In yet another post on how the police need taser now and all the people who disagree are not just wrong but possibly 'sinister anti-authority types who simply do not want (the police) to be able to protect ourselves', the good Inspector has this to say:
"Refusing to let us have TASER in case we shoot the wrong person is like refusing to let us have cars in case we run someone over, boots in case we kick someone in the head or a first aid kit in case we give the wrong treatment. On my team we take the deployment of TASER very seriously. I haven’t even heard the team joke about it.That's good to know. Because, in the 'Mail' this morning, we have this:
When we get our handguns, and we will get them folks, we will treat them with the same reverence."
A police firearms officer has been moved to other duties after accidentally firing his handgun in a garage at a police station.Remember, folks, only the police can be trusted with guns, because they are the professionals!
The PC was cleaning his Glock 9mm semi-automatic pistol when it went off.
You citizens (who are, of course, always on the scene much quicker than the police ever are) are not to be trusted with them. You can have a broom, but don't wield it too hard, will you?
Glock pistols have three safety mechanisms but it is not known if any of them had been released.I think it hardly matters, because this utter cretin was cleaning a loaded gun!!
One source said that procedures had been tightened since the incident.Presumably emails have been sent out to all fiorearms officers warning them not to clean a loaded gun!!
This from 2008
ReplyDeletehttp://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23455764-gun-injuries-soar-as-police-experts-blast-themselves-and-colleagues-by-mistake.do
Gadget shows a touching faith in the seriousness of his fellow officers.
Your recent broadsides encouraged Gadget to choose between the lesser of two evils, Julia.
ReplyDeleteLifting your ban is solicitous of a few concessionary words of support and fickle appeasement from hereon, nicht wahr?
He's not a very bright Inspector, is he?
ReplyDeleteThe primary purpose of a car is not to run people over. That would be an accidental use.
The primary purpose of a pair of boots is not to be used as a weapon. Even in Glasgow, kicking someone in the head with them would be only a useful secondary benefit of wearing them.
A taser, on the other hand, is only any use for shooting people. That's what it's for.
If a bobby runs someone over or treads on your toes, that (may be) a forgivable accident. If, on the other hand, he tasers you, he meant to do it.
Perhaps if we sit the poor sap in a darkened room for a few hours, he might be able to glimpse the difference.
OB: If, on the other hand, he tasers you, he meant to do it.
ReplyDeleteSadly there's not even a guarantee that that would be the case.
But Gadget's logic is, of course adrift.
Julia: You can have a broom
Mops get Brooms!
What fucking stupid twat cleans a LOADED firearm?
ReplyDeleteIf, on the other hand, he tasers you, he meant to do it.
ReplyDeleteBut he could have accidentally triggered it whilst cleaning/checking it...
W/V - "Wally" Oh, how appropriate!
Its easy to mock gadget, but unless you have walked a mile in his shoes I dont think you can even begin to imagine what its like.
ReplyDeleteNot so sure about arming the police, but to deny them non-lethal weapons such as a Taser from the comfort of your armchair I would question.
Well, Bob, tell us - how do you think previous generations of coppers handled it? Magic?
ReplyDeleteAnd lest someone pipes-up about it being 'increasingly dangerous' today - just try reading a bit about Victorian crime.
Glock pistols have three safety mechanisms but it is not known if any of them had been released.
ReplyDeleteIf I'm right about Glocks they're all internal (which is why cops love 'em - no faffing around with a safety catch when you're in a hurry to shoot, though I'm not sure this is a good thing and I'm glad the Vic Police chose S&Ws) and the fact that the bloody thing went off surely means that all of them were released. But as you say, all moot because the bloody idiot was cleaning a loaded firearm, which has to be up there with attempting to change the car's oil while the engine is running.
Your posts on Gadget appear to invite the opposition's contempt, Julia.
ReplyDeleteHowever, we have all submitted decent arguments to that blog which 'Gadget tampering' made totally unrecognisable.
Anon, Not magic, no. There are many reasons why previous generations dealt with it better, (and in a lot of cases didn’t), I know that because I was one of them. While I accept (and agree) that fully arming the police is never going to happen, we were always promised that research would continue for a non-lethal alternative. It’s here now and the police should have them.
ReplyDeleteGadget gave three examples of when his team had used them recently and I recognised each one of those scenarios. Hence, in my humble view, from a small degree of knowledge, I would not be against police carrying Tasers for their own and your protection.
Julia,you backed your car into a fence-post in 1987.That means that you should be banned from driving for ever,so should everyone else.
ReplyDeleteExactly the same argument you have made here.
The PC made a mistake,no-one got hurt and he has been punished.So I have to suffer for it as well do I?
Jaded
PS You are turning into a bit of a Gadget obsessed person-just like my nemesis MTG who can't accept his ASBO either!
I rather agree with Gadget - whoever she is - on the subject of arming our police. The idea is to prevent or limit such incidents as Hungerford or those with other kinds of dangerous dog.
ReplyDeleteThe downside risks need more analysis and, of course, this is not the intent of the book promoter and T-shirt seller.
A negligent discharge by a so called pro is unforgivable.
ReplyDeleteEvery weapon should be treated as loaded and cocked until it is ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN it is not.
I actually know someone who killed his mucker by just such an instance.
The only way the Po-Po should have guns is if the hoi-poloi have them too.
Bob,
ReplyDeleteYou live in La-La land if you think the Tazer is non-lethal.
I can't even be bothered to link to dozens of cases where it has killed (usually innocent) people.
Gadget should be 'restrained for his own safety'. ie. kicked in the face and charged with affray.
EV, dozens of deaths? More than guns? Please post those links.
ReplyDeleteBob,welcome to the "swimming against the tide" gang on this blog.
Jaded
@ EV
ReplyDeleteThat one describes governments in fear whilst the other is a prescription for accidents, defines the significant difference between armed citizens and armed police.
Its non-lethal in much the same way a truncheon is, and I can't be bothered to link all those deaths either!
ReplyDeleteIt's not 1829 anymore, we live in a different world, probably best demonstrated by your willingness to see someone kicked in the face!
Thanks Anonymous, it's all good exercise!
ReplyDeleteThe police, whatever the right and wrongs of the taser argument, clearly need to feel protected in some way. I would imagine, thanks to the hard work of our political masters and their love of supporting the perp over the victim, the cops feel a bit isolated. As they cannot, for fear of bringing the wrath of legions of well-paid lawyers down on them, hit a crim or generally put them to rights they find it awkward.
ReplyDeleteSo, while tasers may or may not be right/ effective/ legal/ necessary, etc... what do the anti-taser population propose?
Like many (hopefully law abiding) people I do not want to see an aggressive police where mistakes and misplaced eagerness ruin their reputation further, but I tend to want the wrong doers jumped on. Hard. Apparently some crims are armed, some are desperate and anyway the courts will side with them with good mitigation sob-stories wooing the judges.
But I am afraid however that merely repeating the line: "Tasers are no good, 'cos things should be better" is not good enough. So, boys and girls, your solutions are what exactly?
Thats the $64K question Lawn, Well put.
ReplyDeleteJaded,
ReplyDeleteYou're a liar (obviously, you're babylon) if you're telling me you are ignorant of the deaths of people worldwide caused by big dicked copper with a Dirty Harry complex.
Bob,
Someone should kick you oopside the head, then maybe they'll knock some sense in.
We do indeed live in a different world, hence the need for the citizen (subject really, but let's not split hairs) to bear arms.
Police cannot be trusted with pen-knives, let alone a Glock, FFS.
lol
ReplyDeleteEV,you're back!It's been a while.
ReplyDeleteYou are still talking crap though.
The public will never be armed legally,you know that so why do you keep repeating it?
Up the medication old chap.I do realise people have been killed by the police but in the UK it's a tiny fraction compared to other countries.
Jaded.
I assume you use the word babylon to try and get down with the "yoof".Yes i've never denied being a PC,it's fairly obvious from my posts!
@ Jaded
ReplyDeleteAn ignorant and disrespectful character would not be so evident, were you sufficiently intelligent to mask it with a few charitable words. The greater tragedy is that your conduct is a new police norm.
Ministers and public heap much deserved disdain upon your dishonest and provocative service. A profusion of liars, troublemakers and half-wits, has confirmed serious defects in police recruitment standards; shortcomings which can only result in future times of violent, mass conflict.
The opportunity to add cowardice to your vices will be afforded by a day of crisis when your kind discard weapons and uniforms, in panic and haste.
Getting boring again MTG.
ReplyDeleteReading through all your clever words the one point you always ignore;WHAT IS YOUR ALTERNATIVE?
Easy to snipe,not so easy to suggest a better way.
Jaded
Sorry to shout but I have to try and make myself heard over your howling at the moon.
My God MTG, Your prejudice towards the police is off the scale by any normal persons standards.
ReplyDeleteAll I can say is thank god I live in a society where we may not agree with your views, but the police will defend your right to say it.
but the police will defend your right to say it
ReplyDeleteAs a rule I don't comment here to have a go at the police and this is no exception but I do think it's a bit far-fetched to claim that it's within the remit of the police to defend (or curtail) free speech and I doubt whether they would aspire to do a job which as a matter of policy should rightfully fall to their political masters.
On balance the tendency among police officers and their managers would seem to be to anticipate political dictat and to inhibit the freedom of the individual if there is the possibility of offending current shibboleths.
There's a considerable rag bag of examples of ill-conceived and heavy-handed interventions against photographers or people who might conceivably offend muslims or racial minorities or those who make it their business to be offended which leaves the part of the population of which I am a part feeling beleaguered and antagonistic.
Add to that the unsettling demands for increased powers and reduced accountability which Ian Blair repeatedly argued for in the teeth of one or two ugly abuses of power or maladministration on his watch and I think there's a fairly good case for saying 'no' to tasers or the routine arming of police.
I don't visit Gadget's site any more: there are far too many stupid, arrogant and dangerous people there. I do welcome the voices of Jaded and others here (and I decry the rantings of the cop-haters)because it takes courage to row against the stream and because it's useful and informative to have their considered view.
I was once comfortable with the idea of cops having tasers - in fact still am happy with them having tasers as private citizens, though as Jaded says it'll probably be long time before people get over their fear of law abiding citizens being armed with anything more dangerous than a wet newspaper - but for police duties I've come to feel that the taser being seen as the non-/less lethal alternative to a firearm it gets used too readily.
ReplyDeleteGive a cop a taser and the much lower consequences, or likely consequences, of using it increase the chances of it being used and so we see incidents from around the world of unarmed people getting repeatedly zapped for being a passive-aggressive pain in the arse. To a lesser extent it applies to capsicum spray too, though after what happened at UC Davis last week maybe not all that lesser after all. Give a cop a gun and it tends to stay in the holster unless it's really needed, and because the consequences of firing are so serious shooting is very much a last resort option. This isn't a dig at any particular police force because it seems to happen all over the world, and it's not even a dig at cops because I think it's just the way things are. If there's a weapon that's specifically designed to be used before the last resort then of course it's going to be used more often, and if it's one that usually does no lasting harm and has a short recovery time it's just human nature to be much less reluctant to shoot the thing. That might not be an issue if it's used for what the Yanks like to call home dee-fence but it worries me when it's a tool for policing, particularly wrt the 'drive stun' function which is too readily used as an electric prod for two legged cattle. I'd far rather just arm all the cops.
I'd also suggest that routinely armed police might reduce the rate of negligent discharges. You probably wouldn't get anyone being all cocky (not that I'm saying it's common) because they're a firearms officer when all officers, even those fresh out of the academy, are firearms officers. Instead you'd hopefully get a culture of responsible handling of firearms throughout the whole force because anyone acting like a dick with their gun is going to get called on it by every officer around them. You're never going to eliminate all risk but what it comes down to is this: while it still annoys me that the police and criminals get guns and the public don't (the principle annoys me - if it was legal to carry a gun I wouldn't actually bother to do it as I really don't feel the need) I don't lose a moment's sleep knowing there's more than 10,000 of them where I live with a S&W .40 each. It helps knowing that hardly any of them have a taser.
"Gadget shows a touching faith in the seriousness of his fellow officers."
ReplyDeleteIndeed! And that's before we get into the case of the instructor who kept mixed live and blank ammo in a Quality Street tin!
"Lifting your ban..."
Has he? Will go check later.
"If a bobby runs someone over or treads on your toes, that (may be) a forgivable accident. If, on the other hand, he tasers you, he meant to do it."
Possibly, but as Mick T (and this incident) points out, not necessarily! I'm assuming you can have a negligent discharge with a taser?
"Mops get Brooms!"
LOL!
"What fucking stupid twat cleans a LOADED firearm?"
ReplyDeleteQuite, but Quality Street tin ammo man is still way ahead on points...
"... but to deny them non-lethal weapons such as a Taser from the comfort of your armchair I would question."
I'm not - I think qualified firearms officers should have it. Training and monitoring needs to be beefed up, however, as this incident shows.
But not everyone.
"..which has to be up there with attempting to change the car's oil while the engine is running."
I'd have gone for 'changing a tyre while the car is still moving'. Mainly because I let the garage handle the oil-changing bit, so I've no idea where it goes!
"... we were always promised that research would continue for a non-lethal alternative."
It's less-lethal. I doubt we are anywhere near finding a completely non-lethal solution.
"PS You are turning into a bit of a Gadget obsessed person..."
ReplyDeleteWell, if he didn't keep putting his foot in his mouth (I won't use the 'shooting himself in the foot' option, for obvious reasons) I wouldn't have so much to wrote about, would I? ;)
"It's not 1829 anymore, we live in a different world..."
It's not an irreversible decline, though sadly, it would seem we lack any political representation with the balls to start the process.
"I would imagine, thanks to the hard work of our political masters and their love of supporting the perp over the victim, the cops feel a bit isolated."
I've no doubt they do, but their own response to that pressure from above should not be the route they are currently taking.
"All I can say is thank god I live in a society where we may not agree with your views, but the police will defend your right to say it."
Errr, pardon? Have you forgotten this incident? This one? And this one?
Sadly, the days of the impartial police officer are over. Too many eagerly leap on PC rulings to throw their weight around or advance (frankly sinister) hidden agendas.
" I do welcome the voices of Jaded and others here (and I decry the rantings of the cop-haters)because it takes courage to row against the stream ..."
ReplyDeleteWell said.
"Give a cop a taser and the much lower consequences, or likely consequences, of using it increase the chances of it being used and so we see incidents from around the world of unarmed people getting repeatedly zapped for being a passive-aggressive pain in the arse."
Spot on! Why increase the chances of this?
... I let the garage handle the oil-changing bit, so I've no idea where it goes!
ReplyDeleteFor future reference it goes down that little pipe the dipstick lives in, but you have to pour it very slowly. To get it the old oil out again when you need to change it simply hold the car upside down for a while.
/ducks and runs
"....and I decry the rantings of the cop-haters)because it takes courage to row against the stream ..."
ReplyDeleteWell said.
I compare JuliaM's dual worded, treacherous endorsement to the action of a child spreading jam on both sides of her bread.
I have to agree with Angry Exile. If all cops had firearms they would be very unlikely to use them, except in extremis. Whereas tasers are far more likely to be used in a 'This bloke is annoying me, I think I'll taser him' way.
ReplyDeleteThe only thing I can suggest if tasers are the way things are going is that it should be legislated that if a policeman uses a taser, and it subsequently is found to have been unlawful (excessive force was used, wrong person was tasered etc) then the victim gets to taser the policeman who did it.
That might temper a few hot heads who like the power trip of waving 'weapons' around and using them.
Excellent comment Sobers!Might just work.
ReplyDeleteI remember when we were first issued with CS gas and we went for training.The instructor said we could get sprayed if we wanted to to see the what the effects are like.I foolishly volunteered as did about half my class.The instructor asked one of the refusenicks why they weren't having a go and one said, quite philosophically "When we had baton training I didn't want to get hit round the head either"!
The gas bloody hurt.Hand on heart in all the years I have had CS gas I have never sprayed anyone.I have waved it around a few times though.When I went for refresher training my cannister was confiscated off me as the use by date had long gone!
Before MTG pipes up,I have a very high arrest rate and I do not "hug the radiator" either.
Jaded
@ sobers
ReplyDeleteYou must tell us all - should exceptional fortune see you survive a hollow tip round - how convalescence is aided by a police 'Best Wishes' card together with news of no intention to discharge the gun in your direction.
@MTG: What?
ReplyDeleteLook, its fairly obvious that if a policeman is faced with a person being obnoxious but not actually dangerous, he's not going to shoot them. I'm no great fan of the police but even I can work out that the consequences for an officer shooting someone who turns out to be innocent or that excessive force was used, is pretty high. Police officers aren't going to be waving them around like confetti. They don't abroad do they?
Whereas (as we have seen in the pepper spray incident in the US recently) non lethal weapons are much more likely to be used, and thus more likely to be used in error.
Put it this way - if I'm stopped by the police for some erroneous reason, and I go off on one giving them a piece of my mind, whats more likely, I get shot or I get tasered?
"whats more likely, I get shot or I get tasered?"
ReplyDeleteYou must seek your answer from present police. Do not mistake me for someone who gives a fig for your welfare, Sobers.
This blog was always disagreeably contaminated. Its newly acquired 'polluted' status requires me to distance nostrils from putridity.
Bye bye.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure there's a blog somewhere where everyone agrees with you.
How dare someone disagree with you!!
Keep away from sharp objects Melvin.
Jaded.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteEveryone seems to forget, when talking "non lethal" the police ARE armed. They have battons.
ReplyDeleteHow many people get accidently battoned?
Mein Fuhrer...the parrot has seen better days but it won't be worth an alten pfenig ending up bald as you.
ReplyDelete"..simply hold the car upside down for a while."
ReplyDeleteYou do that by driving really fast into a corner, right? ;)
"...This blog was always disagreeably contaminated. Its newly acquired 'polluted' status..."
?
alten pfenig
ReplyDeleteOh dear - if you want to be offensive you really need to take the trouble to be accurate and offensive.
One spelling mistake and one grammatical error in only two words. And that's not counting the "ü" on Führer.
^ Crane your head back - you may miss fewer jokes.
ReplyDeleteXX Marionette de Chaussette said... XX
ReplyDelete:-)
Habe auch bemerkt, aber... na, wieso sollte ich mich darum kümmern? :-)
Vergessen Sie die 'Schlagseite' nicht.
ReplyDeleteXX as importunt scotish export to Brandenburg-Preußen, mah coments as State Beneffit sponger shuld nay hae bin puttied last, wee lassie. Och no XX
ReplyDeleteVon Brandenburg-Preußen.
@ the Furor
ReplyDeleteYou are cordially invited to drop in 4T at 39 Town End Almondbury, Huddersfield, W Yorks. HD5 8NP. I hope you can still recall threatening to honour me with your surprise visit. You know, the one made publicly on a police blog, which promised a bunch of something? You really must taste some special wines to be found in my sound-proofed cellar.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete