little scary. Then someone sidled up and asked why we wanted the owner, was he in trouble. Panic over. When the idea of a problem is planted, your thinking can become conditioned. I cannot believe the police still do not seem to have addressed this with common sense approaches to even deadly situations, rather than their preferred certainty and paramilitary stance. They would say they cannot put police officers lives in danger. We have no evidence of that, but rather too much evidence of the current thinking putting the public in danger. The IPCC don't seem to have spotted that.
No comments:
Post a Comment