Police Shooting

Once again we have a man dead after the deployment of armed officers and again in a planned operation, where the police decided the ground on which they operated. The plan appears to have been that the three men in question should be surrounded in a public car park, tear gas deployed and the occupants threatened by armed police.

Not sure about the tactic of using the gas, but there may be some sense to it that isn't immediately apparent, though I wouldn't suggest that anything impeding the sight-line of armed officers would be terribly helpful. I wonder too if the possiblity that the targeted men might try to drive away had been considered, bearing in mind the approach was made whilst they were in a vehicle?

But whether through the usual tactical ineptitude, or because of reasons wholly to do with the actions of the criminals, our armed police once again opened fire and once again we meet a wall of silence about whether the targets were armed. What was the actual reason, the absolute need to open fire?

Let's be clear on this. If a criminal finds himself facing armed police it is entirely his responsibility to ensure the police feel no need to shoot him. I don't feel a huge concern that criminals end up getting hurt. My problem is with the willingness of the police to shoot people at all. It is not just that the police train armed officers inadequately, it would appear that the training is inappropriate too.

Tactics, the actual weapons used and deployment are of great concern. That the IPCC do not see it as their job to urge caution and suggest change is outrageous. I am certainly not comfortable with the police becoming judge, jury and executioner. Whilst we act with vigour to convict soldiers of 'crimes' in war zones, our armed police are a protected breed, loosing off rounds with impunity.

Why does the publicly accountable body, the Greater Manchester Police and the publicly funded though doubtlessly unaccountable IPCC, both feel they have no need to reassure the public about the actions of armed officers? Were these men armed? They already know the answer, it cannot possibly affect any subsequent court case to release the information now, but we can't have it. The reason is likely to be the concoction of justifications that everyone is 'happy' with, politicians, legal advisors and police.

I don't understand why no-one seems to think a better trained and more competent force of armed police officers would be a good thing. We deserve better.