Jermaine Baker shooting: Firearms officer arrested (UK) What????

A firearms officer has been arrested and interviewed under caution over the shooting of a man.

"Jermaine Baker, 28, was shot dead on 11 December during an alleged attempt to spring two convicts from a prison van in Wood Green, north London.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) told a meeting held to address community tensions that the officer was arrested on Thursday afternoon.

The IPCC has opened a homicide inquiry."

Jermain e Baker shooting: Firearms officer arrested (UK) What????

"Mr Baker was fatally shot at 09:00 GMT on Friday 11 December close to the back of Wood Green Crown Court.

He died from a single gunshot wound, the IPCC said.

The shooting took place as Erwin Amoyaw-Gyamfi, 29, and Erun Izzet, 32, were due to be transported to the court for sentencing having pleaded guilty to a range of offenses, including possession of a sub-machine gun.

The sentencing went ahead a short time later with both jailed for 14 years."
I was unaware that the Police in London carried firearms...the way folks on here from the UK talk on this site is as if there are no guns in places like London...(please note I'm not being sarcastic so relax).

Amazing that the police do not carry guns as a whole if criminals are using sub-machine guns...but I suspect it's only a matter of time until you come to the dark side...

Yes we have a Gestapo in London that walks about armed to the teeth with MP5s and other semi-automatics.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

The police use of firearms is so rare in the UK. Before this incident, the last person shot and killed by the policeman in England or Wales was in 2012.

Every time a police officer fires his/her weapon there is an independent investigation by the IPPC. In this case, the IPPC may have considered the shot was not necessary or possibly questionable, and an arrest is just a way to formalise the investigation. An arrest does not indicate guilt, but indicates the severity of a death.

The police are not armed in the UK, with the exception of specialist officers.

If the killing went down the way it is claimed, why would he be arrested?

The IPCC must have reason to arrest, there is always an inquiry when firearms are used by officers, let's hope it there is no cover up. I'm sure there won't be, but further riots on the streets of London is something the Government can do without.

originally posted by: chrismarco

I was unaware that the Police in London carried firearms...the way folks on here from the UK talk on this site is as if there are no guns in places like London...(please note I'm not being sarcastic so relax).

Amazing that the police do not carry guns as a whole if criminals are using sub-machine guns...but I suspect it's only a matter of time until you come to the dark side...

In the majority of places, normal uniformed patrol officers are unarmed, but supported by specialist firearms units who can be deployed if needed.

I believe, based on comments made by the Met Chief (The Metropolitan Police covers London), that this was a covert armed operation.

Criminals use all sorts of firearms - we've even recently had police officers killed in an ambush involving grenades. The UK is pretty much the poster-child for the concept that gun control doesn't keep guns out of criminal hands.

Still, many if not most of the public, and many if not most of the police, do not want regular patrol officers to be armed. I can understand why. It's a shift in the balance of power and an admission that something has been lost.

Personally, I'd prefer the beat bobbies to have better training with, and access to, the tools needed to do the job.

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
If the killing went down the way it is claimed, why would he be arrested?

The IPCC must have reason to arrest, there is always an inquiry when firearms are used by officers, let's hope it there is no cover up. I'm sure there won't be, but further riots on the streets of London is something the Government can do without.

I'm wondering if the arrest is in any way connected to the Duggan incident that left chunks of London burning a few years back.

Apparently there has been a heated response from the community that the lads came from.

Edited to clarify - I don't mean that the officer had anything to do with Duggan, I mean that the government are trying to show they are taking it more seriously to prevent similar levels of unrest.

Watching it on the news now, theyre saying the guy might've been asleep in the car when it was approached by the firearms unit. Am gonna reserve judgement until the facts start coming out.

Are you listening America, This is how it's done....One shot.

a reply to: chrismarco

Amazing that the police do not carry guns as a whole if criminals are using sub-machine guns...but I suspect it's only a matter of time until you come to the dark side...

The vast majority of criminals in the UK don't carry weapons of any kind let alone sub-machine guns.
There are set protocols that must be followed, and obviously are, if criminals are suspected of being in possession of firearms etc.

Though there is a perception that gun related crime is increasing here in the UK it is still incredibly rare.

This is not a gun control issue.

This is about ensuring that armed police had just cause to shoot this person.
It is imperative that any investigation is transparent and all its findings are made public.

If found guilty of killing Baker unjustifiably then the police officer must be punished in accordance with the law.
However, the investigation should not be an exercise aimed at appeasing elements within the community in line with politically correct motivations.

Our armed police should not be scared to use their weapons when necessary due to fear of prosecution and persecution etc but neither should the police be allowed to kill with impunity.

Transparency and honesty are imperative.

originally posted by: paraphi
The police use of firearms is so rare in the UK. Before this incident, the last person shot and killed by the policeman in England or Wales was in 2012.

Every time a police officer fires his/her weapon there is an independent investigation by the IPPC. In this case, the IPPC may have considered the shot was not necessary or possibly questionable, and an arrest is just a way to formalise the investigation. An arrest does not indicate guilt, but indicates the severity of a death.

The police are not armed in the UK, with the exception of specialist officers.

In air ports and sea ports cops have guns.
I have seen them with finger on the triger!
for no reson to.

I would just like to point out I don't WANT guns to proliferate everywhere.
I make my own choices and I'm thankful for the freedom to do so ,but I don't need nor want the world to emulate America.
It would be a bit sad to hear about a polite country becoming so dangerous as to require the beat cops to be armed.
One just has to look at pragmatic choices as clearly as possible and respond accordingly.

a reply to: buddha

In air ports and sea ports cops have guns.
I have seen them with finger on the triger!
for no reson to.

Armed police are present at air ports etc for the simple reason this country is on the highest security level possible without actually being at war.

No reason to?
I guess that may depend both on one's take on things and also on the level of information available.

Do I like it that armed police are present at such places? - Definitely not, but I'm a realist and I understand the reason for it.
Just as I understand the need for having trained armed response police officers whilst not wanting to see any significant change in policy regarding armed police or the UK's gun control laws.

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
If the killing went down the way it is claimed, why would he be arrested?

The IPCC must have reason to arrest, there is always an inquiry when firearms are used by officers, let's hope it there is no cover up. I'm sure there won't be, but further riots on the streets of London is something the Government can do without.

No its common to arrest someone after any shooting. It just while they dot the i's and cross the T's. He will likley be released without charge.

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: chrismarco

I was unaware that the Police in London carried firearms...the way folks on here from the UK talk on this site is as if there are no guns in places like London...(please note I'm not being sarcastic so relax).

Amazing that the police do not carry guns as a whole if criminals are using sub-machine guns...but I suspect it's only a matter of time until you come to the dark side...

In the majority of places, normal uniformed patrol officers are unarmed, but supported by specialist firearms units who can be deployed if needed.

I believe, based on comments made by the Met Chief (The Metropolitan Police covers London), that this was a covert armed operation.

Criminals use all sorts of firearms - we've even recently had police officers killed in an ambush involving grenades. The UK is pretty much the poster-child for the concept that gun control doesn't keep guns out of criminal hands.

Still, many if not most of the public, and many if not most of the police, do not want regular patrol officers to be armed. I can understand why. It's a shift in the balance of power and an admission that something has been lost.

Personally, I'd prefer the beat bobbies to have better training with, and access to, the tools needed to do the job.

Bollocks.

Most the police I know do not want guns either. They claim that being armed tends to escalate the situation.

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: buddha

In air ports and sea ports cops have guns.
I have seen them with finger on the triger!
for no reson to.

Armed police are present at air ports etc for the simple reason this country is on the highest security level possible without actually being at war.

No reason to?
I guess that may depend both on one's take on things and also on the level of information available.

Do I like it that armed police are present at such places? - Definitely not, but I'm a realist and I understand the reason for it.
Just as I understand the need for having trained armed response police officers whilst not wanting to see any significant change in policy regarding armed police or the UK's gun control laws.

Police have always been armed at airports since I can ever remember. In fact the first time I saw a gun must have been when I was 6 at gatwick back in 94.

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: chrismarco

Amazing that the police do not carry guns as a whole if criminals are using sub-machine guns...but I suspect it's only a matter of time until you come to the dark side...

It is imperative that any investigation is transparent and all its findings are made public.

If found guilty of killing Baker unjustifiably then the police officer must be punished in accordance with the law.
However, the investigation should not be an exercise aimed at appeasing elements within the community in line with politically correct motivations.

Our armed police should not be scared to use their weapons when necessary due to fear of prosecution and persecution etc but neither should the police be allowed to kill with impunity.

Transparency and honesty are imperative.

This should clear up any issues from the other side of the pond. Well said, completely agree.

No matter who you are in the UK. If you shoot someone you WILL be arrested, investigated and charged / not charged pending investigation. Simples.
If you have followed your rules of engagement and made a lawful killing you'll walk free, if not you will most likely do some time.

This has always been the case afaik

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: EvillerBob

...and many if not most of the police, do not want regular patrol officers to be armed.

Bollocks.

Most the police I know do not want guns either.

Err... isn't that exactly what I said? Or was it a different bit you were disagreeing with?

originally posted by: FawnyKate
No matter who you are in the UK. If you shoot someone you WILL be arrested, investigated and charged / not charged pending investigation. Simples.
If you have followed your rules of engagement and made a lawful killing you'll walk free, if not you will most likely do some time.

This has always been the case afaik

I do not think there is such a thing as a lawful killing in British law. There may be such a thing as a a death by lawful intervention, but I am no lawyer.