www.guardian.co.uk/gun/Story/0,2763,1341499,00.html

Gun police refuse to carry weapons

120 officers in protest after inquest leads to suspensions

Tuesday November 2, 2004
The Guardian

At least 20 members of the Metropolitan police's elite firearms unit are refusing to carry their weapons in protest at the suspension of two colleagues over the death of a man carrying a table leg which they mistook for a shotgun.

A further 100 members of the SO19 unit, the Metropolitan police's specialist armed response service, have said they want to temporarily withdraw themselves from firearms duty after Scotland Yard suspended Inspector Neil Sharman and PC Kevin Fagan.

The pair could face criminal charges after a second inquest into the death of Harry Stanley last week returned a verdict of unlawful killing five years after his death.

The prospect of a quarter of the officers in SO19 striking over the case has led to two crisis meetings in the 400-strong unit. SO19 sources said those who do withdraw will still turn up for work to perform other duties but will not carry weapons.

"More than 100 have now indicated they are not prepared to carry on at the moment until they review their position," said a source. "They are bitterly disappointed at the way the two officers have been treated and they feel unsupported."

At the inquest, which ended last Friday, the Stanley family argued that the two firearms officers were not truthful in their account of what happened when they challenged the 46-year-old in September 1999 near his east London home. The jury rejected the two officers' claim they believed Stanley posed an imminent threat to their lives when they shot him.

A spokesman for Scotland Yard last night insisted the strike action had not affected the Met's armed coverage of the capital and said that SO19 officers were all volunteers and could stand down whenever they wished.

"It is only to be expected that firearms officers, who carry out some of the most dangerous and demanding of policing duties, should now feel especially vulnerable," he said. "We are doing our utmost to provide support and reassurance to these officers and are listening carefully to the issues they raise."

Glen Smyth, the chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, said the suspension of the two officers had provoked "anger and disquiet" among their colleagues. "All firearms officers are now asking them selves if they, too, will be abandoned by the Met should they have the misfortune to find themselves in similar circumstances to those officers who are currently suspended, even if they were to act fully in accordance with their training," he said.

"Their current action is, they feel, the only way they can make their voice heard."

The armed officers, one of whom has since been promoted, claimed that Stanley reacted to their shouted warn ing of "Stop! Armed police" by turning round and raising the object he was carrying upwards, as if about to fire a gun. They had been sent in search of a suspect after a man in a pub where Stanley had been drinking rang police to say an Irishman had left the pub carrying a gun.

At the inquest, Tim Owens QC accused the officers of having "concocted" their claims that Stanley had turned round fully to face them and had raised the table leg believed by the police to have been a gun as if to fire. The family argued that ballistics evidence showed that the officers' account could not be true, a claim ultimately believed by the inquest jury.

Daniel Machover, solicitor for Stanley's family, said: "Nobody is criticising the two firearms officers for believing it was a gun.

"The key question is when they challenged him what happened. Their account that he posed a threat to their lives was disbelieved by the jury."

Quoted: At least 20 members of the Metropolitan police's elite firearms unit are refusing to carry their weapons in protest at the suspension of two colleagues over the death of a man carrying a table leg which they mistook for a shotgun. "The key question is when they challenged him what happened. Their account that he posed a threat to their lives was disbelieved by the jury."

HECK YEAH!


They should have the right to shoot anyone they want!


Stupid jury shouldn't get to decide when it comes to police.


<F'g Kangaroos.>

They're sooooo sophisticated, over there.

If only they had shot the dog.  This all could have been avoided.

"Stop! armed police!" ???

gimmie a break.  here in the U.S. the cops don't have to say they're armed because "Stop! Police!" means "Stop! Or I'm going to shoot you!"

British justice, which used to be the best in the world, has really gone to shit.

How sad.

"British Justice" is a misnomer. So called "british justice" is a joke. It's all about protecting the common CRIMINAL! The British judicial system has about as much respect for human rights as a whore does for the local christian church.

That is the problem... I have been told by MANY Brits that they believe that "in America having a gun give you the right to murder someone."  

They have so few guns in private hands, they associate firearms only with criminal activity.  Their laws are such that if you are attacked in any way, your only legal recourse it to offer no resistance and hope you survive, otherwise you are a criminal too, if you beat off the attacker, harming him.

Everyone has to be accountable, even the police.
Harry Stanley was deaf.
That the police couldn't distinguish between a table leg and a sawn-off shotgun is for them to answer.
This was at less than 10 metres, and from that distance, they shot him twice. One in the head and one in the hand.
The police's firearms training is shit. These guys can't shoot, let alone make a correct life or death decision.
A "Fully trained marksman" shooting someone from less than 10M and hitting him in the head and hand
Of course, I wasn't there but these guys do have to be accountable at some level.

In another article floating around, they said this is the 2nd Innquest. The 1st one rules that no charges should be filed.

Also notice the date of the shootinh, September 1999. So 5 years later, they decide to suspend, and possibly bring charges? That seems fair .