A man was shot by police in north London yesterday after he brandished a gun and threatened to shoot passers-by.It seems the gun ban didn't do much good, since this chap was a known loon, according to a neighbour, and yet still managed to get his hands on one:
He said his neighbour had mental health issues and had recently been drinking heavily after splitting up with his girlfriend.Just wait for 'why couldn't they just talk to him/use non-lethal methods/shoot the gun out of his hands' articles to start appearing...
Mr Eaton added: 'He could be pretty difficult when he was ill. We've had police out here before after he did something similar last year.
Mind you, I'm surprised the usual suspects haven't made much more of this story:
A man shot dead after firing at police who he may have thought were rivals was lawfully killed, a jury has decided.Yes, that's not my typo. 20 bullet wounds! And what's even more odd:
Terry Nicholas, 52, died from 20 bullet wounds in May 2007 after firing at plain clothes officers behind a restaurant in Ealing, west London.
The jury was told Mr Nicholas fired at least one shot from a gun he had been carrying in his sock. Three officers from the Met Police's CO19 firearms unit then shot him 20 times in the head and neck.No aiming for the centre mass here...
20 comments:
Neither were lovely barristers just having a bad day and who lived in Chelsea. Taking pot shots at your neighbours while very depressed and drunk is seemingly acceptable behaviour for the upper classes and should be treated as such by those tiresome police people. In the cases listed the former is a waste of space and no one liked him and he wasn't in a situation where he could be raised to sainthood like that alcoholic pain in the arse newspaper seller that died at the G20. As for the latter, he was a known slaaaag, who had been visited by police and warned about the consequences of his lifestyle - a duty given to the police by the HRA - but chose to ignore it. I suppose they had information that they really ought to make sure he didn't get up and make their lives a bloody misery with the help of the IPCC and the usual lefty lawyers longer than was really necessary. If the former had mental health issues then it is a failing of the health system that he was wandering abroad being a pain. The latter creature is a product of our failed social engineering experiment that is UK society, where difference is celebrated and ghettoised.
live by the sword........
20 shots was interesting and in the head and neck. I'm surprised there was any head or neck left surley after the first 10 or 15 there would have been little left to shoot other than the rest of the body?
Three officers from the Met Police's CO19 firearms unit then shot him 20 times in the head and neck. No aiming for the centre mass here...
Perhaps they *were* aiming for the centre of mass and just missing by 2 feet? Might have been trained by a Sgt Mickelthwaite ;-)
Evidence of reading an excess of the vile Gadget is apparent in the nervous invitation which forewarns commenters of your 'police hater' labels at the ready.
Here are two separate examples of civillians shot by police. One bears the hallmarks of a state execution and the other appears to be the work of decent, well trained officers.
Other than discuss the consistency with which police misconduct goes unpunished is anything else pertinent, Julia?
Hmmm. I suppose the police can't take chances with nutters holding guns, but it doesn't sound like they were seriously considering taking him alive!
For 20 shots to have hit him tends to show that; the police officers fired simultaneously; and were probably using automatic (self-loading?) weapons. If so, then that would explain why so many shots were fired. It would only have taken a couple of seconds to fire off 20 rounds between them.
No policeman has ever been prosecuted for killing civilians with firearms.
We can't have the general public owning guns - they might just rebel against their communist masters, that would never do.
One thing I can see happening some time in the future is a set up that gets the CO19 together and then wipes them out - and they would only have themselves to blame. The people will only take so much repression.
From chatting to a cop in the US, the advice is along these lines:
If the guys got a gun, you shoot until they are down. One bullet, 100, doesn't matter. You stop firing when they're no longer a verifiable threat, until that moment you keep firing.
You don't know if they guys wearing body armour (not all of its bulky), or on something like PCP (good luck at taking them down easily), and you don't risk your life, or your fellow officers lives, by playing the hero.
I imagine our cops get similar advice. At least I hope so.
'No policeman has ever been prosecuted for killing civilians with firearms.'
Police volunteer to be firearms specialists- if a successful prosecution was ever bought, they could all , en-masse, 'unvolunteer' for firearms duty, meaning there would be no armed police ANYWHERE- no diplomatic protection teams, no officers placed outside Blair's mansion in Bayswater etc.
In other words, the Police have the judges and politicians over a barrel on this one- and the latter know it.
"As for the latter, he was a known slaaaag..."
Absolutely. That doesn't usually stop the usual suspects from raising hell in the left wing press. Odd that no-one's doing so.
"...live by the sword..."
Indeed!
"Might have been trained by a Sgt Mickelthwaite ;-)"
Heh!
"Evidence of reading an excess of the vile Gadget is apparent in the nervous invitation which forewarns commenters of your 'police hater' labels at the ready."
Do you deny that such people exist?
And what, precisely, would you have had the police use to protect themselves and others from these two instances?
Because I don't think 'harsh language' would have cut it...
"I imagine our cops get similar advice. At least I hope so."
Me too. The positioning of the shots is still odd, though.
"Police volunteer to be firearms specialists- if a successful prosecution was ever bought, they could all , en-masse, 'unvolunteer' for firearms duty, meaning there would be no armed police ANYWHERE..."
I seem to recall they've threatened this before? Was it after the De Menezes death?
I would be quite happy to have a police force that had no armed officers. I cannot recall any incident where an ARV or armed police have saved a life.
"Because I don't think 'harsh language' would have cut it..."
Prior to your above comment.... nobody faintly suggested that police respond unarmed to guns.
When we take the trouble to read your topic before commenting, the reciprocal courtesy is expected.
Let's turn this situation around in a little thought experiment: the police shoot the suspect once and he drops to the ground, then thirsty seconds later opens fire on the officer who has run over to give him emergency life support. Who gets criticised?
"Prior to your above comment.... nobody faintly suggested that police respond unarmed to guns."
Then make your point a little clearer - you refer to a 'state execution' but as BOTH men were firing weapons, neither one seems to fit the bill for that.
"Who gets criticised?"
The police, of course, BE. But then, for some people, it's always going to be the answer to that question.
I seriously don't understand how people can expect us to have a police response that doesn't use lethal force when needed.
Malthebof said...
I would be quite happy to have a police force that had no armed officers. I cannot recall any incident where an ARV or armed police have saved a life.
I have also never heard of some one not being bitten by a dog that was shot for savaging children either, but I am pretty damn SURE there is a good reason for that somewhere. Even if YOU can not see the falacy in your logic.
Von Spreuth
I was not applying logic, only expressimg my dislike for the way the Police Service has become more like a paramilitary force rather than civilians in uniform
Von Spreuth
I was not applying logic,
DAMN RIGHT!!! Not any "logic" known in THIS universe.
But your statement;
I cannot recall any incident where an ARV or armed police have saved a life.
would indicate that you were applying SOME kind of "logic".
So do tell. How do YOU prove a negative?
Dr Melvin t. Gray: shut the fuck up you idiot.
Ivan: are you advocating the mursder of police officers?. My wife is a police officer. I'll kill you first you cunt.
Post a Comment