Firearms officers were called to a house in Borers Arms Road, Copthorne, near Crawley, at 10pm yesterday, to reports that an armed man was threatening a woman inside the property.Man down!
Sussex Police officers negotiated with the two occupants and a police gun was fired at 10.55pm.
Oh, wait…
A man, in his 50s, received an injury to his hand./facepalm
Great! Just great!
Now the next time your colleagues have to put some gun-wielding nutcase down, the comment section in the ‘Mail’ will have even more hand-wringing idiots writing in to say ‘Why couldn’t they shoot him in the arm?’…
7 comments:
Sorry, I disagree. If Police were aiming for his gun, then he'd receive a hand injury as it was knocked out of his hand. There are videos of Police in the US shooting guns out of the hands of aspirant 'suicides by cop'. If done right there's total surprise & no-one gets hurt. IMO that's the best outcome of an armed siege.
However, few commenters are very complimentary of Police firearms skills, so maybe it was just a lucky shot.
I suspect some poor sod will get disciplined for this, after months of IPCC investigation. The report will eventually read, 'No one could have foreseen ...'
Unless the cops go for 'An unidentifiable Muslim terrorist was seen leaving the scene after snatching a police weapon causing it to discharge with his claw'.
I can think of many reasons why this male received a hand wound. My view as an ex AFO is that he is very lucky indeed not to have suffered a far more serious injury. Perhaps he was standing face on to an officer and either had the weapon raised or was raising it. If the officer was aiming at the centre body mass of the man then it's quite likely he could be struck in the hand and the bullet could then take a deflection and cause no injury other than to his hand. FWIW it's not an exact science as to what happens when a bullet strikes a person or an inanimate object. There are numerous cases of bullets entering one part of the body and exiting elsewhere. I would imagine that in other countries he would have received rather more than one round from the police.
No doubt the IPCC investigation will grind on but I wasn't there and neither were you so lets wait and see what they say. It was a spontaneous incident and these are the most fraught ones to deal with. A pre-planned operation enables as many risks and variables to be controlled as is possible. You don't get that luxury when it unfolds in front of you. I would imagine that all of your commentators who are crack shots etc. would probably not like dealing with a firearms situation for real knowing their every decision will be analysed firstly by the IPCC and then in a court.
Guns are dangerous, plus adrenaline very dangerous. Have one, wave one at others including police, you deserve what you get. We should stop whining about police firearm's discharges and even killings as long as they tell the truth.
The basic problem is police collusion, lying and cover-up - more than this the bare-faced lying at Stockwell and in police complaints in many other situations put both public and innocent officers at risk.
This looks like an almost harmless accident that should be resolved with minimum fuss. Stockwell was a series of blunders or molehills turned into a cover-up mountain none of us believe.
Part of the problem is that the public don't understand danger or guns, but the bigger problem is cover-up and this starts with the constitution of the IPCC. By the time they get to anywhere, it's too late for meaningful enquiry and most of them are inadequate as investigators anyway.
Will the cop from this trivial incident work 'wanna hold my hand' into his evidence?
F*ck it, I'll bite.
Guns are dangerous
No. It is an inanimate object, it is no more "dangerous" than a custard tart.
It only becomes dangerous in the hands of an person who:
A. Isn't trained
and/or
B. Doesn't give a f*ck
and/or
C. Is insane.
Regardless of the tool in his hands, he was the threat, the gun was merely the tool. He could've attacked the woman with a book and still killed her, if that was his intent.
"There are videos of Police in the US shooting guns out of the hands of aspirant 'suicides by cop'. "
I DID see one of those vids on a police blog once, from the States. Utterly amazing...
But utterly foolhardy. Can't see it EVER being authorised here.
"I suspect some poor sod will get disciplined for this, after months of IPCC investigation."
Just once, I'd like to see someone senior give a statement that amounts to 'He was pointing a gun at us. What should we have used, harsh language?'
"Perhaps he was standing face on to an officer and either had the weapon raised or was raising it. If the officer was aiming at the centre body mass of the man then it's quite likely he could be struck in the hand and the bullet could then take a deflection and cause no injury other than to his hand."
Interesting possibility. Would only happen if they only fired once, though?
"FWIW it's not an exact science as to what happens when a bullet strikes a person or an inanimate object."
Indeed. Ballistics is a fascinating science.
" I would imagine that all of your commentators who are crack shots..."
They are!? Blimey, not the trolls too, I hope? ;)
"Guns are dangerous..."
Ah, got to agree with nbc here.
They are just tools. Really, they should be no more 'glamorous' or feared than chainsaws or butcher knives.
"Part of the problem is that the public don't understand danger or guns..."
Spot on. Are we also getting dumber as a result of all the H&S and risk-free lives we lead now? I think so....
" I would imagine that all of your commentators who are crack shots..."
Hello.
Post a Comment