Man shot dead by off-duty officer in Belfast

Man shot dead by off-duty officer in Belfast

www.bbc.co.uk

A man has been shot dead by an off-duty police officer during a suspected robbery at a petrol station.

The PSNI said it happened on the Albertbridge Road in east Belfast at 1905 GMT on Thursday.

It is believed the dead man, who was in his 20s, was armed with a knife and was attempting to rob the filling station.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Not much information at this point. This is an incredibly rare occurrence for a police officer in northern Ireland to fire their weapon at all, but particularly while off duty.

The only worry is that dissident Republicans could latch onto this unfortunate incident and use it as ammunition against the security forces.

www.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by Big Raging Loner


Couldn't of shot him in the leg arm or anything? Shot to kill?

reply to post by Theonlywoody


If it were the states, he would have probably sued him. Shoot to kill is the motto over here.

we shoot center mass to neutralize the threat... If I shoot you in the arm or leg, you can still use the other ones to do damage... If I shoot you center mass, you are likely to drop and stop...

If not, I shoot again until you do...

That's what is taught in all police academies in the world, including the one I went to.

You wouldn't be too happy if I shoot the perp in the leg and he keeps shooting or stabbing people... Then you'll say "why didn't you shoot to kill?" ...

You see, there's no winning with whiners... Don't commit the crime, and you won't face the problems...

Magnum

P.S.

reply to post by Theonlywoody


welcome to reality .

Originally posted by Theonlywoody
reply to post by Big Raging Loner

 

Couldn't of shot him in the leg arm or anything? Shot to kill?

I have seen this type of comment on more than one occasion when dealing with Poilice in the West. The thing to keep in mind is Officers (US / Canada and England) do not shoot to kill. They shoot to stop the threat. We are not allowed to fire a "wounding shot" since that action can be spun as something completely outside what our training is.

You will have to view this from a legal aspect for courtroom purposes and how the DEfense makes their argument, and you will understand why we dont do this.

If it ever becomes an accepted practice to "wound", then the moment an officer discharges their weapon and stops a threat (death) then the argument is going to be why didnt you wound the person? There is no argument that can be made to even address that answer in any fashion the everyday people would understand.

Also, when we use our duty weapon, its considered a deadly force encounter, not a shoot to wound encounter.

The legalities involved of wounding would throw the entire system into mass chaos since criminals (or their surviving estates) would have an affirmative defense. It would open the door for any criminal who is armed with any weapon, including knives and guns, to argue that yet they were armed, but did not actively shoot back at the officer.

Other things to keep in mind -
Contrary to TV / movies a shot to an extremity is rare. Officers are trained to shoot center mass (highest chance of a hit).
Shooting at an arm or leg runs a greater chance of a miss, and unlike the military, collateral damage is not accepted.


As you can see from the video below, even when standing 6 feet apart, there is no gaurantee you will hit the person you are shooting at.
Gun fights do not always go down the way you see them on TV. Tv does not take into account the human condition (adrennaline, fight or flight response, auditory exclusion, tunnel vision, and the X factor)

**Video shows footage of a shootout - no one killed, but images may be disturbing to some**

So an armed robber was shot and killed? Good. Why is this even on here?

reply to post by 3finjo


If you had read my comment below the article you cheeky beggar, maybe you would be able to answer that question yourself.

It is very unusual for a police officer to shoot to kill in the UK. Don't judge the story by American standards. Remember the Raul Moat stand off? He had already murdered one person, and shot two others, including a police officer at point blank range. The police officer is now blind. In the end of the standoff he killed himself and the police only used a taser.

So in that case they didn't use a shoot to kill policy even though he was armed with a sawn off shotgun, and had already killed, and seriously injured two others. Yet in this situation, a robber who was armed with a 'only' a knife, was shot and killed. I think the fact that this officer had to make the call on his own led to him, drawing his weapon and firing, but I can't help but feel maybe he really just wanted to use his gun.

3finjo I think there are a few questions here which are interesting enough for ATS. I'll have a look at your threads though see how I can improve.

reply to post by Big Raging Loner


Police can kill anyone they want and make it up.

How many times does it happen?

reply to post by Xcathdra


The legalities involved of wounding would throw the entire system into mass chaos since criminals (or their surviving estates) would have an affirmative defense. It would open the door for any criminal who is armed with any weapon, including knives and guns, to argue that yet they were armed, but did not actively shoot back at the officer.

This is something that I find ridiculous. In the UK increasingly we are seeing these kind of cases. Not in regards to the police using weapons. But the rights of the victim seem to be outweighed by the rights of the criminal on more than a few occassions. Where such cases are actually given the time of day by the legal system to bring charges against arresting officers, when there is for example CCTV footage of the criminal clearly at fault.

What I was wondering though, in this case did the robber move to attack someone? Maybe he was mentally ill and was therefore a severe danger to the public, and unpredictable.

reply to post by Big Raging Loner


If you use a weapon to commit any crime anywhere in the world now and are using the weapon in a threatening manner you will be shot. I guess you would be still alive if you immediatly surrender your weapon.

Police are trained to shoot someone to eliminate the threat. This is so the assailant cannot kill you or someone else. How would you feel if an assailant killed a member of your family because the police didn't eliminate the threat.

The majority of people in Northern Ireland have moved on in their lives and I think you are mistaken in what you are hinting at.

reply to post by JohnySeagull


I would feel horrible if a member of my family was killed obviously. Thanks for that.

The point I am trying to put across is that it is a very rare occurrence, and when you draw parallels with other more serious cases in the UK more caution has been used. Raul Moat as my prime example.

I agree the majority of the people of Northern Ireland have moved on, but perhaps you have missed the recent security threats maybe by dissidents? They use any excuse to make attacks on security forces in Northern Ireland, and all I was suggesting in the OP, was this could be used as another piece of fuel for the fire. Although this was not the idea I expanded on.

What I found interesting is that the cop was off duty and acting alone, I believe if there had been more officers present there may have been a different outcome. That is why I would like to find out more information about the robbery itself, and how the assailant was behaving. Was he posing such a threat to life that he should have been killed?

How often do you hear of a robber attacking and killing a member of the public in the UK? It is incredibly rare and even more so in Northern Ireland. The weapon may never have been intended to be used ,and if the officer had not been there, perhaps the shop keeper would have simply handed over the money, the robber left the premises, and no one would be dead. The man could have been desperate. Or as I suggested mentally ill.

Like I say I'll be looking for more information to make my own mind up.

reply to post by Big Raging Loner


We are saying the same thing. Here in the States we have the exact same issue where the rights of criminals are held sacred while the rights of those affected are violated with devestating consequences.

Its a deadly force encounter, and regardless of the person mental status, the fact remains he was armed with a knife.

The standard has moved from 21 feet to 26 feet in terms of a knife attack "bubble". A person armed with a knife is capable of traversing 21-26 feet before an officer can react quick enough to draw a duty weapon and defend himself.

reply to post by Xcathdra


I get what your saying totally, it's the standard procedure. I only hint at the mental status more as an example of there perhaps being more danger than a simple robbery. For example if the man had been looking to hurt someone primarily. In which case obviously it is the better outcome, as opposed to several other innocent people being seriously injured or worse, the assailant is shot dead.

I find it odd that the man could not have been talked out of the situation by an armed police officer. Which makes me feel that maybe the cop shot him outright. But like you say maybe this is just how they are trained.

Just an update to the story.

www.bbc.co.uk...

Investigators are examining claims he had a knife and was carrying out a robbery.

Twenty investigators from the NI Police Ombudsman's Office are working to establish what led to the shooting.

Apparently this point it has not been confirmed whether or not the assailant was in fact armed, or had made threats to suggest he did. The man also had quite an extensive criminal record:

He was on licence for offences of criminal damage, driving while disqualified, making a threat to kill, burglary, theft and assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

The licence was imposed at Belfast Crown Court in March last year when he was also jailed for nine months. He had a total of 17 cases against him in both the Crown and Magistrates Courts dating back at least five years.

With this information I think we can draw a better picture of events. Although not confirmed, judging by his past convictions, I think it is pretty certain he was armed, and could have hurt others.

Originally posted by Big Raging Loner
reply to post by JohnySeagull

 

The weapon may never have been intended to be used ,and if the officer had not been there, perhaps the shop keeper would have simply handed over the money, the robber left the premises, and no one would be dead. The man could have been desperate. Or as I suggested mentally ill.

If you pick up a weapon you are armed and dangerous. You should be ware of this. Nobody else will know if you intend to use it or not. Like I said earlier if you surrender the weapon immediately you may live. If you continue to threaten people with a weapon you will be shot. There is no grey area here. This is the world we live in.

The man certainly could have been desperate. We are living in desperate times. Many people are desperate. They will not all pick up a weapon.

Its unlightly he was mentally ill. I wasn't aware of it being normal practice for mentally ill people to arm themselves and carry out robberies. Unfortunately however there have many many tragic incidents were mentally ill people will arm themselves and simply kill a random stranger unknown to them. Robbery is not usually something on their minds.

According to accounts from community workers from that area, he was holding a knife to a girls throat. Now I've read local threads with differing views of what happened, what should have happened etc. IMHO opinion, if you're a toerag scumbag holding a knife to an innocent girls throat all bets are off.

reply to post by JohnGeeTee


I think we can all agree on that! It does sound more and more to be an open and shut case, and I probably shouldn't have drawn it out with this thread, so my apologies for that.

But I have been skeptical of such incidents since Charles De Menezes was shot, and I like to get all the facts together before making a decision. It will be interesting to see if the story disappears, or we get confirmation of your post John. If true it must have been an incredibly difficult shot for the officer to make, and I am sure he will get his proper recognition.

Thanks for the replies folks!

Originally posted by Big Raging Loner
reply to post by JohnGeeTee

 

But I have been skeptical of such incidents since Charles De Menezes was shot, and I like to get all the facts together before making a decision. It will be interesting to see if the story disappears, or we get confirmation of your post John. If true it must have been an incredibly difficult shot for the officer to make, and I am sure he will get his proper recognition.

The SRR began operations in Northern Ireland in 2009...

*Removes his tin-foil hat*

The robber must have presented an immediate and near-certain threat to life. It is rather odd behaviour for a British policeman (despite Andy’s bizarre and entirely farcical claims), who you would have expected to try and make an arrest instead, but he could have tried his hardest for all that we know. It is not that unusual for police in Belfast to carry firearms when on and off duty due to the tendency of Republican terrorists to target them, and therefore he may have been a little more keen to use it (and capable) than the average copper in the UK.