Sunday, 25 March 2012

I Guess Now They Won't Just Want Guns, But Silver Bullets To Put In Them...

From the comments at 'Inspector Gadget's' blog on the 'pitbull' attack in Stratford:

Oh, my giddy aunt...


Aieeeee! FETCH THE RAILGUN!


You wouldn't think they were just animals, with a heart, lungs and skeletal structure just like any other, would you?

I'm guessing there's a lot of reading (you'll be able to tell, 'cos their lips are moving) going on in SO19 at the moment. Still, at least no idiot has tried the old urban myth about how they have 'locking jaws'.

Yet.

42 comments:

Able said...

Oh my Lord, this is a true novelty, I think I disagree with you for once! well maybe.

I suspect the problem lies in the perception and experience of both public and the officers involved.

I just Googled CO19 and the weapons they use - Glock in 9 mm, H7K MP5 in 9 mm, G36 in 5.56 and G3 in 7.62.

The problem is that, unlike that strange link you supplied, the average hunter is not allowed, in countries where any hunting is allowed that is, to use 5.56 for anything more than a rabbit or gopher. Why? Because the calibre is insufficiently powerful for a clean kill on anything larger.

Witness the debates over it's use as an infantry calibre over the last few years. It fulfilled the criteria of wounding a combatant, and therefore following then doctrine of removing three other combatants to care for the wounded soldier. Unfortunately the current conflicts have shown that doesn't work with an enemy who doesn't care for their own wounded, or care if they are wounded. See the massive number of stories of soldiers requiring to hit attackers many times to stop them.

Then of course the movie idea of 'one stop shots' as with 'shooting a gun out of a miscreants hands' is unfortunately a load off ****cks. Yes, with correct shot placement it is possible, but to do so on a charging, relatively small but very tough animal is asking a lot of even a seasoned hunter. have a read about as to why we British went to .455 as a handgun calibre, the US went to .45 (some 'interesting' stories of attackers taking not just multiple torso hits with .38 but double digit hits - and still completing an attack. Conversely there are a number of stories of attackers stopped with .32 and even .22, but they are exceptionally rare, based on the attackers lack of will, shot placement and luck - would you be willing to base your survival on those? Not me!).

So the problem? I suspect that the police officers involved had, not surprisingly in Nanny Britain, never hunted. I suspect they chose their G36 because that is what they are allowed to use. To make the alleged four head-shots (I suspect four hits, maybe minor, with a final head-shot is the reality rather than the hype) is impressive enough but not surprising considering the calibre and probable incorrect placement. Personally if I had to deal with a marauding pit-bull, I'd opt for the G3 and if it can't be done with a round of 7.62 then you're dealing with a 'vampire zombie dog from hell' (assuming you have the training and experience to hit a small, tough, fast moving target in a vital area of course).

(incidentally, the derogatory name for 5.56 is, appropriately enough, ' the poodle-shooter').

JuliaM said...

The details of the shooting aren't yet available - the 'Mail' believed a shotgun was used (!) but there's no closeup on the video so a handgun is far more likely.

They are supposed to have expanding ammo for taking out only the target and no-one else in public situations, and from the video, he fired at least three shots at a stationary target (due to its choking) at virtually point-blank range.

I'd have thought one would be sufficient, but maybe he'd seen lots of horror movies... ;)

JuliaM said...

It's a pity that firearms instructor with his .44 Magnum and Quality Street tin of assorted ammo wasn't available. He'd have come in handy!

Ripper said...

That's not a pit bull in your picture, it's a staffordshire bull terrier. And it's not snarling, its running.

A salt and battered said...

"...there's no closeup on the video so a handgun is far more likely."

You propose the only sane option but the smart money must be on the shotgun, Julia. (The real fun begins when plod draws nerve gas and tactical nuclear devices from stores.)

Anonymous said...

JuliaM,
I hate to highlight it but it is quite clear that the only expertise you bring to the table in this field is a (very basic) ability to use google.

Even a bloody deer needs a .240 calibre round - and they're a damn sight easier to kill than a pit bull.

http://www.basc.org.uk/en/codes-of-practice/deer-stalking.cfm

Can we expect to see any information about your own life experience which might illuminate what colours your view of the world or gives you insight into specialist fields - and thus why your view should be given any more weight than a primary school kid with a copy of the Daily Mail and an internet connection?

Tang0

JuliaM said...

"And it's not snarling, its running."

Yup! Cool picture, though ;)

"Even a bloody deer needs a .240 calibre round - and they're a damn sight easier to kill than a pit bull."

Do much deer stalking, Tang0, or did you get your link from...Google?

And there's a vast difference between what is mandated legal calibre for hunting and what it 'needs' to despatch an animal.

Try your Google-fu on 'Karamojo Bell'. When everyone hunting elephants in Africa was toting around monstrous weaponry, he wasn't. He did his homework instead.

I suppose if he'd been an exciteable modern-day police officer he'd have requisitioned a bazooka or two.

Anonymous said...

I dunno what happened to my post just then.

In essence - the Mauser used by Bell has a larger calibre than the 5.56 round of the police.

The round he fired was a full metal jacket - rather than the hollow point of the police.

Bell was hunting unsuspecting animals rather than trying to kill a snarling, wriggling dog trying to bite his throat out.

I could point at Kalahari bushmen killing animals with bows and arrows. Your argument would then appear to suggest that if they can manage it then a bow and arrow is all that firearms officers require.

Still if you refuse to believe that different weapons and ammunition are used for different purposes then who am I to argue with your "experience".

Now what was that again?

Tang0

JuliaM said...

"Bell was hunting unsuspecting animals rather than trying to kill a snarling, wriggling dog trying to bite his throat out."

Check the video again it's grainy but quite clear enough.

Your guy - after he'd parked, kitted up, leisurely strolled over - had a shot at point blank range at a stationery target.

The dog doesn't move when his colleagues get up and clear his line of fire, it's clearly choked/beaten into (temporary) submission.

"Your argument would then appear to suggest that if they can manage it then a bow and arrow is all that firearms officers require."

Well, the ammo'd be reusable. It'd cut costs. ;)

"Still if you refuse to believe that different weapons and ammunition are used for different purposes.."

Where did I say that again?

I'm quite well aware that not all guns or loads are equal for all jobs, something the incompetent horse-slaughterers of the Yorkshire Police could be expected to know, given we are constantly regaled with their expertise.

Over to you.

JuliaM said...

*stationary, that should read. Fumblefingers.

allcoppedout said...

Not quite my Lab sleeping on the same bed as the cat he adores. Where was the health and safety gnome when they needed her!
The Gadgeteenos and their converse don't help in this argument.

Anonymous said...

I give up.
The entire thrust of your post is taking the piss out of the suggestion that special ammunition might be required to shoot a pit bull.

Your lack of knowledge about firearms and the difference (in both kit and skills) between shooting humans and animals is almost laughable.

When that is coupled with your opinion that walking up to and shooting the dog was a totally straightforward matter then I really have to ask (again) have you ANY experience in relation to what you are talking about?

I imagine that continued requests for some (any) clarification about your background will be fruitless.
Perhaps you could explain why?

Tang0

i would give up too said...

Don't be to hard on julia, she is the copy and paste news queen of blogging and has an opinion on anything and everything.

use her blog for "bits and bobs" but don't expect intelligent insight and wisdom on these subjects....it aint there.

JuliaM said...

"Not quite my Lab sleeping on the same bed as the cat he adores. Where was the health and safety gnome when they needed her!"

No, indeed!

But despite Gadget's audience regarding the dreaded pitbull weapon dog with the sort of terror in which you might expect a cobra to regard Rikki-Tikki-Tavi, the vast majority of dog bites are indeed the good old family pet type.

No doubt we can expect Tang0 and his friends to unship the BFGs the next time a chihuahua runs amok. Can't be too careful.

"I give up.
The entire thrust of your post is taking the piss out of the suggestion that special ammunition might be required to shoot a pit bull."


It's the phrase 'special ammunition', you see. It's not 'special' ammunition you need, it's appropriate ammunition or, failing that, a damned good shot who knows exactly where to shoot.

One the evidence of the video before us, we don't have that in great supply in the Met, do we?

"I imagine that continued requests for some (any) clarification about your background will be fruitless.

Perhaps you could explain why?"


Because I've no need to give you one. You're not on duty now. You can't demand ID, and arrest if you don't get it.

On the web, we're on equal footing.

I can have my say, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, and the audience can make up their minds accordingly.

JuliaM said...

i would give up too: "...she is the copy and paste news queen of blogging ..."

Oh, cheers, you've quite made my day... ;)

Anonymous said...

Dear Julia,
Leaving aside your incipient paranoia that i might want to demand your details with some imaginary power of arrest if you fail to provide (we're not in a police state yet), you are totally correct that we are on an equal footing on the web and you don't "need" to provide anything.

My only (and repeated point) is that if you are attempting to make some kind of point as a blogger then it adds some credibility to your views if they have some basis on some form of experience of something.

It is a pretty simple concept really, Gadget is a cop, Jack of Kent is a lawyer, Annaracoon a lwyer (amongst other things)

If you are attempting to deride or pour scorn on any targets it starts to seem a bit weak when you both refuse to reveal anything about yourself, or provide any basis other than "t'internet" for your opinions.

It's straightforward isn't it? You already are able to criticise my request for information because you know I'm a cop, whereas you are ....?

Tang0

Anonymous said...

It's the phrase 'special ammunition', you see. It's not 'special' ammunition you need, it's appropriate ammunition or, failing that, a damned good shot who knows exactly where to shoot.

Oh I see so this whole post and the sniggering and mockery is about the fact that someone posted the word "special" instead of the word "appropriate"

Still at least you are prepared to accept that executing a pit bull requires not just an accurate shot but a "damned good shot" as well as the skill to know "exactly where to shoot".

One the evidence of the video before us, we don't have that in great supply in the Met, do we?
On the evidence of the video it is extremly hard to tell what EXACTLY has taken place.
You even accept that we can't see if it was a hand gun or a shotgun. So not a great amount of detail there is it?

Don't worry I'm happy to rely on your experience with firearms, violent dogs and putting down animals to provide some substance to your comments. You have got some experience haven't you?

Tang0

JuliaM said...

But Tang0, I don't know you are a cop. I only know you claim to be one.

Equally, I could claim to be a butcher, a baker, a candlestick maker, and you'd never know whether it was true or not.

Anonymous said...

Yep I claim to be a cop. That's the prism through which I am presenting my views. If you want to disbelieve me or criticise me for it that's fine, but that is the experiences I am claiming to bring to the table.

But hey - it's your credibility, so claim away.

At the moment I can only see cut and pasting, Daily Mail-esque outrage and a heavy use of google.

Tang0

Able said...

Finally found the video

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=caf_1332513824

As you surmised it was obviously a handgun used (due to rate of fire). Three shots fired. The dog restrained (although may have still been biting, unable to see in poor quality video).

The impressive aspect was how the officers colleagues seemed to let him wander aimlessly trying to deal with being bitten on his own for some extended period.

At the end the dog is obviously restrained so the question must be asked why then shoot it?

As to Tang0 comments, it is obvious that you have no knowledge or expertise in the area of firearms so please don't pretend to be morally superior in criticizing the author.

As with so many stories the hype outdoes the reality. The firearms officer dispatched a dangerous animal with shots, using I suppose Jacketed Hollow Point ammunition as issued. The number of shots used indicates training which follows the maxim of shoot until the aggressor is down, nothing else.

To call for all officers to be armed, for more calibre choices, bigger weapons, etc. from this is pure stupidity. Perhaps concentrating on controlling already known vicious dogs (you did after all enter a premises with a known vicious dog in, obviously unprepared to deal with it, or did someone forget to tell you) and helping colleagues when they are attacked would be a better option.

YMMV

Anonymous said...

"That's the prism through which I am presenting my views."

I applaud the fair play by Tang0's subconscious mind. A stream of invective, bluff and insult eventually followed by a revelation. In this case a confession that his views are twice bent.

Anonymous said...

Hey there Melv, amusing word play there.
But then again you are at least honest in who you are and what your views are.
Would it be reasonable to say that your filter is "If the police say it - it must be wrong" ;-)

Tang0

Anonymous said...

Tango at 17:46


Dear Julia, Leaving aside your incipient paranoia that i might want to demand your details with some imaginary power of arrest if you fail to provide

Oh so it is imaginary then .... doesn't stop the threats to use it, imaginary or not .. and that is a categoric "no such power exists" statement I take it, so we can only assume that the people who put this together did so because they were "a bit bored and wanted to see how creative they could be" ..

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=627081175329856970&postID=8419217268759819311

Anonymous said...

sorry, minor cock up on the paste the link front - ignore the garbage link above and substitute ..

http://www.fsf.org.uk/media/uploaded/Stand%20Up%20Sit%20Down%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf

blueknight said...

We used to use 'dog scarers', an electronic device that sends out a high pitched squeak. Quite effective on ridgebacks and the like, but I am not sure about 'pit bulls' that tend to be bred/trained to be violent.
The Police do need some sort of instant dog deterrent, which could be a more reliable electronic device, or perhaps Pepper spray as someone else suggested. We had CS spray and we were always warned that it did not affect dogs.
In this case there seems to have been an intelligence slip in that the Police on the ground should have known about the dog, but the simple truth is that the ownership these dogs is common and anyone knocking the door would not know if such a dog was living there or visiting

blueknight said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Anonymous with the link
I am not clear which part of "the police have no general power to require you to give them your name" (page 2) that you don't understand.

Unless you are suggesting that JuliaM has committed some kind of offence which I am fairly sure I neither said nor insinuated.

Tang0

Bob said...

"you'll be able to tell, 'cos their lips are moving"

Your quite superior and condescending to others in your knowledge of everything Julia, not a nice trait!

Anonymous said...

Able,
Some entirely reasonable points. None of which were being made by JuliaM who was merely laughing at a police officer who had the temerity to suggest that "special" rather than "appropriate" ammunition was required.

I bow to your knowledge of firearms. I'm not an ARV, but neither quite clearly, is JuliaM.

Incidentally I believe all five officers were injured with those injuries already having occurred
when they were seen "wandering around".

Our training does not cover "how to deal with a dog running around biting people", the 1 or 2 days a year training being used to try and assist in dealing with violent humans.

In general when executing warrants where dogs are expected a dog patrol also attends. Why this didn't happen on this occasion I have no idea.
Tang0

Able said...

"I'm not an ARV" ????

I should hope not! They use nice Vectra's round here - how's your upholstery hanging?

;-)

Able said...

Oh and the comment re leaving a colleague referenced the point where he was wandering about the street with a dog hanging off/chewing his arm whilst everyone else stood/climbed on walls etc.

Sorry but my inclination, let alone training, would indicate attempting to help a little at the time!

Just sayin'

Anonymous said...

Able,
I have no idea how long the incident had been going on for before the video started or what the officers had been doing.
I also don't know which officer is the one that received life changing injuries.
I agree helping a colleague would seem the obvious thing to do - but terror, pain and the sight of repeated baton strikes to the head having no effect, might affect your beheviour.
Tang0

PS Upholstery's doing fine - but not as nice as a vectra :-)

JuliaM said...

"At the end the dog is obviously restrained so the question must be asked why then shoot it?"

To avoid having to go before the likes of Judge John Roberts for a destruction order?

Besides, this time it bit a cop, not a member of the public, so they weren't about to ignore it again.

Shit just got personal, innit?

"Perhaps concentrating on controlling already known vicious dogs (you did after all enter a premises with a known vicious dog in, obviously unprepared to deal with it, or did someone forget to tell you) and helping colleagues when they are attacked would be a better option."

Oh, yes. This, indeed this!

"The Police do need some sort of instant dog deterrent, which could be a more reliable electronic device, or perhaps Pepper spray as someone else suggested."

Up to now, it seems they've relied on the Dog Unit's expertise. With the cutbacks, that'll have to change, because, as you point out, ownership is common.

And that video is - if nothing else - a damned good advert for such a beast's efficacy...

"Your quite superior and condescending to others in your knowledge of everything Julia, not a nice trait!"

Bob. if you haven't figured out that snark is a big part of this blog, you must be....CO9? ;)

Able said...

" repeated baton strikes to the head"

Call me naive if you wish, and I'm no expert on dogs or anything else for that matter, but if a dog had his teeth in my arm the last thing I'd want is for someone to start hammering it on the head.

I believe, having bread GSD's and therefore having some experience of large dogs, that there is no way short of wedging the jaws open with said baton (almost impossible to get the leverage I'd guess). The only way I see, and I stand to be corrected by those with more direct knowledge, especially with a breed which will only become more aggressive by being attacked, is to choke the dog into unconsciousness (not something I'd personally wish to try, but if an oppo was being attacked,well.. I'd try).

The point is that an address and a suspect were known to have a previously vicious dog. So rather than look at what weapons the officers had, I'd be looking at which idiot in charge 'screwed the pooch' and sent unprepared people in to be injured (I just bet he or she was sat safely back in the nick too - probably get a promotion out of raising the danger of pit-bulls to the front pages too I'd wager).

If I was one of those officers I'd be tempted to see the effect of a baton round administered rectally to said 'senior officer'.

Just sayin'

JuliaM said...

"Our training does not cover "how to deal with a dog running around biting people", the 1 or 2 days a year training being used to try and assist in dealing with violent humans."

Then there's yet another 'lesson to be learned', isn't there? Because ownership of these things didn't start last week, did it?

And, as someone in a training environment, if police are not trained sufficiently for their job, it explains a great deal.

Perhaps the 'how to deal with a vicious dog' training got lost along with the 'for the umpteenth time, it's not an offence under the Terrorism Act to take pictures in public' refresher training?

"I agree helping a colleague would seem the obvious thing to do - but terror, pain and the sight of repeated baton strikes to the head having no effect, might affect your beheviour."

I know (well, knew) Albert Square quite well. It was a ghastly place ten years ago, and it looks like it hasn't changed.

But you might want to reflect on how everyone's instinct was to NOT rush out to help the police.

If you don't help US, we won't be there for YOU when the time comes.

Reap what you sow.

Anonymous said...

"I can have my say, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, and the audience can make up their minds accordingly."

A bit of a no-contest, really. Two nasty stares from Tang0 and a knock-out by JuliaM.

Bob said...

"Bob. if you haven't figured out that snark is a big part of this blog, you must be....CO9? ;)"

Not CO9?, was just having a semi-bad day. I do enjoy your blog and long may it continue.

Rightwinggit said...

"The details of the shooting aren't yet available - the 'Mail' believed a shotgun was used (!) but there's no closeup on the video so a handgun is far more likely."

Didn't sound like a handgun on the vid.

mister_choos said...

Tang0
You say that you can't just arrest people as this isn't yet a police state. Probably not legally, but it doesn't seem to stop some officers. It seems that some police don't know, or ignore the powers they have for arresting people. As Julia has pointed out there have been many cases of people being arrested for taking photos. There is a letter of apology from a police force that I read today where police illegally entered a home, used excessive force and wrongly arrested somebody. All because they had a poster describing Cameroon as a wanker.

I know,I know, isolated cases,trying to do a good job, blah, blah, blah. But if the people who we might be expected to know the law don't know it, how can the rest of us be expected to know what is legal or not. Shouldn't every policeman be expected to keep up-to-date with the current laws? I have to do that in my job and can end up in deep shit if I don't.

Perhaps it should be put to the chief constables that training in your actual job would be more use to the general public than the touchy-feely bollocks that we seem to hear about. (Note that I think the blame for this lies with the PC brigade who run the police and not with the average PC, who I'm sure might choose that pit bull over a diversity course.)

JuliaM said...

"Didn't sound like a handgun on the vid."

Did seem rather loud, but I put that down to the effect of it being fired in what was effectively a 'canyon', with those close streets.

"Shouldn't every policeman be expected to keep up-to-date with the current laws? I have to do that in my job and can end up in deep shit if I don't."

Well, quite!

Able said...

I agree very loud but, despite what Hollwood likes to show, all firearms are loud. Why do you assume a shotgun is louder than a handgun? It isn't, that's why it's a requirement at ranges to wear hearing protection (as well as eye protection). Hearing loss is a major potential injury for regular shooters (especially in indoor ranges).

The suggestion, which may be true, is that a shotgun was used. From comments elsewhere, this is apparently police policy (????). If so I'd have to ask how after three rounds of 00 buckshot (or some suggest slugs) they collected the dogs body - with a shovel? (slight overkill me thinks).

Also apparently the officers climbing on the wall were already injured. My comments stand about aiding their colleague but it is at least understandable why someone could react that way if seriously injured.

My sympathy for those injured and my hopes they recover!

Anonymous said...

Sad to say, I'm with Jeremy Clarkson after his daughter was bitten by a dog. "In a case like this, the dog should be put down - immediately followed by its owner!"