responding to the 'armed response unit'

if the two brothers arrested in the forest gate 'terror' raid last week
have just been released without charge
then obviously neither of them was in possession of a gun
even though one of them was shot during the arrest
(supposedly by his own brother!)

so it was CO19 (renamed from SO19) who did the shooting
but the statement the police made after the brothers were released
makes no reference to that wounding _
so presumably the public must await yet another ipcc inquiry
(and in the meantime just be thankful that a wounding is all it was!)

is it any wonder the police feel no need to comment?
in the last two days
i've spent about 12 hours trawling the internet
for statistics on the 'Specialist Firearms Command' - CO19
specifically to compare the figures of casualties
between those who were innocent of any wrongdoing
and those who were 'deserving' of a police bullet _
in our 'open democracy' those comparative statistics don't exist

what word would you use to describe
firing seven bullets into a man's head at point blank range
as was done with jean charles de menezes
on an underground train_

killing?
murder?
execution?
somehow none of these words sufficiently describe it _

what would a high court judge say about such horrendous action
prior to handing down a life-sentence to the perpetrator?

after the ipcc handed in a dossier of their findings
on the menezes case (to scotland yard ?!)
the crown prosecution service said that they
"hoped to decide by Easter
whether any officers will face criminal charges"
but Easter has long since passed
and the public has heard nothing _

take the case of harry stanley_
a man recovering from a cancer operation
shot by two police officers whilst carrying a table leg
which they mistook for a sawn-off shotgun _

anyone who knows about these things
(and these officers had 'SO19' training)
is well aware the lack of potent range a 'sawn-off' has
especially against a police semi-automatic _
so what phrase could you use to define stanley's killing

death by misadventure?
unlawful killing?
or an act of cowardice?

in the second inquest into the shooting of harry stanley
a verdict of 'unlawful killing' was pronounced because
"the jury did not believe the officers
when they said they felt under imminent threat"

the point is that these two cases are linked
by more than the victim's unnecessary death _
the police commisioner sir ian blair went on public record
with his description of jean charles as 'a terrorist'
because he was afraid that his armed response unit
would 'down tools' and abandon him
just as they had only eight months earlier
when the officers who shot harry stanley were suspended from duty _
(under these circumstances it might have been better if they had)

and now at forest gate
we are given a story of one man shooting his own brother
and still no explanation for what was obviously not the truth
what is becoming clear from all of this
is that CO19 consider themselves to be 'above the law'
and do their best to avoid prosecution for their actions
by resorting to 'industrial action'
or coercing their senior officers into 'covering up'
with the contrivance of half-truths and blatant lies
and yet our prime minister says they have "101% of his support"

well mr blair_
your record of support for 'armed response' speaks for itself
and during the bloodbath of iraq you would probably be best advised
to say nothing at all on this particular subject _

in the interim a metropolitan police commander goes before the BBC
to ask for continued cooperation and trust from the community_
"What is more likely to develop increasing trust," he asks_
"what's more likely to deliver effective police
and community responses to situations like this?"

the answer to that question is obvious
and probably one his armed response unit doesn't want to hear_
if you want co-operation and trust
then get it the way everyone else has to... EARN IT!