September 28, 2023 • 34 mins
Ever wondered why more than 300 London Met police officers decided to protest by refusing to carry firearms? Are you intrigued by the intricate labyrinth of laws, ethics, and emotions surrounding police use of lethal force? This episode of Backstory with Dana Lewis discusses this complex issue. We welcome Tony Long, a former Metropolitan Police Specialist Firearms Officer and author of 'Lethal Force,' to share his firsthand perspective on the subject.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
different world elsewhere in the world where
every single police officercarries a firearm NX-121 is
really the sort of straw that'sbroken the camel back, really,
because there's been a wholerange of issues in relation not
just to anonymity but the waythat armed police officers are
treated after they get involvedin shootings.
Speaker 2 (00:22):
Hi everyone and welcome to another edition of
Backstory.
I'm Dana Lewis, this weekpolicing in London, which is a
place like no other.
Most police don't even carryweapons here.
Those that do are specializedunits UK Embassy security police
who guard parliamentanti-terrorist police and they
(00:47):
are threatening to return thoseguns in protest over a fellow
policeman who was charged withmurder of a black man last
September.
September 2022.
In fact, last weekend, about300 police said they would
refuse to carry guns because themurder charge was so severe.
Why, they ask, would theyprotect a public that won't
(01:11):
recognize instances where policehave to pull the trigger to
defend themselves?
The situation became so seriousthat the British army was put
on standby to fill the postsvacated by armed police.
Now I started my career as acrime reporter in Toronto, so I
have a pretty good sense of whatis demanded from police and the
(01:33):
sacrifices they make inprotecting us and the Met.
Police have a lot of internalproblems, there's no question,
but do police get to defendthemselves and under what
circumstances?
So, on backstory, I talked toTony Long.
He is a former armed policeofficer who himself was charged
(01:53):
with murder in 2005, charged andlater acquitted, but it took a
decade of his life to fight thatcharge.
Tony Long is a formerMetropolitan Police Specialist
Firearms Officer.
He wrote a book called LethalForce and he has used Lethal
(02:17):
Force on his job as an armedBritish policeman.
And he joins me now.
Hi, tony, good morning, how youdoing so?
You clarified when I wasintroducing you wrongly the
first time that there is adifference between a Met
Firearms and a Met SpecialistFirearms Officer.
Speaker 1 (02:33):
Yes, yeah, it's basically.
I suppose an SFO.
In North American terms wouldbe what you would call SWAT, but
in my opinion, having done SWATtraining in the States, they
are trained to a probably muchhigher standard than most.
Their initial selection courseis 21 weeks, for instance, to do
that, to be a basic SpecialistFirearms Officer.
Speaker 2 (02:55):
Well, specialist Firearms Officers, by the dozens
, have refused to report forwork this week with their
weapons.
Can you tell me what hashappened?
Speaker 1 (03:06):
and why now?
Well, it's not just SFOs orSpecialist Firearms Officers,
it's also armed responsevehicles, which are the sort of
next level down who provide the24-hour mobile response to any
999 call involving firearms orknives.
And it's also a large amount ofother AFOs or authorized
(03:27):
firearms officers who visitorsto London will see standing
outside the Palace orWestminster armed or 10 Downing
Street or any of the other keylocations.
And we also have other officerswho are trained in the use of
firearms, for instance,specialist Surveillance Officers
who work on cases involvingarmed, heavily armed criminals,
and sections of all of thosedifferent grades of firearms
(03:49):
officers have surrendered theirfirearms ticket or their license
to carry a firearm, and what'sactually been the straw that has
broken the camel's back inrelation to this is the
appearance in court of anofficer who's got, at the moment
, an anonymity code of NX121.
(04:12):
Now, what Police FirearmsOfficers do have is an anonymity
code, and if they get involvedin a shooting, when they write
their statement, they write itusing that anonymity code, as do
all of their colleagues, and sowhen the all the paperwork is
being processed and beinginvestigated, no one other than
(04:32):
the individual officers andtheir unit commander know their
true identity.
Now that is an internal thingthat we do and normally it's
honoured at court.
So when I appeared at court in2015 at the Central Criminal
Court charged with murder, forinstance, as soon as I was
charged with murder, I lost myanonymity code and then the
(04:54):
public by the press knew that Iwas Anthony Long, former
firearms officer.
All of my colleagues who werestill serving were allowed to
give their evidence using theiranonymity codes, so Echo 1, echo
2, echo 3, etc.
So this is something that'salways been reliant on the
courts.
Some courts will look at it andgo no, we don't recognise the
(05:16):
anonymity code.
You are all going to have togive your evidence in person
using your real name.
So it's something that it's aninternal procedure, but it's
normally honoured by the courts,unless you are charged with
murder.
Well, nx 121 was involved in asituation that we can't talk
about in British law becauseit's now what we call sub-dutycy
, which means he has beencharged and it cannot be
(05:38):
discussed publicly.
The evidence is heard in court.
There is a hearing an anonymityhearing this Thursday coming at
the Old Bailey, where theofficer will have to appear, and
there's a very high probabilitythat the judge at the Central
Criminal Court will withdrawthat anonymity and from that
(05:58):
point on the world will know hisname.
Well, in the United Kingdom, tobe a firearms officer is a
completely voluntary thing.
So, for instance, in theMetropolitan Police, which is
the largest force in the country, which covers London, there's
something.
Speaker 2 (06:13):
I wanted just to backtrack with you there,
because a lot of people don'tunderstand that British police
are not armed.
But they are armed and it getsconfusing.
I said it's un-clarified.
Yeah, the average beatpoliceman, policewoman, doesn't
carry a firearm.
They might have a taser, butthere are armed response units
(06:35):
for the case of, let's say, asyou mentioned, vip security or
protection embassies.
Or let's say there's aterrorist incident, then there
are guns on the street and thosearmed response officers attend.
They are called within minutes.
They're supposed to have zonesthat they patrol and furthermore
(06:56):
, just coming to your point,that's voluntary.
They do not, as part of theirjob, have to carry weapons.
They volunteer to be in thoseunits correct.
Speaker 1 (07:07):
That is absolutely correct.
So, for instance, out of theMetropolitan Police there are
roughly 40,000 police officers.
Only two and a half thousand ofthose officers are trained in
the use of firearms and it's avery difficult course to pass,
even at basic level.
It's a very expensive course.
So by the time someone gets tothe top of the tree and becomes
(07:29):
a CT at Camp TerritorySpecialist Firearms Officer
you're talking over a year oftraining in order to get into
that role.
Speaker 2 (07:38):
Okay, so Thursday he will appear in court.
If he is identified by thecourt by name at that point, why
is that viewed as negative byother police officers and what
may happen?
Speaker 1 (07:52):
Well, it's not.
It's viewed as being a negativething by all police officers, I
would say, and those that don'tcarry a firearm.
But because it's such a uniquerole in the United Kingdom that
you know, and because theseofficers are employed on counter
terrorist operations, theyreally don't want their
photographs taken or their namereleased publicly.
That's the issue, Because therehas been an issue in the past
(08:16):
where people's home address hasbeen compromised and they've had
to move out.
It's a different worldelsewhere, in the world where
every single police officercarries a firearm, and so, as I
said earlier, NX 121 is reallythe sort of straw that's broken,
the camel bat really, becausethere's been a whole range of
issues in relation not just toanonymity but the way that armed
(08:38):
police officers are treatedafter they get involved in
shootings.
So I don't know what thesituation is in Canada or the
United States.
I know you're different.
I mean, for instance, it took10 years between my shooting and
me appearing in court.
There are serving officers nowstill waiting three, five years
(09:00):
after they've been involved in ashooting.
It's just simply to go back towork.
Speaker 2 (09:06):
You mentioned that you were charged with murder,
which I wanted to come to in theshooting.
As I understand it from yourbook, which I read some time ago
, that this was a gang, a personor organized criminal who was
on his way potentially to carryout the shooting of somebody
(09:29):
else, that's how you werebriefed.
Speaker 1 (09:32):
We were briefed that a group of criminals from an
organized crime group, as itturned out, there was three of
them would be going to alocation in North London where
they were going to rob and killrival Colombian drug dealers who
they dealt with in the past soclearly the fact that they
bought drugs off theseColombians in the past.
(09:52):
They weren't going to just turnup with guns and steal the
drugs, because the Colombiansknew who they were.
Speaker 2 (09:57):
Okay, you were charged with murder and it's an
incredible story that peoplehave to read your book to get a
full accounting of.
We just don't have time to gothrough all of that case now.
But can you tell me, policemenare human beings just like
anybody else.
To have that you were acquittedfirst of all is what we should
(10:18):
have said to have that hangingover your head for 10 years?
Are you serious?
Speaker 1 (10:25):
Well, I mean, it was complicated and, as you said,
read the book because thenyou'll find out why it was so
complicated and it was allaround the Galatee.
But one of the issues that Iwould make is that an X-121
appeared in court last week andwas taken to the Old Bailey, the
Central Criminal Court, becausea magistrate, a sort of lower
(10:46):
level judge, can't issue bailfor murder.
That has to be done by a seniorjudge at a senior court.
And exactly the same processhappened to me and I remember
sitting in the witness box andthe judge asking a group of
about 10 journalists who weresitting at the back of the court
what their opinion was onwhether or not I should get
(11:08):
anonymity.
And they weren't represented incourt.
So he allowed one of them tostand up as a spokesman, as a
spokesperson, and explain why itwas that they, collectively
from newspapers, different TVprograms, didn't agree with me
getting anonymity.
And I just sat there with mymouth open and thinking, well,
what's going on here?
(11:29):
And it just shows, really, thatthe freedom and the precedent
in the United Kingdom isconsidered no-transcript right
up there, you know.
Speaker 2 (11:41):
Well, your press are certainly famous, but the idea
that a magistrate would turn tojournalists in the courtroom and
ask them their opinion onwhether an officer should be
identified or not.
Speaker 1 (11:52):
Well, this time around this Thursday, I'm
doubting that the press have.
I know that the press have gottheir act together and they have
all collectively got a singlebarrister or senior lawyer to
argue their case and they willargue that it infringes their
right and freedom of the press.
Well, you know, I understandthat we all rely on the press,
(12:14):
but that the press over theyears I've been involved in
quite a few shooting incidentswho have simply made stuff up
about me.
I mean, even the day I wasacquitted, one of the main
British newspapers referred tome as Anthony Long police
constable and the SpecialistFirearms team, known as his
colleagues as the executor.
Well, completely made up,completely and utterly made up,
(12:35):
as were half a dozen others.
Speaker 2 (12:36):
I know, I know in Canada I mean returning to the
law in Canada if a policeman ischarged with murder, he would
certainly be identified, but Itake your point that these are
counter-terrorism operations aswell.
So a member of MI6 or CanadianIntelligence or the CIA or FBI
(12:57):
or they would receive differenttreatment.
Speaker 1 (12:59):
That's a very good point.
I hadn't really thought aboutthat, but yeah, I would put that
in the same in the UK, becauseof the fact that they're all
volunteers and many of them areheavily involved in
counter-terrorism work and alsowork against organized crime
groups, I would definitelyequate that.
Speaker 2 (13:17):
Absolutely, and who would want to serve in a unit
dealing with counter-terrorismor dealing with organized
criminals if you were going tobe identified and potentially
your address given out, and Ican understand why the officers?
Speaker 1 (13:34):
are angry about that, but it goes beyond
identification now.
No, absolutely it does.
Speaker 2 (13:38):
Because police feel that this guy is being sold down
the river and should not becharged with murder In a case
where Chris Cabba, a 24-year-oldman, is shot dead following a
police chase a year ago.
So we come back to the timingof this charge again.
(13:59):
He refused, reportedly, to stop.
He ran a checkpoint, or atleast his police.
His vehicle came into contactwith other police vehicles.
This police officer whodischarged his weapon at Cabba
was in fact standing in front ofthe car.
So they will say that he wasn'tarmed.
(14:21):
But can I ask you as apoliceman a former policeman if
a car is coming at you, is thecar not considered to be a
weapon?
And if that weapon, if you'restanding in front of it it seems
to me that and you'reidentified and you're in your
uniform it certainly would notbe a murder charge.
(14:45):
In many jurisdictions mostpolicemen would never face that
charge.
Speaker 1 (14:50):
So more police officers are being killed by
vehicles proven at them ever inthe UK than being shot at, and
we have more fatalities on ourroads every year than we do
criminal shootings or stabbing.
So, yes, absolutely, a carwould be treated as a lethal
weapon and certainly, policeofficers are trained.
(15:12):
And this is the issue is thatan awful lot of stuff has been
put before the courts, andcourts have come back with what
we would call perverse decision,which has rendered things that
have been taught to policeofficers.
Yes, if you do this, you'll belooked after by the law.
One of those things is honestlyheld belief In British law.
(15:34):
If you, let's say, for instance,shot somebody because you
feared that your life was inimmediate danger, or your
colleagues or other people'slives were in immediate danger,
then provided, and you thoughtthey had a gun, but it turned
out that they didn't have a gun,then if you shot them, working
on the premise that you had anhonestly held belief that that
they did have a gun, or that thegun was real or that he was a
(15:57):
suicide bomber in the case ofJohn Charles Manezze, for
instance, in 2005, then thecourts would look after you.
What's happened is theindependent office of police
complaints that's what they'recalled.
This week I've lost track ofthem, but they're the
independent body thatinvestigate.
Police after instance, such asshootings, have taken this
honestly held belief to highercourts and it's now been decided
(16:19):
by the courts that that levelof force, if you use that level
of force, certainly from a civilstandpoint, you're not entitled
to that honestly held belief.
It's very complicated, I'm notsure.
Speaker 2 (16:30):
No, no, no, it's not so complicated, and it's really
important here because in yourcase you were briefed that there
was going to be a shooting.
These guys were on their way tocarry out a killing.
Speaker 1 (16:43):
And then we were told specifically what type of
weaponry they had as well, whichwas too many.
Speaker 2 (16:47):
There were wiretaps and other evidence that you
could not use for your owndefense, which I found bizarre,
but you were briefed as an armedofficer.
This is what you're going todeal with In this case of Chris
Cabba.
It has already come out thatthat vehicle was linked to a
shooting the day before.
This is not a routine trafficstop, like some of these
(17:10):
incidents in America.
That vehicle is wanted inconnection with an armed
incident and he is sent to stopthat vehicle, so in his mind he
is dealing with potentially anarmed suspect.
He would be an idiot to thinkotherwise.
Speaker 1 (17:25):
So, dan, I'm quite uncomfortable talking about the
incident in that much detail.
I mean, everything you said Iwouldn't disagree with.
Speaker 2 (17:35):
But the briefings that these officers receive.
They are told this is whatyou're going out to deal with.
That's in their mind.
Speaker 1 (17:41):
If that evidence that you just said and, as I said,
I'm uncomfortable talking aboutit simply because of British law
, yeah, so, but if you were toread the press, you would
describe.
It would be described by thepress as being an unarmed young
black man shot dead by police.
As El Rodney, the guy that Ishot, was in a car.
(18:02):
They had balaclavas in theirpockets, they had gloves in
their pockets, they had plasticcable ties to handcuff up their
victims and they had three guns.
Now, the guns weren't thespecific type that were
described to us, because theywere talking in Patois on the
phone, so it was aninterpretation, but we
absolutely believed they werearmed and they were armed.
(18:23):
However, when I approached thevehicle, as El Rodney was
sitting in the back seat and heducked down and he came up and
his body language told me 100percent he's armed himself, he's
picked the gun up off the offthe vehicle floor or whatever,
and he's armed and it transpiredhe was.
The gun was find out underneathhis body.
But my evidence was that Ididn't see a gun, which I didn't
(18:46):
Now.
Had it been in the 1970s or 80s, I would have probably just
gone.
You know what?
I saw a gun, but I didn't.
Yeah, I knew the, I knew theincident was videoed, so I told,
told the court exactly what Isaw, as El Rodney to this day
and obviously it's all coming upagain now because of this
currency current thing is stilldescribed by the press as an
(19:07):
unarmed Batman, even though it'sgone through the courts and
it's been proved beyond doubtthat he did have guns in the
vehicle.
The press are still describingin that way and that's the
problem.
One of the problems with thecab or incident is whatever
actually happened and, as I said, I feel uncomfortable without
talking about it, and so I want.
But whatever the true story hasbeen suppressed and has been
(19:28):
boiled down to police have shotan unarmed Batman because it
fits the narrative.
Speaker 2 (19:34):
That causes sensationalism and,
unfortunately, I'm not sure Iwould blame the press here.
I know you and I would wouldprobably differ on these in on
this kind of stuff.
But a lot of the information isreleased by the man and it's
released by his commandingofficers and it's released by
the independent investigationSupposedly independent
investigation so that I mean thepress has led down the trail on
(19:54):
some of this stuff.
Speaker 1 (19:57):
But it may well be.
But, for instance, I know ofonly one newspaper that reported
a key fact because from an eyewitness, and that information
only appeared in one newspaper.
So is there?
Speaker 2 (20:13):
a better way, rather than a policeman who and I am
not defending this policeman, Ihave no stake in one way or the
other in this but it strikes meas quite bizarre, coming from
the North American system, thathe is charged with murder at
this point.
Is there not another systemwhere you have people
(20:34):
demonstrating in the streetangry that an unarmed black man
was killed, as the newspapersreported it?
Is there not another forumother than a murder charge,
which potentially destroys thatofficer's life and makes other
officers unwilling to serve,where the public gets to hear
the real evidence and there is aforum for for fact rather than
(21:01):
rumor and what the I think thereason.
Speaker 1 (21:06):
I'd make two points.
The first is, I think and thishas been discussed, as you're
probably aware the commissionerhas gone to the Home Secretary
with a list of things thatfirearms officers think would
make things more open but, atthe same time, would brief the
public and would benefit them,because they're just seen as the
bad guys, as are cops generallyat the moment.
(21:27):
You know, we're going through aparticularly bad patch.
But the first thing is andthat's relevant, by the way,
yeah, but first is followingexactly.
The first is following sort ofthe American style system that
we see on YouTube and, you know,on social media all day long,
which is where the chief ofpolice stands up in front of the
press and gives a brief,including body warm, video
(21:48):
footage of what actuallyhappened.
You know, not cutting out,obviously at the, you know the
gory details, but basically sothat everybody knows right, yeah
, this guy was doing this andthis is why the police ended up
having to interact with him.
This is what he did when theyinteracted him and this is why
he ended up shot or tazored orpunched in the face or whatever
(22:08):
it might be.
So that's the first thing.
The second thing is.
As I said earlier, these menand women that volunteer to
carry firearms are just thatthey're volunteers and like you,
I suspect, I think it's totallywrong that when they do what
they're trained to do with anhonestly held belief, the only
course of action that the IOPCand the British legal system
(22:32):
seems to have available to it isto charge them with a criminal
offense.
Now, if you were to look atother bodies so for instance the
bodies that oversee doctorslicensing, paramedics licensing,
nurses licensing that isn't thefirst course of action.
If one of those peopleaccidentally kills someone, I
think perfectly good faith, inthe pouring rain, on a dark
(22:53):
night with bad lighting, aparamedic accidentally gives the
wrong type of adrenaline tosomebody having a heart attack,
then they could kill them andyou could say that they were
negligent.
But if they did it for theright reasons, it wouldn't be
held to be criminal.
Same with a surgeon If asurgeon carried out a procedure
(23:13):
and it turned out that procedurewas the wrong procedure for the
problem and the person died,the first course of action would
be for any of these people, fortheir governing bodies to look
at it and go right okay, youneed retraining Now, you need
for the next two years to onlybe able to work or insert as a
surgeon, while mentored byanother experienced surgeon.
(23:35):
You know you might just comedown to words of advice or
whatever, but that would be thecourse of action rather than go
to criminality.
There's two famous cases in theUK that you're, I'm sure you're
aware of.
One was a doctor called HaroldShipman who was just on an
industrial scale killing hiselderly patients.
This was about 10, 15, 20 yearsago.
(23:56):
Now that's murder.
That's murder.
That's not he accidentally gavethem the wrong drugs.
That's murder.
And more recently, literallywithin the last couple of weeks,
a nurse has been convicted ofmurdering babies, you know, on
an industrial scale.
You know giving them dangerousdrugs.
And they found out because, oh,it's just so happens to, this
particular nurse is on duty whenall of these murders take place
(24:18):
and she has been convicted ofthat.
That is murder.
If you go out to catch an armedcriminal, at 99% of the time
that I'm criminal will surrenderor he'll throw away his gun and
run and you'll catch him andyou'll taser him or you'll, you
know, grab him and throw him tothe ground.
So it's a very rare occasionthat normally, on average, out
(24:39):
of thousands and thousands,something like in excess of
8,000 on deployments a year.
They'll, they'll.
In the whole of the UK this is42 police forces.
They'll kill on average aboutor shoot kill about, two
suspects.
That's not 0.05% of theoperations they're involved in.
It's extremely rare and that,of course, is one of the
(24:59):
problems.
It's such a rarity that when ithappens in the UK we get a
press frenzy and people who are,who don't live in a firearm
society, who don't understandwhy police officers might have
to resort to the fire use offirearms, object.
And that's really fundamentallywhy these volunteers are in the
position that they're in.
Speaker 2 (25:20):
The mood in the United Kingdom, especially with
the Met, is quite exceptionalright now because there was a
report that came out said theywere institutionally racist,
institutionally misogynist.
There was the, the murder by aMet armed officer of a young
(25:40):
lady during the pandemic, themood and anger towards the
police right now which, ifpeople don't live here should
know it is seething.
So do you think that that setsthe backdrop for what would be
(26:00):
an unfair charge, potentiallyagainst a policeman who was
doing his duty, and can this guyeven get a fair trial?
Speaker 1 (26:09):
Well, I'll talk about the last point you made.
First is that, yes, I stronglysuspect, as is with the case
with the Zell Rodney, thatbecause he was a young black man
, because Chris Cabell was ayoung black man, that the Crown
Prosecution Service, which issort of our equivalent of the
American DA's office, I guess wemake a decision about whether
to charge.
I think they are influenced byit.
(26:32):
I know for a fact that CrownProsecution Service officers, or
lawyers in my case, dideverything they could to swerve
being becoming involved in theZell Rodney case because they
saw it as political.
They saw it as the fact that,you know, in my terms, I was
given a shit sandwich and I hadto take a bite of it and they
didn't really want anything todo with it.
So that's the first thing.
(26:54):
So, yes, there is and thisthere's a connectivity with the
international thing here.
The Paris police are gettingexactly the same criticism,
although they are far, far morerobust in their dealings with
minority groups and the likethan the UK police.
I think the UK police istotally different from the rest
(27:18):
of the world.
But most of this revolvesaround the George Floyd shooting
.
It's got progressively worsebecause of that.
Speaker 2 (27:27):
But the other thing is I mean, I'm all you and I may
also walk a different path herein terms of scrutiny, and I'm
all for serious scrutiny for anincident that takes somebody's
life one way or the other.
And the same for police.
I mean, policemen are on theline of fine order deserve our
(27:48):
protection.
But if this isn't handled, ifcrime prosecutions become
politically sensitive to thepoint that they just lay a
murder charge because they wantto quiet the street in essence
they want to stop thedemonstrations how many officers
are ever going to become armedofficers in the UK?
Speaker 1 (28:07):
Well, so normally there's 300 or 400 applicants
for the armed response vehicles.
When they put out forapplicants every year, this year
they were 50.
Out of those 50, probably about50% will not get through the
training.
So you're probably going to endup with 20, 25 officers.
And, as we know now I don't knowif you're aware of this, but I
(28:28):
woke up to a text message to saythat Sky were contacted
anonymously by a serving policeofficer last night to say that
if he loses his anonymity, therewill be a mass handing in of
blue cards.
Because I don't know if you'realso aware that I believe
yesterday that some of theofficers had returned based on
the promises made by thecommissioner that they would try
(28:50):
and sort some of these issuesthat the police of the foreign
officers have.
So yes, I think it is political.
Yes, I think it is.
But what I would say is it'svery easy and again it sounds
like I'm press bashing, but thatisn't my intention but it's
very, very easy for the press toput their lens on an individual
(29:11):
person you know brand isgetting it at the moment, you
know other celebrities have hadit in the past or an
organization, and I have nodoubt whatsoever that the Met
Police in particular, but thepolice in the UK generally have
been in the sights and takenfire for some considerable time,
probably since George Floyd,and it's completely unbalanced.
Speaker 2 (29:35):
For me this case is less about the policeman's
identity.
I understand it's so importantto policemen that anonymity, but
it's more about the laying ofthe most serious charge in the
criminal code as far as I canthink of a murder charge which
(29:55):
will change this man's lifeforever, when he may well be
acting, you know, in thepublic's best interest on the
street and whether that harshprocedure is warranted and I
guess we'll only know byfollowing the court case and
understanding what comes outlater.
(30:17):
But the concern by otherofficers who no longer want to
carry weapons.
Now you know you can certainlyunderstand why many of them feel
that way.
Tony Long, author of LethalForce.
It's a book that came outseveral years ago but it kind of
brings you to a lot of whatwe're talking about right now.
(30:40):
So it's a good background.
There's a historical link to allof that.
Tony, thank you so much.
Thank you, and that's ourbackstory this week.
Policing is complex andofficers have to be held to the
highest standards the highest ofhighest In the UK.
Policing by consent is aphilosophy that police base
(31:00):
their legitimacy on having theconfidence of the public rather
than imposing order throughsheer force alone.
Thanks for listening toBackstory.
I'm Dana Lewis and I'll talk toyou again soon.
(32:39):
Policing is complex and officershave to be held to the highest
standards.
And that's our story.
Policing is complex andofficers have to be held to the
(33:00):
highest standards.
Policing is complex andofficers have to be held to the
highest standards.
Policing is complex andofficers have to be held to the
(33:20):
highest standards.
Policing is complex andofficers have to be held to the
highest standards.
Policing is complex andofficers have to be held to the
highest standards.
(33:41):
Policing is complex andofficers have to be held to the
highest standards.
Policing is complex andofficers have to be held to the
highest standards.
Policing is complex andofficers have to be held to the
(34:13):
highest standards.
different world elsewhere in the world where
every single police officercarries a firearm NX-121 is
really the sort of straw that'sbroken the camel back, really,
because there's been a wholerange of issues in relation not
just to anonymity but the waythat armed police officers are
treated after they get involvedin shootings.
Speaker 2 (00:22):
Hi everyone and welcome to another edition of
Backstory.
I'm Dana Lewis, this weekpolicing in London, which is a
place like no other.
Most police don't even carryweapons here.
Those that do are specializedunits UK Embassy security police
who guard parliamentanti-terrorist police and they
(00:47):
are threatening to return thoseguns in protest over a fellow
policeman who was charged withmurder of a black man last
September.
September 2022.
In fact, last weekend, about300 police said they would
refuse to carry guns because themurder charge was so severe.
Why, they ask, would theyprotect a public that won't
(01:11):
recognize instances where policehave to pull the trigger to
defend themselves?
The situation became so seriousthat the British army was put
on standby to fill the postsvacated by armed police.
Now I started my career as acrime reporter in Toronto, so I
have a pretty good sense of whatis demanded from police and the
(01:33):
sacrifices they make inprotecting us and the Met.
Police have a lot of internalproblems, there's no question,
but do police get to defendthemselves and under what
circumstances?
So, on backstory, I talked toTony Long.
He is a former armed policeofficer who himself was charged
(01:53):
with murder in 2005, charged andlater acquitted, but it took a
decade of his life to fight thatcharge.
Tony Long is a formerMetropolitan Police Specialist
Firearms Officer.
He wrote a book called LethalForce and he has used Lethal
(02:17):
Force on his job as an armedBritish policeman.
And he joins me now.
Hi, tony, good morning, how youdoing so?
You clarified when I wasintroducing you wrongly the
first time that there is adifference between a Met
Firearms and a Met SpecialistFirearms Officer.
Speaker 1 (02:33):
Yes, yeah, it's basically.
I suppose an SFO.
In North American terms wouldbe what you would call SWAT, but
in my opinion, having done SWATtraining in the States, they
are trained to a probably muchhigher standard than most.
Their initial selection courseis 21 weeks, for instance, to do
that, to be a basic SpecialistFirearms Officer.
Speaker 2 (02:55):
Well, specialist Firearms Officers, by the dozens
, have refused to report forwork this week with their
weapons.
Can you tell me what hashappened?
Speaker 1 (03:06):
and why now?
Well, it's not just SFOs orSpecialist Firearms Officers,
it's also armed responsevehicles, which are the sort of
next level down who provide the24-hour mobile response to any
999 call involving firearms orknives.
And it's also a large amount ofother AFOs or authorized
(03:27):
firearms officers who visitorsto London will see standing
outside the Palace orWestminster armed or 10 Downing
Street or any of the other keylocations.
And we also have other officerswho are trained in the use of
firearms, for instance,specialist Surveillance Officers
who work on cases involvingarmed, heavily armed criminals,
and sections of all of thosedifferent grades of firearms
(03:49):
officers have surrendered theirfirearms ticket or their license
to carry a firearm, and what'sactually been the straw that has
broken the camel's back inrelation to this is the
appearance in court of anofficer who's got, at the moment
, an anonymity code of NX121.
(04:12):
Now, what Police FirearmsOfficers do have is an anonymity
code, and if they get involvedin a shooting, when they write
their statement, they write itusing that anonymity code, as do
all of their colleagues, and sowhen the all the paperwork is
being processed and beinginvestigated, no one other than
(04:32):
the individual officers andtheir unit commander know their
true identity.
Now that is an internal thingthat we do and normally it's
honoured at court.
So when I appeared at court in2015 at the Central Criminal
Court charged with murder, forinstance, as soon as I was
charged with murder, I lost myanonymity code and then the
(04:54):
public by the press knew that Iwas Anthony Long, former
firearms officer.
All of my colleagues who werestill serving were allowed to
give their evidence using theiranonymity codes, so Echo 1, echo
2, echo 3, etc.
So this is something that'salways been reliant on the
courts.
Some courts will look at it andgo no, we don't recognise the
(05:16):
anonymity code.
You are all going to have togive your evidence in person
using your real name.
So it's something that it's aninternal procedure, but it's
normally honoured by the courts,unless you are charged with
murder.
Well, nx 121 was involved in asituation that we can't talk
about in British law becauseit's now what we call sub-dutycy
, which means he has beencharged and it cannot be
(05:38):
discussed publicly.
The evidence is heard in court.
There is a hearing an anonymityhearing this Thursday coming at
the Old Bailey, where theofficer will have to appear, and
there's a very high probabilitythat the judge at the Central
Criminal Court will withdrawthat anonymity and from that
(05:58):
point on the world will know hisname.
Well, in the United Kingdom, tobe a firearms officer is a
completely voluntary thing.
So, for instance, in theMetropolitan Police, which is
the largest force in the country, which covers London, there's
something.
Speaker 2 (06:13):
I wanted just to backtrack with you there,
because a lot of people don'tunderstand that British police
are not armed.
But they are armed and it getsconfusing.
I said it's un-clarified.
Yeah, the average beatpoliceman, policewoman, doesn't
carry a firearm.
They might have a taser, butthere are armed response units
(06:35):
for the case of, let's say, asyou mentioned, vip security or
protection embassies.
Or let's say there's aterrorist incident, then there
are guns on the street and thosearmed response officers attend.
They are called within minutes.
They're supposed to have zonesthat they patrol and furthermore
(06:56):
, just coming to your point,that's voluntary.
They do not, as part of theirjob, have to carry weapons.
They volunteer to be in thoseunits correct.
Speaker 1 (07:07):
That is absolutely correct.
So, for instance, out of theMetropolitan Police there are
roughly 40,000 police officers.
Only two and a half thousand ofthose officers are trained in
the use of firearms and it's avery difficult course to pass,
even at basic level.
It's a very expensive course.
So by the time someone gets tothe top of the tree and becomes
(07:29):
a CT at Camp TerritorySpecialist Firearms Officer
you're talking over a year oftraining in order to get into
that role.
Speaker 2 (07:38):
Okay, so Thursday he will appear in court.
If he is identified by thecourt by name at that point, why
is that viewed as negative byother police officers and what
may happen?
Speaker 1 (07:52):
Well, it's not.
It's viewed as being a negativething by all police officers, I
would say, and those that don'tcarry a firearm.
But because it's such a uniquerole in the United Kingdom that
you know, and because theseofficers are employed on counter
terrorist operations, theyreally don't want their
photographs taken or their namereleased publicly.
That's the issue, Because therehas been an issue in the past
(08:16):
where people's home address hasbeen compromised and they've had
to move out.
It's a different worldelsewhere, in the world where
every single police officercarries a firearm, and so, as I
said earlier, NX 121 is reallythe sort of straw that's broken,
the camel bat really, becausethere's been a whole range of
issues in relation not just toanonymity but the way that armed
(08:38):
police officers are treatedafter they get involved in
shootings.
So I don't know what thesituation is in Canada or the
United States.
I know you're different.
I mean, for instance, it took10 years between my shooting and
me appearing in court.
There are serving officers nowstill waiting three, five years
(09:00):
after they've been involved in ashooting.
It's just simply to go back towork.
Speaker 2 (09:06):
You mentioned that you were charged with murder,
which I wanted to come to in theshooting.
As I understand it from yourbook, which I read some time ago
, that this was a gang, a personor organized criminal who was
on his way potentially to carryout the shooting of somebody
(09:29):
else, that's how you werebriefed.
Speaker 1 (09:32):
We were briefed that a group of criminals from an
organized crime group, as itturned out, there was three of
them would be going to alocation in North London where
they were going to rob and killrival Colombian drug dealers who
they dealt with in the past soclearly the fact that they
bought drugs off theseColombians in the past.
(09:52):
They weren't going to just turnup with guns and steal the
drugs, because the Colombiansknew who they were.
Speaker 2 (09:57):
Okay, you were charged with murder and it's an
incredible story that peoplehave to read your book to get a
full accounting of.
We just don't have time to gothrough all of that case now.
But can you tell me, policemenare human beings just like
anybody else.
To have that you were acquittedfirst of all is what we should
(10:18):
have said to have that hangingover your head for 10 years?
Are you serious?
Speaker 1 (10:25):
Well, I mean, it was complicated and, as you said,
read the book because thenyou'll find out why it was so
complicated and it was allaround the Galatee.
But one of the issues that Iwould make is that an X-121
appeared in court last week andwas taken to the Old Bailey, the
Central Criminal Court, becausea magistrate, a sort of lower
(10:46):
level judge, can't issue bailfor murder.
That has to be done by a seniorjudge at a senior court.
And exactly the same processhappened to me and I remember
sitting in the witness box andthe judge asking a group of
about 10 journalists who weresitting at the back of the court
what their opinion was onwhether or not I should get
(11:08):
anonymity.
And they weren't represented incourt.
So he allowed one of them tostand up as a spokesman, as a
spokesperson, and explain why itwas that they, collectively
from newspapers, different TVprograms, didn't agree with me
getting anonymity.
And I just sat there with mymouth open and thinking, well,
what's going on here?
(11:29):
And it just shows, really, thatthe freedom and the precedent
in the United Kingdom isconsidered no-transcript right
up there, you know.
Speaker 2 (11:41):
Well, your press are certainly famous, but the idea
that a magistrate would turn tojournalists in the courtroom and
ask them their opinion onwhether an officer should be
identified or not.
Speaker 1 (11:52):
Well, this time around this Thursday, I'm
doubting that the press have.
I know that the press have gottheir act together and they have
all collectively got a singlebarrister or senior lawyer to
argue their case and they willargue that it infringes their
right and freedom of the press.
Well, you know, I understandthat we all rely on the press,
(12:14):
but that the press over theyears I've been involved in
quite a few shooting incidentswho have simply made stuff up
about me.
I mean, even the day I wasacquitted, one of the main
British newspapers referred tome as Anthony Long police
constable and the SpecialistFirearms team, known as his
colleagues as the executor.
Well, completely made up,completely and utterly made up,
(12:35):
as were half a dozen others.
Speaker 2 (12:36):
I know, I know in Canada I mean returning to the
law in Canada if a policeman ischarged with murder, he would
certainly be identified, but Itake your point that these are
counter-terrorism operations aswell.
So a member of MI6 or CanadianIntelligence or the CIA or FBI
(12:57):
or they would receive differenttreatment.
Speaker 1 (12:59):
That's a very good point.
I hadn't really thought aboutthat, but yeah, I would put that
in the same in the UK, becauseof the fact that they're all
volunteers and many of them areheavily involved in
counter-terrorism work and alsowork against organized crime
groups, I would definitelyequate that.
Speaker 2 (13:17):
Absolutely, and who would want to serve in a unit
dealing with counter-terrorismor dealing with organized
criminals if you were going tobe identified and potentially
your address given out, and Ican understand why the officers?
Speaker 1 (13:34):
are angry about that, but it goes beyond
identification now.
No, absolutely it does.
Speaker 2 (13:38):
Because police feel that this guy is being sold down
the river and should not becharged with murder In a case
where Chris Cabba, a 24-year-oldman, is shot dead following a
police chase a year ago.
So we come back to the timingof this charge again.
(13:59):
He refused, reportedly, to stop.
He ran a checkpoint, or atleast his police.
His vehicle came into contactwith other police vehicles.
This police officer whodischarged his weapon at Cabba
was in fact standing in front ofthe car.
So they will say that he wasn'tarmed.
(14:21):
But can I ask you as apoliceman a former policeman if
a car is coming at you, is thecar not considered to be a
weapon?
And if that weapon, if you'restanding in front of it it seems
to me that and you'reidentified and you're in your
uniform it certainly would notbe a murder charge.
(14:45):
In many jurisdictions mostpolicemen would never face that
charge.
Speaker 1 (14:50):
So more police officers are being killed by
vehicles proven at them ever inthe UK than being shot at, and
we have more fatalities on ourroads every year than we do
criminal shootings or stabbing.
So, yes, absolutely, a carwould be treated as a lethal
weapon and certainly, policeofficers are trained.
(15:12):
And this is the issue is thatan awful lot of stuff has been
put before the courts, andcourts have come back with what
we would call perverse decision,which has rendered things that
have been taught to policeofficers.
Yes, if you do this, you'll belooked after by the law.
One of those things is honestlyheld belief In British law.
(15:34):
If you, let's say, for instance,shot somebody because you
feared that your life was inimmediate danger, or your
colleagues or other people'slives were in immediate danger,
then provided, and you thoughtthey had a gun, but it turned
out that they didn't have a gun,then if you shot them, working
on the premise that you had anhonestly held belief that that
they did have a gun, or that thegun was real or that he was a
(15:57):
suicide bomber in the case ofJohn Charles Manezze, for
instance, in 2005, then thecourts would look after you.
What's happened is theindependent office of police
complaints that's what they'recalled.
This week I've lost track ofthem, but they're the
independent body thatinvestigate.
Police after instance, such asshootings, have taken this
honestly held belief to highercourts and it's now been decided
(16:19):
by the courts that that levelof force, if you use that level
of force, certainly from a civilstandpoint, you're not entitled
to that honestly held belief.
It's very complicated, I'm notsure.
Speaker 2 (16:30):
No, no, no, it's not so complicated, and it's really
important here because in yourcase you were briefed that there
was going to be a shooting.
These guys were on their way tocarry out a killing.
Speaker 1 (16:43):
And then we were told specifically what type of
weaponry they had as well, whichwas too many.
Speaker 2 (16:47):
There were wiretaps and other evidence that you
could not use for your owndefense, which I found bizarre,
but you were briefed as an armedofficer.
This is what you're going todeal with In this case of Chris
Cabba.
It has already come out thatthat vehicle was linked to a
shooting the day before.
This is not a routine trafficstop, like some of these
(17:10):
incidents in America.
That vehicle is wanted inconnection with an armed
incident and he is sent to stopthat vehicle, so in his mind he
is dealing with potentially anarmed suspect.
He would be an idiot to thinkotherwise.
Speaker 1 (17:25):
So, dan, I'm quite uncomfortable talking about the
incident in that much detail.
I mean, everything you said Iwouldn't disagree with.
Speaker 2 (17:35):
But the briefings that these officers receive.
They are told this is whatyou're going out to deal with.
That's in their mind.
Speaker 1 (17:41):
If that evidence that you just said and, as I said,
I'm uncomfortable talking aboutit simply because of British law
, yeah, so, but if you were toread the press, you would
describe.
It would be described by thepress as being an unarmed young
black man shot dead by police.
As El Rodney, the guy that Ishot, was in a car.
(18:02):
They had balaclavas in theirpockets, they had gloves in
their pockets, they had plasticcable ties to handcuff up their
victims and they had three guns.
Now, the guns weren't thespecific type that were
described to us, because theywere talking in Patois on the
phone, so it was aninterpretation, but we
absolutely believed they werearmed and they were armed.
(18:23):
However, when I approached thevehicle, as El Rodney was
sitting in the back seat and heducked down and he came up and
his body language told me 100percent he's armed himself, he's
picked the gun up off the offthe vehicle floor or whatever,
and he's armed and it transpiredhe was.
The gun was find out underneathhis body.
But my evidence was that Ididn't see a gun, which I didn't
(18:46):
Now.
Had it been in the 1970s or 80s, I would have probably just
gone.
You know what?
I saw a gun, but I didn't.
Yeah, I knew the, I knew theincident was videoed, so I told,
told the court exactly what Isaw, as El Rodney to this day
and obviously it's all coming upagain now because of this
currency current thing is stilldescribed by the press as an
(19:07):
unarmed Batman, even though it'sgone through the courts and
it's been proved beyond doubtthat he did have guns in the
vehicle.
The press are still describingin that way and that's the
problem.
One of the problems with thecab or incident is whatever
actually happened and, as I said, I feel uncomfortable without
talking about it, and so I want.
But whatever the true story hasbeen suppressed and has been
(19:28):
boiled down to police have shotan unarmed Batman because it
fits the narrative.
Speaker 2 (19:34):
That causes sensationalism and,
unfortunately, I'm not sure Iwould blame the press here.
I know you and I would wouldprobably differ on these in on
this kind of stuff.
But a lot of the information isreleased by the man and it's
released by his commandingofficers and it's released by
the independent investigationSupposedly independent
investigation so that I mean thepress has led down the trail on
(19:54):
some of this stuff.
Speaker 1 (19:57):
But it may well be.
But, for instance, I know ofonly one newspaper that reported
a key fact because from an eyewitness, and that information
only appeared in one newspaper.
So is there?
Speaker 2 (20:13):
a better way, rather than a policeman who and I am
not defending this policeman, Ihave no stake in one way or the
other in this but it strikes meas quite bizarre, coming from
the North American system, thathe is charged with murder at
this point.
Is there not another systemwhere you have people
(20:34):
demonstrating in the streetangry that an unarmed black man
was killed, as the newspapersreported it?
Is there not another forumother than a murder charge,
which potentially destroys thatofficer's life and makes other
officers unwilling to serve,where the public gets to hear
the real evidence and there is aforum for for fact rather than
(21:01):
rumor and what the I think thereason.
Speaker 1 (21:06):
I'd make two points.
The first is, I think and thishas been discussed, as you're
probably aware the commissionerhas gone to the Home Secretary
with a list of things thatfirearms officers think would
make things more open but, atthe same time, would brief the
public and would benefit them,because they're just seen as the
bad guys, as are cops generallyat the moment.
(21:27):
You know, we're going through aparticularly bad patch.
But the first thing is andthat's relevant, by the way,
yeah, but first is followingexactly.
The first is following sort ofthe American style system that
we see on YouTube and, you know,on social media all day long,
which is where the chief ofpolice stands up in front of the
press and gives a brief,including body warm, video
(21:48):
footage of what actuallyhappened.
You know, not cutting out,obviously at the, you know the
gory details, but basically sothat everybody knows right, yeah
, this guy was doing this andthis is why the police ended up
having to interact with him.
This is what he did when theyinteracted him and this is why
he ended up shot or tazored orpunched in the face or whatever
(22:08):
it might be.
So that's the first thing.
The second thing is.
As I said earlier, these menand women that volunteer to
carry firearms are just thatthey're volunteers and like you,
I suspect, I think it's totallywrong that when they do what
they're trained to do with anhonestly held belief, the only
course of action that the IOPCand the British legal system
(22:32):
seems to have available to it isto charge them with a criminal
offense.
Now, if you were to look atother bodies so for instance the
bodies that oversee doctorslicensing, paramedics licensing,
nurses licensing that isn't thefirst course of action.
If one of those peopleaccidentally kills someone, I
think perfectly good faith, inthe pouring rain, on a dark
(22:53):
night with bad lighting, aparamedic accidentally gives the
wrong type of adrenaline tosomebody having a heart attack,
then they could kill them andyou could say that they were
negligent.
But if they did it for theright reasons, it wouldn't be
held to be criminal.
Same with a surgeon If asurgeon carried out a procedure
(23:13):
and it turned out that procedurewas the wrong procedure for the
problem and the person died,the first course of action would
be for any of these people, fortheir governing bodies to look
at it and go right okay, youneed retraining Now, you need
for the next two years to onlybe able to work or insert as a
surgeon, while mentored byanother experienced surgeon.
(23:35):
You know you might just comedown to words of advice or
whatever, but that would be thecourse of action rather than go
to criminality.
There's two famous cases in theUK that you're, I'm sure you're
aware of.
One was a doctor called HaroldShipman who was just on an
industrial scale killing hiselderly patients.
This was about 10, 15, 20 yearsago.
(23:56):
Now that's murder.
That's murder.
That's not he accidentally gavethem the wrong drugs.
That's murder.
And more recently, literallywithin the last couple of weeks,
a nurse has been convicted ofmurdering babies, you know, on
an industrial scale.
You know giving them dangerousdrugs.
And they found out because, oh,it's just so happens to, this
particular nurse is on duty whenall of these murders take place
(24:18):
and she has been convicted ofthat.
That is murder.
If you go out to catch an armedcriminal, at 99% of the time
that I'm criminal will surrenderor he'll throw away his gun and
run and you'll catch him andyou'll taser him or you'll, you
know, grab him and throw him tothe ground.
So it's a very rare occasionthat normally, on average, out
(24:39):
of thousands and thousands,something like in excess of
8,000 on deployments a year.
They'll, they'll.
In the whole of the UK this is42 police forces.
They'll kill on average aboutor shoot kill about, two
suspects.
That's not 0.05% of theoperations they're involved in.
It's extremely rare and that,of course, is one of the
(24:59):
problems.
It's such a rarity that when ithappens in the UK we get a
press frenzy and people who are,who don't live in a firearm
society, who don't understandwhy police officers might have
to resort to the fire use offirearms, object.
And that's really fundamentallywhy these volunteers are in the
position that they're in.
Speaker 2 (25:20):
The mood in the United Kingdom, especially with
the Met, is quite exceptionalright now because there was a
report that came out said theywere institutionally racist,
institutionally misogynist.
There was the, the murder by aMet armed officer of a young
(25:40):
lady during the pandemic, themood and anger towards the
police right now which, ifpeople don't live here should
know it is seething.
So do you think that that setsthe backdrop for what would be
(26:00):
an unfair charge, potentiallyagainst a policeman who was
doing his duty, and can this guyeven get a fair trial?
Speaker 1 (26:09):
Well, I'll talk about the last point you made.
First is that, yes, I stronglysuspect, as is with the case
with the Zell Rodney, thatbecause he was a young black man
, because Chris Cabell was ayoung black man, that the Crown
Prosecution Service, which issort of our equivalent of the
American DA's office, I guess wemake a decision about whether
to charge.
I think they are influenced byit.
(26:32):
I know for a fact that CrownProsecution Service officers, or
lawyers in my case, dideverything they could to swerve
being becoming involved in theZell Rodney case because they
saw it as political.
They saw it as the fact that,you know, in my terms, I was
given a shit sandwich and I hadto take a bite of it and they
didn't really want anything todo with it.
So that's the first thing.
(26:54):
So, yes, there is and thisthere's a connectivity with the
international thing here.
The Paris police are gettingexactly the same criticism,
although they are far, far morerobust in their dealings with
minority groups and the likethan the UK police.
I think the UK police istotally different from the rest
(27:18):
of the world.
But most of this revolvesaround the George Floyd shooting
.
It's got progressively worsebecause of that.
Speaker 2 (27:27):
But the other thing is I mean, I'm all you and I may
also walk a different path herein terms of scrutiny, and I'm
all for serious scrutiny for anincident that takes somebody's
life one way or the other.
And the same for police.
I mean, policemen are on theline of fine order deserve our
(27:48):
protection.
But if this isn't handled, ifcrime prosecutions become
politically sensitive to thepoint that they just lay a
murder charge because they wantto quiet the street in essence
they want to stop thedemonstrations how many officers
are ever going to become armedofficers in the UK?
Speaker 1 (28:07):
Well, so normally there's 300 or 400 applicants
for the armed response vehicles.
When they put out forapplicants every year, this year
they were 50.
Out of those 50, probably about50% will not get through the
training.
So you're probably going to endup with 20, 25 officers.
And, as we know now I don't knowif you're aware of this, but I
(28:28):
woke up to a text message to saythat Sky were contacted
anonymously by a serving policeofficer last night to say that
if he loses his anonymity, therewill be a mass handing in of
blue cards.
Because I don't know if you'realso aware that I believe
yesterday that some of theofficers had returned based on
the promises made by thecommissioner that they would try
(28:50):
and sort some of these issuesthat the police of the foreign
officers have.
So yes, I think it is political.
Yes, I think it is.
But what I would say is it'svery easy and again it sounds
like I'm press bashing, but thatisn't my intention but it's
very, very easy for the press toput their lens on an individual
(29:11):
person you know brand isgetting it at the moment, you
know other celebrities have hadit in the past or an
organization, and I have nodoubt whatsoever that the Met
Police in particular, but thepolice in the UK generally have
been in the sights and takenfire for some considerable time,
probably since George Floyd,and it's completely unbalanced.
Speaker 2 (29:35):
For me this case is less about the policeman's
identity.
I understand it's so importantto policemen that anonymity, but
it's more about the laying ofthe most serious charge in the
criminal code as far as I canthink of a murder charge which
(29:55):
will change this man's lifeforever, when he may well be
acting, you know, in thepublic's best interest on the
street and whether that harshprocedure is warranted and I
guess we'll only know byfollowing the court case and
understanding what comes outlater.
(30:17):
But the concern by otherofficers who no longer want to
carry weapons.
Now you know you can certainlyunderstand why many of them feel
that way.
Tony Long, author of LethalForce.
It's a book that came outseveral years ago but it kind of
brings you to a lot of whatwe're talking about right now.
(30:40):
So it's a good background.
There's a historical link to allof that.
Tony, thank you so much.
Thank you, and that's ourbackstory this week.
Policing is complex andofficers have to be held to the
highest standards the highest ofhighest In the UK.
Policing by consent is aphilosophy that police base
(31:00):
their legitimacy on having theconfidence of the public rather
than imposing order throughsheer force alone.
Thanks for listening toBackstory.
I'm Dana Lewis and I'll talk toyou again soon.
(32:39):
Policing is complex and officershave to be held to the highest
standards.
And that's our story.
Policing is complex andofficers have to be held to the
(33:00):
highest standards.
Policing is complex andofficers have to be held to the
highest standards.
Policing is complex andofficers have to be held to the
(33:20):
highest standards.
Policing is complex andofficers have to be held to the
highest standards.
Policing is complex andofficers have to be held to the
highest standards.
(33:41):
Policing is complex andofficers have to be held to the
highest standards.
Policing is complex andofficers have to be held to the
highest standards.
Policing is complex andofficers have to be held to the
(34:13):
highest standards.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.