Talk:Police use of firearms in the United Kingdom

message: I'm having a bit of a dispute over at Talk:Death of Ian Tomlinson over the inclusion of an erroneous press report that the Met's Territorial Support Group has access to "submachine guns" as opposed to the actual semi-automatic MP5 carbines used by Authorised Firearms Officers in the unit (which does not have any Specialist Firearms Officers attached to it). Other editors may wish to offer their opinion on the matter. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if it was, it would still be wrong. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute over claimed British police use of "machine guns" 

message: What does "senior officers wanted their forces to still have the "British Bobby" or Dixon of Dock Green effect on the community" mean?  I suggest that the editor clarify what was meant, and translate the paragraph into proper English.124.197.15.138 (talk) 21:02, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: This sections is large, unwieldy and has been tagged for over year as needing reducing. Can we come up with some criteria for including incidents in this section? I'm thinking significant, widespread and sustained coverage in the national press, at the least. I'd like to say that incidents should only be included if they already have their own articles? ninety:one 20:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the lack of a separate page is an appropriate yardstick for non-inclusion. We list twelve incidents, eight fatal, four non-fatal. Seven of the fatal shootings account for 23% of the total of thirty upto October 2005. In nine cases the person shot was unarmed, while in two the person was in possession of an air pistol, and in one a bladed weapon. In many of cases the person shot was entirely innocent, and/or going about their lawful business. It is these circumstances which result in controversy, and therefore make them notable. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Notable incidents" 

message: I have reverted the edits by Cziltang mexico due to various issues, including but not limited to:
* Spelling and grammatical errors.
* Misleading account of Harry Stanley shooting - we only have the officers' word that this is how the deaf, unarmed, and entirely innocent of any wrong-doing Stanley reacted.
* Immigration status of the unarmed and entirely innocent of any wrong-doing de Menezes has been discussed many times on the associated Talk page, and judged to have no bearing whatsoever on his shooting, quite apart from the concesus that he was not in the country illegally. There is also conflicting evidence over whether the officers properly challenged him, although it hardly seems surprising that even a completely unarmed and innocent person may not act "correctly" when confronted by multiple persons with firearms in civlian clothes.
* Large block of uncited commentary. Nick Cooper (talk)  14:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits by Cziltang mexico 

message: You twice refer to people as "unarmed, and entirely innocent of any wrong-doing" which doesn't make you the best choice for an impartial edit. I will endeavour to find citable sources to back up these stories. Having compared your edit to the previous one I find your language biased as you focus on how people were shot from behind or while unarmed but do not allow supporting evidence for officer's actions. I think we all know it is possible to get a point across using less rather  than more. Deliberately editing to show the monstrous nature of what have been legally proven to be mistakes is not acceptable.
--Cziltang mexico (talk) 20:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither Gail Kinchin, John Shorthouse, James Ashley, Harry Stanley, John Charles de Menezes, Stephen Waldorf, Cherry Groce, the Leeds diabetic, nor Abdul Kahar were armed. These are self-evident facts. Harry Stanley, Jean Charles de Menezes, Stephen Waldorf, and the Leeds diabetic were clearly going about their lawful business. The same could be said of the people shot in police raids, such as John Shorthouse and Cherry Groce, where they were not the person/s the police were looking for. Nick Cooper (talk) 22:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Response

message: While I appreciate this user has more Wiki time under his belt than me, can we have another editor's opinion on what is developing into Edit War?
I am trying to keep the "Notable Incidents" section factual. NC has made comments that imply officers shoot unarmed people but omits information that gives both sides of the story (e.g. Stanley and Menezes shootings). To be fair, since my penultimate edit he has only redone the suicide notes from Sanderson BUT these notes are not relevant here. A section on armed police notable incidents is to list stories of such, not to imply or insinuate that a suicide note left a month previously would have made a difference to a standoff with armed cops. If it should go anywhere it's on a page for Anne Sanderson NOT here. --Cziltang mexico (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: One doesn't have to, "imply officers shoot unarmed people," because they self-evidently do. If the fact that Cherry Groce's death provoked a riot in which someone was killed is relevent, then so is the Anne Sanderson's state of mind, which the IPCC clearly thought was significant and should have been acted upon. Nick Cooper (talk) 22:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

text: What are you going to do? Arrest me? Nick Cooper (talk) 22:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: (Arrive via the third opinion page...) Some of the stuff that was added has merits; for example information on what happened to the police officer in these cases is pertinent due to the subject of the page (those very officers :)). A lot of the other stuff strikes me as irrelevant. Although I also think mention of the suicide note is irrelevant (though I note we have no article about that actual incident for such info to go into). --Errant  23:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict)Nick, please be civil in talk page comments and edit summaries. My feeling is that some of Nick's edits may have used selected facts to put a negative slant on events. The IPCC report notes that officers failed to put a warning marker on Sanderson after the notes were found, but makes no suggestion that this would have changed the outcome of the main incident under discussion. As such, I agree that this information, while undeniably factually accurate, is not relevant and, because it is selected from a large number of possible facts contained in the IPCC report, potentially introduces a non-neutral point of view. My favoured solution is to remove this superfluous information. For the time being, however, I have simply sought to add balance with some additional information from the IPCC report, including the vital point that a verdict of lawful killing was returned at inquest. Both of you also need to keep WP:3RR in mind, as I believe you may be close to breaching this.--KorruskiTalk 23:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: After a bit more looking at the diffs, it seems that Nick has systematically removed statements that officers were cleared of wrongdoing. So long as it is reliably sourced, the outcome of any investigation into an officer must surely be stated, as failing to do so introduces obvious POV.--KorruskiTalk 23:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "Systematically" is misleading, as it implies I been doing that you claim specifically, both "currently" and in the past. I reverted Cziltang mexico edits en masse because - as noted above - there were too many issues with them as a whole. Nick Cooper (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, I was overstating my case and I apologise. However, hopefully you will agree that we should include information about the outcome of any criminal investigation if available. --KorruskiTalk 23:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't actually understand the first line of Nick's last paragraph. I bow to the opinions of Koruski and ErrantX. Oh and the en masses deletion you did a while back wasn't my edit, I just put the other guy's back. You are clearly biased against the police which means your are putting POV into this article. If a statement about a suicide note is relevant then so is info clearing officers of wrongdoing. Keep this site factual.--Cziltang mexico (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I edits lots of pages - am I biased against all of them? On the other hand, most of your edits appear to be police-related. Odd, that. Nick Cooper (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by Nick Cooper 

message: It is a common misconception that 'CS is a firearm' in UK law. It is not the case. The Firearms Act of 1968 clearly defines a firearms as follows: "In this Act, the expression “firearm” means a lethal barrelled weapon of any description from which any shot, bullet or other missile can be discharged."
CS Spray does not match this description in any way.
The confusion seems to arise from the fact that CS spray is also prohibited by this act, under section 5 ("any weapon of whatever description designed or adapted for the discharge of any noxious liquid, gas or other thing"). However, simply being banned by the firearms act does not make something a firearm! I am about to revert the relevent edit.--KorruskiTalk 16:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite correct - CS gas is a "prohibited weapon" by virtue of being listed in section 5(1), along with certain firearms, but not everything listed in 5(1) is a firearm. ninety:one   17:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  CS as firearm 

message: Can I have 3rd party intervention on this as Nick Cooper keeps mentioning the suicide note left weeks previously to her shooting by Kent Police firearms officers, on the section entitled Notable Incidents.
This has no relevance to the actions of the armed response officers on scene as they react spontaneously to what unfolds at the time and even if they knew of such a note they would not be able to think "oh hang on, that gun she's pointing at us is possibly fake as she's probably trying for Death By Cop".
I would like 3rd party opinion on whether this note should be included in the section or, as is my opinion, on a page for Anne Sanderson instead.
This section's purpose is to detail incidents NOT present soap box material to show either the victims or the police in a bad light. It should be impartial and the terminology not weighted to one side or the other.--Cziltang mexico (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Heavy irony. Nick Cooper (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Cziltang - I broadly agree with you. It is indeed perfectly obvious that the suicide note would have made no difference to the actions of the armed officers, once she decided to point a gun at them. I don't think we should place much, or any, weight on it in this article as it relates only very tangentially to the issue of the police use of firearms in the UK. However, the fact is that it was mentioned in the IPCC investigation, so Nick Cooper does have some justification for including it. If it is to be included, it should simply be heavily caveated with the statement that the IPCC made no connection between the issue of the suicide note and the events of the shooting, and ascribed no blame to the armed officers involved.--KorruskiTalk 23:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The note is relevent, because it's an indication of Sanderson's suicidal intent. I would also note that Cziltang mexico's justification that the information should be on a page devoted to Sanderson, rather than this one, is weak. Some cases we can be more brief with, because there are main pages that can be referred to, but in others there is little justification for a separate page, so more detail can and should be included here. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention of suicide note in case of Anne Sanderson in "notable incidents" 

message: John Nevard previously added the following claim, the removal of which was subsequently reverted by Cziltang mexico:
:"Police Memorial Trust founder Michael Winner noted in 2007 that of the 33 officers fallen in the line of duty the trust had memorialized, about 28 could still have been alive if UK police were routinely armed."
Winner has frequently made simialr claims, but does not seem to have identified exactly which killing he thinks could have been avoided. This page lists the 43 officers commemorated by the Trust upto 2010. Of those 43, six (Head, Fox, Wombwell, Fletcher, Goodman, and Broadhurst) were the victims of what could be described as "sudden shootings," would could not have been prevented by any of them being armed; likewise the three killed by an explosion (Dodd, Lane, and Arbuthnot), and the ten (McCloskey, Tooley, Jones, Ahmed, Odell, Armitage, Walker, Moore, Munn, and Walker) killed by or in chases with vehicles. Four officers were off-duty, and clearly arming officers 24/7 is even less likely than arming them whilst on duty. It may well be that some of the remaining 20 officers' deaths might have been avoided, had they been armed, but it seems unlikely that that would have been so in every case. This is quite apart from the fact that armed suspects faced with armed police might be more inclined to shoot first rather than be shot themselves. In this context, there is little to support Winner's claims. Nick Cooper (talk) 00:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: We're not here to discuss the merits or otherwise of what he said; rather its presentation (or otherwise) in the article. As it stands, it is a commentator's opinion (ie not hard fact) sourced from a "what the papers say" article. It is not suitable for inclusion. ninety:one   18:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

text: I would suggest that you read WP:CIVIL, and then maybe you'd like to identify exactly the "evidence not relevant on this page" you claim above. For your information, I have no issue at all with selected police officers being suitably trained and armed, and indeed find little to question their actions in, for example, operations like this one. However, whether you like it or not (and the fact that your edits are predominently police-related suggests a more systemic bias towards the latter on your part), other armed police operations are the subject of great public interest, debate, and/or condemnation, and Wikipedia should reflect that. Nick Cooper (talk) 20:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia presents facts, not opinions that either lead the reader to one conclusion or leave other evidence out. You placed great store by Anne Sanderson's suicide note, but it took 3rd party intervention before you conceded that it had no outcome on her death during a stand off with armed police officers. I am again passing this over to 3rd party intervention (and that means someone other than Ninety One). I fail to see how the opinions on arming police, of the Police Memorial Trust founder are irrelevant to a wiki page entitled "Police Use of Firearms in the UK".--Cziltang mexico (talk) 00:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: First, please note that the second-last paragraph of the 'History' section already includes a more up-to-date rendering of Mr Winner's opinion, so the 2007 version should probably remain out of the article regardless. As far as the 2010 version goes, I believe it ought to remain. It is a relevent opinion by a figure who is notable in the context and is quoted in a reliable source. While Nick Cooper may be right that Winner's opinion is not correct, that is not a reason not to include it. We do not exclude a statement of someone's opinion from Wikipedia simply because that person was incorrect. I suggest that Nick Cooper looks for another source which refutes Winner's view, and adds that to provide balance.--KorruskiTalk 12:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. Didn't realise this was repetition. Thanks again Korruski for your sage wisdom.--Cziltang mexico (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  If Winner was claiming in 2010 that 38 officers out of 44 were "almost certain" to have not been killed had they been armed, then obviously his views have become even more preposterous, because clearly far more than six deaths are unlikely to have been so affected (unless, perhaps, he thinks carrying a gun means someone can't be run over/into!). It would be very surprising if no-one has cast a more critical eye on his claims, so I'll see what I can find. Nick Cooper (talk) 21:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claims by Michael Winner 

message: Surprised as I am, me and Nick Cooper are actually in agreement on something. Can we get a third party opinion to stop the unidentified user from mentioning that "On an earlier occasion, Rathband had confiscated Moat's van on the erroneous suspicion that it was not insured". as this has absolutely nothing to do with Moat shooting Rathband in the face some considerable time later.
--Cziltang mexico (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely, not important at all. ninety:one   21:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Raoul Moat's uninsured van. 

message: Who put this in?!!
It is biased and clearly has no place here as it is from a pressure group's findings, not a government survey.
Also what relevance does the "ethnic minority" bit have here, unless you possibly include the ethnic group of the officer(s) that fired the fatal shots.
Let's keep this group factual and impartial and use material that is not weighted to imply "UK cops are bad guys with a gun licence who shoot non-whites".
--195.225.189.243 (talk) 12:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Statistics section 

message: Having lived in London myself (as recently as 2005), I recall it was common public knowledge that there had NEVER been a successful prosecution of any on-duty police officer for shooting and killing an innocent member of the public.
If this statistic is correct, it is surely remarkable enough it self to warrant inclusion in the article. 
I've been unable to find any instances of an officer being found guilty as described above but haven't seen an exhaustive list of cases. Can anyone conclusively confirm or refute this fact?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.210.187 (talk) 04:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Successful Prosecutions of London Met Police Officers for Murder/Manslaughter/Unlawful Killing as the result of firearm use in the line of duty 

message: Update: BBC News. August 6, 2014.http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-28656324
Meusvita (talk) 07:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Which means very little. All this is is that AFOs in one area of one police force will always carry their sidearm on duty. The vast majority of officers remain unarmed in that area, that force, and Britain as a whole. Nick Cooper (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  British Police on Routine Armed Patrol 

message: In a section on Northern Ireland in the article, it states that the police were armed from the beginning. While this is true, it neglects a period of time (I don't know how long, when they stopped being armed) during which the police were not armed. There was a vote taken by police officers roughly around 1969 in which the RUC voted against carrying guns. Within months, due to the escalation of the Troubles, the result of the voe was over-turned, and the police were routinely armed from that point on. --82.21.97.70 (talk) 18:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  RUC "armed from the beginning" 

message: I can't see any mention of the law with regards to the use of firearms by Police Scotland. Are there plans to add this? Chazzyb31 (talk) 14:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a paragraph on Police Scotland under "Great Britain" (beginning "In 2013, Police Scotland"), but you're right that the discussion could be more substantial. There's more detail at Police Scotland#Armed Policing which could be summarised here. It's unlikely that anyone's actively planning to expand this (or any other) part of this article, though, as it doesn't look like anyone's worked on it much in the last couple of years. You could, of course, be bold and expand the article yourself. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about Scotland?