One of the hostages was then apparently shot by mistake with a Taser by officers as they attempted to storm the carriage and end the deadlock. He was hit with a 50,000-volt shock after being wrongly identified as the man brandishing the knife.Identified by whom?
The same cretins that thought Jean Charles DeMenezes was a suicide bomber?What made them think this was the man with the knife? Did he LOOK like the man with the knife?
Scotland Yard confirmed the mistake, claiming that it occurred because the man did not immediately respond to instructions shouted by its armed officers.The possibility that he was frozen with fear/deaf/unable to speak English never entered their heads, I guess?
Now yes, mistakes happen, etc. But unless the 'Mail' has done its habitual truncating of the statement, there's not even a trace of remorse, apology, embarrassment about the situation in that brief recitation. Is there?
Maybe that's because they don't want to make things worse for themselves at the inevitable civil case for damages.
And maybe not.
* A call that's bound to be repeated after this.
20 comments:
In a way, you're onto something here -- we should just not send cops to hostage situations and other dangerous occasions anymore, and let people sort their own issues out, that way, no-one gets electrocuted or killed by mistake, we save a bundle on taxes and no-one is going to be outraged over accidents that occasionally occur when armed officers have to make split second life-and-death decisions.
And as a bonus, we will once again get enraged insta-mobs (good example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALXBlAk1wKw) who are used to sorting out their own problems is just a effective as the cops, if not more -- we save on court and jail costs, funerals are so much cheaper anyway, plus the chance of re-offending goes to 0 too.
Win all round!
'Bang' ...."Armed police!!"
'Bang' ....."Another for good luck Sarge?"
'click'....."bugger - pass the sweet tin, please"
Answer to question - NO, but we should arm the population!!
What Ivan said.
The police have spent years propagandising about the horrors of an armed citizenry, but when police officers - 'citizens in uniform' - screw up, well, even monkeys fall out of trees, right?
That's the humbuggery of it all. They talk about how citizens can't be trusted with guns, even as they store magnum rounds in the sweetie tin.
I think Hexe is over-reacting (if I detect her sarcasm correctly), but the police are entitled to the benefit of the doubt here.
The correct response in a utopia is to wait for a post-operation review (shame we live in Britain). The officers involved would certainly have been making decisions at great speed, and tactics are likely to have dictated complete control of the carriage, achieved almost immediately (taking more than about 5 secs would be an operational fail). Tasing non-compliants is likely to be standard procedure post-7-7 and post-Menezes.
If some bolshie yoof decides he wants to talk back to an armed incident response team like he did his religious studies teacher, he's likely to learn a lesson which will remain with him for a considerable period of time.
Has anyone ever kept a score...Police officers shot by crims vs innocent people shot by police officers?
Anon - "Tasing non-compliants is likely to be standard procedure post-7-7 and post-Menezes."
We expect policemen to deal with the threat (a knife-man)rather than tase people who don't obey shouted orders which may not be heard in the confusion, or not understood for a variety of reasons, or which simply may not make sense when a hostage wishes to stay well away from said knife-man.
From the article they had access to CCTV and witnesses who had escaped who could have described the knife-man. Unless the tasered guy looked the the knife-man, or posed a threat himself, or his inaction actively hindered the police dealing with the threat then I can't see that being non-compliant when the police give orders justifies a violent attack.
Too many cops have been watching SAS films. If that's what they wanted to do they should have joined the army.
DerekP, absolutely right. Sadly, the modern way is to assume that anyone who doesn't OBEY deserves all they get.
Perhaps, as part of their ponderous risk-assesments, the police should henceforth be required to establish, before acting, that the man-with-a-knife should conform to these minimum standards:
1) He should be a man;
2) He should have a knife.
Dear Mick Turatian,
I am with you but your proposal must be watered down to avoid any resultant confusion. Two extra matters to juggle in the head whilst brandishing a weapon and playing Terminator, is certain to highlight a neuron deficiency.
Anonymous: If some bolshie yoof decides he wants to talk back to an armed incident response team like he did his religious studies teacher, he's likely to learn a lesson which will remain with him for a considerable period of time.
...and that's a good thing?
MTG: Two extra matters to juggle in the head whilst brandishing a weapon and playing Terminator, is certain to highlight a neuron deficiency.
Thanks for your support but have you tried posting on Inspector Gadget's blog? Worth a ... shot.
I'm anonymous 13:25 above.
I'm a little surprised that my comments have been universally condemned. Usually, I'm not really on the side of push LEOs. For example, two of my favourite blogs are http://www.theagitator.com/ and http://carlosmiller.com/
However, police tactics in a hostage rescue scenario must deal with the possibility that one of the bad guys has been disguised as a hostage. This means that hostages should be extremely careful during the rescue operation. The press release in the Mail suggests that the tazee didn't do what he was told.
Does this mean that we know that the tazee was in the wrong? No. It's entirely possible that this was a son-of-Menezes operation. Did I mention hoping for (rather than expecting) a post-operation review? However, IMO, it's a reasonable use of non-lethal force in a difficult and potentially life-threatening situation.
So I think we should maybe cut the police some slack until further info comes out.
I will of course reverse my opinion if I start to hear that the video cameras in the area weren't working...
Slowjoe
"...accidents that occasionally occur when armed officers have to make split second life-and-death decisions. "
Except it doesn't appear to have been an accidenr - as it 'missed and hit a hostage' - but a deliberate act.
"That's the humbuggery of it all. They talk about how citizens can't be trusted with guns, even as they store magnum rounds in the sweetie tin."
Yes, never going to live that one down, are they?
"Tasing non-compliants is likely to be standard procedure post-7-7 and post-Menezes."
And there's the problem. Tasers are considered 'non-lethal weapons'. But they aren't. They are 'less-lethal weapons'.
If this utterly appalling procedure really does become standard, expect some deaths.
"So I think we should maybe cut the police some slack until further info comes out."
The problem is, the police, by their own behaviour in previous events, have just about run out of slack.
"Except it doesn't appear to have been an accidenr - as it 'missed and hit a hostage' - but a deliberate act."
The hostage may be a collaborator, or just risk everyone's life with their non-compliance.
So, it does not surprise me at all if the manual of operations stipulates that they get neutralised (and if that rule isn't in there, it ought to be).
As for the tazer weapon, this is a huge improvement of having to shoot people, and it's better than a gun here as well because it instantly immobilises the target whilst rarely causing lasting damage.
As for arming the cops routinely -- yes please. It not only will force us to employ more capable people and train them accordingly, but it will also stop the insane spectacle of police cowering in their station whilst they are waiting for the bad uncles from the armed response team to cross town and take out the madman who rampages through town shooting random people.
HF - "The hostage may be a collaborator, or just risk everyone's life with their non-compliance."
So what if he may be a collaborator? The use of force should be determined by necessity, as already mentioned - was the guy a threat?
HF - "As for the tazer weapon, this is a huge improvement of having to shoot people, and it's better than a gun here as well because it instantly immobilises the target whilst rarely causing lasting damage."
Yeah? If it's so safe we should all be able to have one then, for self-defence or at least for home defence, because you see most people who are attacked are not police. Strangely, though, the police do not like anyone defending themselves and have been known to arrest those clearly acting in self-defence.
HF - "As for arming the cops routinely -- yes please."
No thanks. We have already seen a substantial part of the police happily go along with the NuLiebore Big Brother state, and we have pc PCs happily pursuing ideological 'crimes' rather than violent criminals. These sort of police should never be allowed to carry guns because their intention is not to serve and protect the public but to constantly press upon normal people the power of the state. I think (hope) they are still in the minority of police but because they are already in the police there should be no routine arming of ALL police. Also there have been some spectacular examples of unprofessional gun discipline by some already 'trained' police.
I can see it now:
Normal Brave Copper - "Sorry I couldn't jump into the water to save the drowning kid because it would have meant leaving my gun on the ground where some one might have picked it up. The rules are dead against that and I'd probably lose my job and pension."
HF - "...the insane spectacle of police cowering in their station whilst they are waiting for the bad uncles from the armed response team to cross town and take out the madman who rampages through town shooting random people."
Total bollocks. In the Cumbria shootings the armed response team did not 'take out the madman' for the simple reason that he had planned what he was doing. He had a grudge against Sellafield but did not go there because it has armed security. Likewise if all normal cops were armed he would have carried out his murders by avoiding them, as he pretty much did anyway.
HF - "The hostage may be a collaborator, or just risk everyone's life with their non-compliance."
So what if he may be a collaborator? The use of force should be determined by necessity, as already mentioned - was the guy a threat?
HF - "As for the tazer weapon, this is a huge improvement of having to shoot people, and it's better than a gun here as well because it instantly immobilises the target whilst rarely causing lasting damage."
Yeah? If it's so safe we should all be able to have one then, for self-defence or at least for home defence, because you see most people who are attacked are not police. Strangely, though, the police do not like anyone defending themselves and have been known to arrest those clearly acting in self-defence.
HF - "As for arming the cops routinely -- yes please."
No thanks. We have already seen a substantial part of the police happily go along with the NuLiebore Big Brother state, and we have pc PCs happily pursuing ideological 'crimes' rather than violent criminals. These sort of police should never be allowed to carry guns because their intention is not to serve and protect the public but to constantly press upon normal people the power of the state. I think (hope) they are still in the minority of police but because they are already in the police there should be no routine arming of ALL police.
Also there have been some spectacular examples of unprofessional gun discipline by some already 'trained' police.
And I can see it now:
Normal Brave Copper - "Sorry I couldn't jump into the water to save the drowning kid because it would have meant leaving my gun on the ground where some one might have picked it up. The rules are dead against that and I'd probably lose my job and pension."
HF - "...the insane spectacle of police cowering in their station whilst they are waiting for the bad uncles from the armed response team to cross town and take out the madman who rampages through town shooting random people."
Total bollocks. In the Cumbria shootings the armed response team did not 'take out the madman' for the simple reason that he had planned what he was doing. He had a grudge against Sellafield but did not go there because it has armed security. Likewise if all normal cops were armed he would have carried out his murders by avoiding them, as he pretty much did anyway.
Nuts!
AP - Sorry for the apparent double posting but I had a message saying the post was too long, and so I split it up.
Any tidying up or deleting you want to do to this is fine by me.
DerekP:
Maybe not such a bad idea, how about issue them with forms for everyone to fill in their ability, dislikes, phobias, ethnic background, languages spoken, disability, dietary requirements and and potential claims there and then, instead of issuing them guns; and then the cops can bore the criminals into submission with bureaucracy instead. ;->
I don't dispute there are many incompetents in the police service(who ought to sacked asap), but if we're going to have cops deal with dangerous people then they have to be armed, armored and properly trained and trusted to make the best decision possible without by default suspecting they are members of the secret stasi sadist cult who enjoy torturing random people.
As to the Bird story, Ok, I got the details wrong, but here it is again, to refresh both our memories:
"Unarmed Cumbrian police officers chased Derrick Bird after he had already begun his killing spree but lost him after he pointed a gun at two of them, forcing them to hide, it emerged today"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jun/07/cumbria-shootings-derrick-bird-police
Note that this time, people died because of the cops were unarmed.
As to allowing concealed carry -- I'd have no problem with it, after all the criminals long have this right anyway, so why not me (and the cops?)
HF - "if we're going to have cops deal with dangerous people then they have to be armed, armored and properly trained and trusted to make the best decision possible without by default suspecting they are members of the secret stasi sadist cult who enjoy torturing random people."
Broadly agree - tools for the job. Given my already stated reservations I have to stick with not arming ALL police because they can't ALL be trusted to do the job professionally (I'm sure the Home Office and ACPO will take my advice - it's free after all).
We're probably only having this discussion, though, because the police have unfortunately started to get the 'stasi' reputation, and also because the article didn't state the tasered guy was a threat or a hindrance in a dangerous situation (difficult to argue the use of the taser then), but that he simply didn't obey an order.
HF - "Note that this time, people died because of the cops were unarmed."
I read the article you linked to and gave your comment much thought. I still think his planning shows he would have avoided armed cops. Brief consideration of cops with pistols versus a shotgun and rifle combination makes me think that (unless they got in a very lucky shot)the police might have been able to force him off the road but at that point he will pick off police with the rifle - pistols are not intended for that sort of confrontation, and even the HK MP5 might not be up to the task. I noticed in the news reports about the recent shooting of a policeman that some of the armed officers were carrying rifles - variations of the HK G36 - which is definitely more useful against a longer range weapon.
Post a Comment