Fatal Police Shooting in Cheshire - Something Amiss

So I am hoping this is in the correct place - the story has been all over Sky News today, but I can't find any similar threads on here - apologies if duplicating.

BBC Link

Sky Link

The story, initially, was of a man being shot dead in a pre-planned police operation - thing is, as far as the sources indicate, armed police were in some form of pursuit - this kind of reaction tends to only be reserved for major organised crime or terrorism.

Witness Jessica Brown, 15, said: "I saw loads of police cars driving past and I saw three men run past the pizza place with gasmasks on and guns and police chasing them

Folks, my reaction isn't necessarily to the death - but the eye witness above states she saw men with gas masks on running away and the police chasing them - why would potential criminals have gas masks with them?

Something doesn't seem quite right - words are being put into the witnesses mouth - Sky News said a moment ago that Jessica smelt CS gas, but thats not true at all - does CS gas even smell like GAS, which is what she said she smelt - she would have reacted to it badly too!

Thoughts?

Maybe I missed it while reading it now and in the morning, but I still don't see a solid reasoning behind why this man was shot. Normally you have a full story about how bad he/she was etc. but as far as I can see, nothing yet!

reply to post by ComeFindMe


At a guess,I would think the girl actually saw 3 cops with masks on,which maybe they would have used if they deployed gas of some kind..
Maybe the girl got it mixed up in her head,as she sounds like she may have gone into shock after witnessing the event.

reply to post by Silcone Synapse


It could well be that. I just thought it very strange that she distinguishes between men in gas masks and then police. Also, she said she could smell the gas - if it was CS gas, she would be more than smelling it! It smells nothing like 'gas' - if I said I smelt gas, I would be referring to 'gas' as in what powers household boilers.

My first thought when I saw this article was that the three men had gas canisters or something of that nature and the police were reacting to this with gas masks.

Still a little strange, for sure.

reply to post by Silcone Synapse


It could well be that. I just thought it very strange that she distinguishes between men in gas masks and then police. Also, she said she could smell the gas - if it was CS gas, she would be more than smelling it! It smells nothing like 'gas' - if I said I smelt gas, I would be referring to 'gas' as in what powers household boilers.

My first thought when I saw this article was that the three men had gas canisters or something of that nature and the police were reacting to this with gas masks.

Still a little strange, for sure.

reply to post by ComeFindMe


Yep, I found the whole thing very suspicious.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

'When we came outside there was gas in the air, you could smell it.
'I then saw a black van with three or four people inside drive towards the car park. One of them was leaning outside the window and I later heard shots.

Gasmasks? gas?

Very odd.

news.sky.com...

This link ^^ says it was the police who wore masks. So why would they be the ones being chased?

www.metro.co.uk...

'I later looked out of the window and saw three people in black clothing with gas masks on and saw other people chasing them.'

My new idea is that the cops were wearing those types of masks they wear to hide their faces when doing a raid-that would fit in with the "pre planned"nature of the operation.

The "gas" the girl said she could smell may have been the smell of cordite from the guns the cops fired.
(An unusual smell to her,which she believed was a kind of gas.)

Hmm..
It is an odd one though-maybe the news will do a follow up-they usually give names of people who get shot a day or so later.

A man has been shot dead in Cheshire by police involved in an undercover investigation into armed robbery gangs in the North West.

The incident took place at around 7.20pm on Saturday night in the village of Culcheth.

Officers from Greater Manchester Police wore gas masks and used CS gas in what they said was a pre-planned operation.

A police statement said: "During the contact, a male occupant of the car was shot and sustained fatal injuries.

"Two men were arrested at the scene and remain in custody. The deceased's next of kin have been informed."

Armed gang probe....
Gas masks because tear gas was deployed...

Im in the states so my best guess as to why British officers shot and killed the guy in the car could be because he failed to follow commands given. In the US for something like this any unusual movement from people in the car can be viewed as either trying to hide something, or trying to grab an item to use, like a gun.

Since guns arent generally available to the public, investigating an armed gang would be viewed as the people being investigated are armed. If the person who was shot and killed failed to follow commands, it could be because the officers thought he was armed and were in imminent danger / public is in imminent danger.

Like I said, im in the states, so my opinion above is based on how the laws here work - Just a guess for over there..

reply to post by Xcathdra


Cheers for input Xcanthdra My concern was more in regard to the eyewitness statement not quite correlating with the story we are being told.

It may be a mis-reading of what she said, but saying she smelt gas (not CS gas), seeing three men in masks being chased by police - also, we understand now that one man died at the scene and attempts were made to resuscitate him. Two others were arrested. Are these the three? If so, when / where did the shooting come about?

Culcheth, blobby hell. Thats too close to me for comfort.

This is my understanding of police firearms in the UK. I could be wrong, so corrections are welcomed.

Police here, don't as a general rule, carry live guns, except for specially trained ARV officers (armed response vehicle). They carry "Military Grade" CS Gas, a wooden "truncheon", cuffs, radio, cellphone and a tazer.

Armed police always work in pairs, and its my understanding that they carry a modified version of a H&K MP5, with full auto disabled. They don't use handguns, or shotguns as I believe they do in the states.

Armed police are not allowed to open fire, unless fired upon first, or explicitally authorised to do so, by the chief. So they probably won't have opened fire just because someone wasn't obeying commands, or making a grab for something.

Culcheth is a semi-rural area, near Warrington. Its only claims to fame are the old ICI explosives storage bunkers nearby, and the disused RAF Croft, just down the road.

Might be worth me going for a short day trip tomorrow, with my camera....

The comment about not being able to shoot first is actually unnerving in my opinion. Im not fond of a policy that requires me to take a hit before being able to act. Since our legal systems and law enforcement functions are similar, I find it odd it would be that way in GB (not saying its impossible, just weird to me).

The fact that armed police were present during the incident leads me to believe the police were taking every precaution possible. As far as the "gas" smell that will depend on what type of gas was deployed, how far away it was deployed, and if more than one type / mixed with normal smells in the air. Ive noticed differences between just deployed, lingering, and bottom of the canister so to speak all have a different "smell" (at least to me).

Without any more info we are just speculating... I would like to see the result of the investigation before passing any type of judgment on the officers involved. Its a hard enough job (even more so in the UK) without having monday morning quaterbacking occur based on limited info.

I would imagine any type of police encounter in GB that involves an officer and discharging a gun is going to make the top of the news because of its relatively low occurrence.

Originally posted by ComeFindMe
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Cheers for input Xcanthdra

My concern was more in regard to the eyewitness statement not quite correlating with the story we are being told.

It may be a mis-reading of what she said, but saying she smelt gas (not CS gas), seeing three men in masks being chased by police - also, we understand now that one man died at the scene and attempts were made to resuscitate him. Two others were arrested. Are these the three? If so, when / where did the shooting come about?

I have found that you can take 10 people (civilians / police / fire / ems / children / elderly / etc) and have them all watch the same 5 minutes of a movie and write about what they saw afterwards. You pretty much get 10 different answers, sequence of events are out of place, perceptions are completely different based on experience, training, angle of view etc etc etc.

Eyewitness accounts are extremely important, however regardless of whose side of the story the eyewitnesses corroborates, it must be placed into perspective and applied properly taking into account a lack of experience in the area they just witnessed.

If the officers shot the man in the vehicle, its possible a bullet / debris could have punctured a gas tank / gas line etc.

As far as specifics, we need to see how the investigation into the incident plays out.

im literally 2 minutes away from culcheth and this news shocked me and i was suspicious about it from the very beginning. I have never heard of an officer just open firing someone without the news saying the person was armed etc... infact thats usually the first thing that is mentioned.. there is definately more to this than meets the eye..

www.bbc.co.uk...

An IPCC spokesman said: "Due to the presence of CS residue in the car a full forensic examination has not yet been conducted to establish whether there are any weapons in the car.

"This will take place in a controlled environment in the next few days.

"An initial visual search inside the Audi, and a search of the immediate vicinity of the car, has not located any weapons."

Three men have been remanded in custody by Manchester magistrates charged with conspiracy to commit robbery following the shooting.

reply to post by mr-lizard


To those who are in the UK a question.

Here in the states law enforcements use of deadly force is viewed in terms of what the officer perceived the moment force was used.

Does that same standard (or similar) exist in the UK?

If the British officers were breifed these people were an armed gang, they go into the incident under the assumption weapons are present. If the suspect in the car is being given verbal commands to show his hands, and he does not comply, are the officers justified is discharging their weapon under the assumption the person is armed, which is the reason for non compliance?

reply to post by Xcathdra


They are in principle, but because its a fairly rare occurance there is always the implication of misconduct on the part of the police when shots are fired / people are killed.

The public consensus is generally that if someone may be prepared to use a deadly weapon on innocent civilians, all measures are proportionate. The IPCC, though well intentioned, essentially casts a question mark over any weapon discharge by police that could in any way have been prevented. This creates something of a vicious circle, as the increased scrutiny implies further controversy on the next incident and so on.

There was an interesting case over the death of Raoul Moat - he had shot several people in a rampage and was 'on the run'. He eventually got cornered and in the end, there is something of a mystery over exactly what did or didnt happen (and who did or didnt pull the trigger).

Wiki - Northumbria Police Manhunt

I'd just like to add that when I first saw this on the news, they showed a red Audi with a bullet hole in the windscreen. It gave the impression that the man who was shot was inside the Audi at the time. If there were only three perpetrators, they must have been running back to the car. Where had they been?

reply to post by Xcathdra


Assuming someone is armed is a far cry from them actually being armed. If no weapon is in sight then there is no need to open fire, plain and simple.
One problem I do have with many of the police videos I have seen, especially on many of the tv programmes, is the storming of vehicles with everyone shouting at the alleged perp, smashing windows etc to disorient them. In that scenario it is difficult then for the person in the vehicle to discern any specific command from one specific person. In some of the police footage I have seen of these assaults, the force has been completely over the top and unnecessary.

So, back to this particular case, not having any footage to work from it's difficult to ascertain what actually happened, but again, if the suspect was not clearly holding a weapon, then there was no need to open fire as clearly he presented no immediate threat.
I don't believe the bit either about CS gas residue preventing a search of the vehicle and having to do this "behind closed doors" somewhere else. It's a crime scene and must remain intact until any searches have been carried out and adequately documented, otherwise the police run the risk of evidence tampering and allegations of out of place objects subsequently being discovered. After all, if the suspects were armed, then their weapons would have been somewher within easy reach, not requiring a partial or full strip down of the vehicle in order to get to them.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by mr-lizard

 

To those who are in the UK a question.

Here in the states law enforcements use of deadly force is viewed in terms of what the officer perceived the moment force was used.

Does that same standard (or similar) exist in the UK?

If the British officers were breifed these people were an armed gang, they go into the incident under the assumption weapons are present. If the suspect in the car is being given verbal commands to show his hands, and he does not comply, are the officers justified is discharging their weapon under the assumption the person is armed, which is the reason for non compliance?

To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure. I know that here in the UK guns are not as prelevent as they are in the US, or other places wich allow people to carry guns. But I'd hazzard a guess that it's still up to the officers to react to a perceived threat, and act to what they see as accordingly, to their training. And if their intel say that this is an armed gang, then armed cops will be deployed. I don't know enough about this to start screaming abuse at coppers (don't faint ) but this is quite rare in the UK, so I'd have to guess that deadly force was an option that they felt the need to use. The whole not knowing if they were armed or not though, that does strike me as a bit suss. But then, it's the call of the cops who have to deal with this potential threat. I can't make that call for them, from my comfy desk. And I don't have the information on this gang, that they did/potentially did.

edit- if you want me to be a bit more vague, you'll have to ask

News just in. No weapons have been found.

www.bbc.co.uk...