September 11, 2001, Pennsylvania, USA: Flight 93 is hijacked by armed Muslim fanatics. Passengers (despite knowing the danger to themselves) revolt, breach the cockpit and force the plane to crash in a field, away from its intended target.
May 22, 2013, London, England: Two armed Muslim fanatics crash a car into an unarmed man, hack him to pieces in the street and then...stand around for 20 minutes giving speeches to the gathering crowd of able-bodied men who film them, confronted only by women, while witnesses claim the first police on the scene stay back and wait for armed units to show up.
And don't tell me 'Oh, but the onlookers were all unarmed!'. They weren't. They had more options that those brave souls on Flight 93. They just couldn't be bothered to use them.
I'm a little sickened by, and ashamed of, my country right now. But not, clearly, in the way the left-wing press are.
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs’d they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin’s day.
39 comments:
The two situations were hardly the same.
Not to minimise the courage of the Flight 93 passengers but they knew by then what had happened to the other planes. If they hadn't known then they would almost certainly have sat tight as was the norm in previous hijackings, and was thought by everyone to be the sensible option pre-9/11.
In the case of Woolwich the killers were not apparently posing an immediate threat to anyone else and were not trying to escape. There was no good reason for an unarmed passerby to confront two armed bloodstained killers, potentially making things worse.
Women often seem to be the most confrontational in situations like this. They often (rightly or wrongly) seem to have the belief that there will be some inhibition on attacking a woman. Men know there will be no such inhibition to protect them.
There has been very little in the media coverage about the lack of action from the witnesses. The only concession I can make to them is that they probably didn't know it was a soldier at the time. They would have saw two Africans with knives and assumed it was drug or gang related. But still, the people who just walked past with their shopping saddened me.
Agreed. Absolute cravens.
The last Englishman has clearly left London. Will he go back and turn out the lights.
I'm sure you could find plenty of examples of 'bystander apathy' in the US. Just as I'm sure you could find plenty of examples of heroism in the UK. Actually, a neighbour of mine is just back from Afghanistan. I'll have a word with him about it.
I hope in the event this happened, I'd get hold of some scaffolding and do my bit. In truth, two black men covered in blood, holding machetes, I doubt it.
A vehicle is virtually useless as a weapon unless your intended victim is unaware of you.
l dont care how many unarmed people 'could'take on 2 others armed with machetes and cleavers. At the very minimum 2 of the unarmed people are going to be seriously hurt ... perhaps fatally.
Sadly , the soldier was already dead and l doubt anyone had any understanding of what had just taken place. Even if they did, the correct action was taken ... stand off. Unless of course one is armed and under threat.
My only amazement is that these 2 cowards are still alive! Seems that many an unarmed person shot by the police ends up dead ... how did these 2 survive?
Agree with Anon about Flight 93 and Henry V was addressing armed soldiers.
On face value I'm in complete agreement.
The British people have been turned into a nation of frightened sheep, particularly where terrorism is concerned.
It may turn out to be a bit more complicated than that though, in fairness.
There's an argument to be made that passing drivers were in control of potentially lethal weapons - their cars - and could have intervened that way.
But absent Dr Cromary's scaffolding (was there any to hand?), exactly what could any passing pedestrian have done?
I certainly don't carry anything that could be used to disarm/immobilise two machete-wielding maniacs, especially as one of them seems also to have been flashing a gun.
Expecting normal civilians on a moment's notice to mount a 'human-wave' attack agains sharp steel is expecting a bit much.
Again, if anyone could explain what one should do in this situation, please say so.
utter fucking despair JuliaM....utter fucking despair.....
you can only look and wonder.... and as for the crowd who were photographed stood in the road next to the victim.... at what point did they not think, out of simple respect for that man and his family.....to cover over his body ?
You can only look at that picture and wonder if they thought they were on a reality TV show.....
I have been on this planet some 50 years....my formative years saw the troubles and brutality of the struggles in NI, all the wars since..... yesterday was not an act of terrorism.... it was sheer brutality and what do we do ? film the whole fooking charade for youfookingtube and twitter.
And what about mother-of-two Ingrid Loyau-Kennett who today is being described as incredibly brave, even to the point she went on breakfast TV to tell us how brave she was....... well do you know what ..... she was not incredibly brave ..... she was incredibly fucking stupid ...... yes thats right fucking stupid ..... a mother of two who says that she put her self in the way in case the killers wanted to harm children and it was better her than children that were harmed ..... utter fucking stupidity ....and what about her own children...what would they be doing if she was now dead..... but why is she fucking stupid ?.....
Simple...... because for no good reason she stands there having a conversation with the killers, as though you can reason with these two lunatics and then......then......she goes on national TV and recounts virtually word for word her conversation with the murderers and what has she done..... given these fucking lunatics a voice.... she has helped spread their message to the world.....
Henry's troops were armed and unlikely to be prosecuted for attacking their enemy at that time.
Today's Brit is forced to be unarmed and at the very least, unclear about what force he can deploy without fear of prosecution.
If the poor victim was under attack at the time then okay, try to help. But if he was clearly dead, what's the upside in getting involved?
The Americans, of course, are saying that if we had permissive gun laws like they do, several passers-by would have pulled out their guns and shot the murderers.
But.
1. I'm walking along carrying my loaded shotgun, and I see a man covered in blood on the ground, and two men waving knives and other weapons around. At this point, I really don't know what happened, and who the bad guys are, and if I pull out my gun and shoot the two men waving knives, then I A) might be attacking the wrong people and B) might get put in prison for murder.
2. The gun laws in America don't seem to stop a constant series of mass murders in schools, as well as elsewhere. Indeed, it could be argued that a tool that makes it easier to kill people, is likely to lead to more people being killed. Actually, I think I will argue exactly that. So I don't want more permissive gun laws in the UK.
3. In a more realistic scenario, I'm driving along and I see this scenario. I'm in my car, so I certainly didn't see what happened more than a few seconds before, so the idea that I'll use my car to mow down these two men (if I actually could, which is doubtful?) isn't really on, because I very much don't know the story here.
4. And finally, in another possible scenario, I'm walking along, and I do see some of what happened, and I'm even able to draw the conclusion that I just saw a murder. First thing I do, is pull out my mobile phone and call 999, and report it. Maybe someone else already has, but I don't actually know that. So I report it. Second thing I do is I assess the odds. Two young men with knives (and possibly other stuff?) against one not-so-young with a walking stick (or maybe not even that). That's enough to let me feel I'd have a go at defending myself if attacked, but not enough to make me want to jump in and have a go, unless several other people around me would join in. And I don't think they will.
So I wait for the police to arrive.
And it turns out, that's actually just the right thing to do, because the guy on the ground was already dead, and the police made two arrests and will very likely get a conviction.
The apology-fest for Islam is out in force tonight, from One-of-them Dave outside #10 ("Islam's not really like this")to the Guardian ("Was the London killing 'terrorism'?"), Guardian-TV (BBC) "...far right EDL blah blah blah..."
Craven, revolting dhimmitude.
Drsolly - Just to clarify, if you were an armed US citizen you would be carrying a loaded handgun.
Handguns are for personal defence, shotguns are for home defence.
If you were an armed US citizen you wouldn't pull your gun after stumbling on a situation you couldn't fathom. You would only pull your gun if you were being attacked or you wanted to help someone else being attacked.
In the Woolwich situation you would only pull your gun if:
1) You arrived before the dead guy was dead.
2) The killers continued their attack and went for other people.
I don't want to turn this into a pro gun arguement but guns do not prevent massacres in schools because schools are gun free zones, making the crazy guy quite safe to do his crazy stuff.
They do however, prevent countless violent attacks, muggings, rapes, burglaries and home invasions.
Armed citizens may not have been able to help in this situation, unless of course the unfortunate victim himself had a gun, something people seem to be missing. We may never know the answer to that.
That doesn't detract from the fact that they do provide an equalizer for vulnerable people and have helped in many situations
@Anonymous, re flight 93: Precisely - the other three aircraft were surrendered.
They would have saw two Africans with knives and assumed it was drug or gang related.
Head. Nail.
I would not lift a finger to intervene in an enriched full and frank discussion taking place in a vibrant community if I was unsure of what had happened.
I am not a brutha's keeper.
It is a pity that these idiotic brutes live. They'll eat food and be cared for, for the rest of their lives, by money extorted from people who work.
But enough of the parliamentarians who got us into this mess in the first place...
Plod Golden Rule 1 dictates: When in doubt, chicken out. Thus street assassins avoided a confrontation with the type of fearless plod who unhesitatingly jump on the bonnet of any OAP's £50,000 4x4 to beat the glass out of it.
You could also opt to use your hand gun as a control tool and simply instruct the suspected criminal to stay where they are whilst waiting for the police. If they decide to attack: well, you have a 'reasonable defence' argument. The point is that we have no realistic option other than to stand around, if things were different then maybe some of these mindless loons would think twice before acting, whether criminal or terrorist, on the basis that the armed citizen wildcard might be played.
What happened was bad enough but if the murderers had attacked the general public, it would have been much worse.
It sounds odd but the unarmed Police Officers who held back were following the correct procedure. The Dale Cregan case shows what could have happened if they had not.
Gadget would be saying 'Arm the Police'. I am not saying arm all the Police but I am saying that there should be more trained firearms officer on duty at any time in order to provide better and quicker cover.
In past comments here and elsewhere I've often been critical of the armed police. There are simply too many examples of trigger happiness - whether with real firearms or with TASERS.
On this occasion though, judging from the reports, the officer concerned acted correctly, quickly and decisively. The fact that the offenders survived is a also bonus too - although I'm sure many won't be celebrating.
The events Wednesday demonstrate that sadly we do have a need for armed officers (but not an armed police force) in this country. I just hope that lethal is only used against actual real threats as here and not perceived ones involving table legs, toy guns or funny looks. In Woolwich, someone did a good job and I'm happy to say so.
They would have saw two Africans with knives and assumed it was drug or gang related.
And?
Speaking for myself, I would still have intervened. The cause or motivation of the attackers hardly matters. The primary concern surely should have been the person laying in the road in a pool of blood?
I'm sickened that none of the bystanders even attempted to do anything as a group. A waving of arms, shouting and jeering, stone throwing, something, anything... an angry mob would certainly scare even the most rabid jihadist or gang member.
The people on Flight 93 had moments to act... the bystanders in Woolwich had 20 minutes. Its a pity they wasted them.
"They often (rightly or wrongly) seem to have the belief that there will be some inhibition on attacking a woman. Men know there will be no such inhibition to protect them."
Sorry, but that seems...cowardly.
"But still, the people who just walked past with their shopping saddened me."
I know! That woman in the background with the shopping trolley..!
I mean, I know Woolwich is a shithole, but...
"My only amazement is that these 2 cowards are still alive! Seems that many an unarmed person shot by the police ends up dead ... how did these 2 survive?"
The luck of the Devil... :/
"...and as for the crowd who were photographed stood in the road next to the victim.... at what point did they not think, out of simple respect for that man and his family.....to cover over his body ?"
And where were the non-armed police (now it was safe to come out!) to seal off the crime scene and preserve forensics?
"Henry's troops were armed and unlikely to be prosecuted for attacking their enemy at that time."
Good point, but...do people really have time to weigh this up, in the moment?
"2. The gun laws in America don't seem to stop a constant series of mass murders in schools..."
Bucko's answered that question!
"The apology-fest for Islam is out in force tonight..."
To be expected. *sighs*
"It sounds odd but the unarmed Police Officers who held back were following the correct procedure."
Yes. That not only sounds odd, it sounds WRONG.
"The fact that the offenders survived is a also bonus too - although I'm sure many won't be celebrating."
I'm not. I now get to have my taxes wasted on a trial!
I doubt there'll be any useful intel from these two...
Despite the tragic circumstances of this incident Melvin can't resist yet another snide and unnecessary dig.Well done for plumbing the depths.
Sorry it sounds ODD Julia but their actions were correct.The poor soldier was already dead and armed police were on the way.Both scumbags got shot but unfortunately lived.Sounds like we have buying our bullets from the wrong suppliers.
Jaded.
Shakespeare is a resplendent source of passages appropriate to plod inaction but the opening lines of Richard 111 are more significant than the English Camp quote, Julia.
Just as an aside, please don't make assumptions about how 'The English' would react in such a situation - this was Woolwich yes? Just how many 'English' are left in that (and other 'enriched') neighbourhood anymore? (Examining most cases of 'bystander apathy' the bystanders very rarely appear to be from the 'supposed majority population')
Personally, being present I'd like to think I would have reacted, but, as others have pointed out, my concern would not primarily have been what 'the nutters would do to me', but 'what the police/courts would do to me afterwards' (more to do with my being IC1 and the perpetrators being IC3 since, by definition, I would be seen as a racist).
'The Americans, of course, are saying that if we had permissive gun laws like they do, several passers-by would have pulled out their guns and shot the murderers.'
They should stick to cleaning up their own backyard.
At least the IRA had the decency to torture our soldiers in private.
The IRA? Remember them?
There is every possibility, even likelihood, that if a couple of burly men had armed themselves with something (metal bars for example) and confronted the attackers, and managed to subdue them, possibly in the melee even inflicting fatal injuries, then they would have been arrested and be facing the possibility of prosecution for assault, manslaughter or even murder. Any passer by would not have self defence to fall back on as a defence, as they would have initiated the confrontation.
Its all very well the armchair warriors coming out in force, but its a different matter in reality. As it turned out things didn't get any worse than they already were - no-one extra other than the criminals got hurt (shame they didn't catch a bullet to something vital), no passers by were wounded or worse. I am sure the last thing the murdered soldiers family would want is another family to be going through the same as they currently are, just because someone fancied being a hero.
Its one thing to die heroically trying to save someone else, its utterly pointless dying heroically for no reason whatsoever.
Any passer by would not have self defence to fall back on as a defence, as they would have initiated the confrontation.
Not so. As a member of the public, you'd have the same legal protection that the police had when opening fire.
There is also the 'public interest' aspect too. In all likelihood there would be no trial and one hell of a massive outcry if some nit at CPS even attempted to bring one.
and then you have children waiting at home? And a wife? It changes the whole picture.
"As a member of the public, you'd have the same legal protection that the police had when opening fire."
Rubbish, whatever the law may say. You'd be arrested minimum, which means DNA taken for a start. They don't automatically arrest policemen who shoot someone. There would undoubtedly be an inquiry (which would exonerate the police, as they always do). But the officer would not be arrested and bailed and have to wait and see if charges would be made. Thats what would happen to a member of the public who had lamped and killed one of those thugs.
One rule for us, another completely different one for them.
All these armchair warriors and experts in urban terrorism make
me laugh. How many of them have actually actually had a gun or other offensive weapon pointed at them or used against them? If anyone knew where Melv lives, I would suggest only him, but that's another story. Only in films starring Tom Cruise or novels by Lee Child would such an armed criminal be taken out by an unarmed, untrained person. Sorry to destroy your expert opinion but these are works of fiction. In the real world and the majority of cases, it will result in pain, extremely painful pain, plus any number of life changing injuries or loss of use of limbs. The main role of the Police is the protection of life, which includes their own. If a suspect is armed and the Police officer only has a tin stick and a can of underarm deodorant to protect himself it makes sense to hold back, give reports on the situation, try and contain the the scene and wait for someone more able to deal with the situation. Unless you have been there, done that, and survived, I would suggest you keep your operational decisions to your Xbox games.
Penseivat
The "authorities" come down harder on private initiative than on criminals, asvfor the unarmed police hanging around trying not to draw attention to themselves before the gunslingers arrived please remember it took THREE brave plods to intimidate an octogenarian into ceasing to provide potentially dangerous cheese.
@ ex-PC Penise
It would be seriously remiss to overlook decent reputations for bravery and expertise...where they exist. The problem for we 'armchair generals' is delusional plod and their unshakable self-belief in their better judgement and competence.
The quality of the courage of which you boast is evident when you hide behind anonymity whilst seeking the identity and address of citizens 'brazenly' shaming plod as cowards.
Dr Melvin T Gray
39 Town End Almondbury
Huddersfield
HD5 8NP
Penseivat
Only in fiction and films are criminals armed with machetes able (and more importantly 'willing') to stand-off a crowd/mob (or even a few individuals) bent on their punishment. In most cases (barring psychiatric and/or drugs involvement) they will back-down and run at the first challenge (and in such situations in other countries what is left of them is found beaten to a pulp and/or swinging from a lamppost)..
But what about them 'charging' at the police? Well, when they 'know beyond a shadow of a doubt' that they will be treated gently, that officers 'will' (must) back-down, that they'll get their '15 minutes of fame', what do you expect? (and yes, been there, done that - it's not only police officers who have to face attacks in modern Britain you know - try working in an A&E sometime).
You say "The main role of the Police is the protection of life, which includes their own" which may be true, but the consensus opinion is that "their own" is now the highest and only priority (mistaken it may be, but when H&S comes before 'doing the job' - a 'management decision usually - the impression is valid). The issue raised by some here is that no matter the training, experience or willingness of members of the public, they fear to get involved precisely because 'they know' they will be punished more severely than the criminal they wish to stop! And that is down to police officers.
Oh, and "untrained person"? Since the police spend a pitiful couple of hours a month doing any themselves (unless on their own time and expense, just like the rest of us), you are 'more' likely to meet a trained person 'walking down the street' than in uniform.
So "armchair warriors and experts in urban terrorism " - Pot/Kettle ring any bells?
Let's all pop round Melvins now we know where he lives.It's the house with the very long grass,dress is optional but should include a tin-foil hat and a straight-jacket.
Jaded.
Ljh, it wasn't 3 'brave' plods. I have been told it was 3 PCSOs who are usually not allowed to be on their own most of the time or allowed out during the hours of darkness. I can understand an elderly lady not knowing the difference but surely Her Majesty's Press should either be able to tell the difference or get their facts straight. The fact it has been reported as such shows that the 'plan' in fooling the public that there are moe Police around, is working. In any case, I can't see why the Police would become involved? The matter would be a civil one, relating to local authority instigated health and safety issues.
Melv, I didn't seek your address, only suggested that someone may make you a target if they knew your address. I have no such intentions and so couldn't care less where you lived (haven't you sold that house yet?).
To anyone else interested (No? Well, here goes anyway)
Having killed one person they believed to be a soldier, the two men stood around, as if aiting for the Police to arrive, at which point they then charged them. If the Police had not been armed they would probably have been killed and injured, which makes me feel that the targets were only figures of authority. The ladies posed no threats so they weren't attacked. However, uniformed Police officers would have been seen as targets and more bloodshed, especially of the innocent women, may have been spilled. From media reports I believe the unarmed Police were not only protecting themselves but in staying back prevented the situation becoming more heated and thereby probably saving the lives of anyone who would not be able to escape the murderers machetes and guns. Suggested scenario: Muslims, indoctrinated Muslims, hatred of the West and anybody in authority in the West (apart from members of a mosque), kill all unbelievers in authority, die as martyrs, go to heaven, shag 72 virgins throughout perpetuity. It's not really hard to figure out that you can't talk to, or reason with, people like this. All you can do, if you are not equipped to deal with the situation, is to try and contain the scene until someone more able arrives. The murderers plan worked - right up to the point where they weren't killed. I bet they are pretty p^ssed off now as someone else will probably get all the better looking virgins. Hopefully, there are a few mosque leaders and agitators with rectums doing the 'penny and 50 pence shuffle' right now wondering what the men are saying.
Penseivat
"Sorry it sounds ODD Julia but their actions were correct.The poor soldier was already dead..."
They knew that at the time? They knew the attackers were only after uniformed officers, not anyone who crossed their path?
Gosh! They must have been psychic...
"...but the opening lines of Richard 111 are more significant.."
I'm really not sure our brows are 'bound with victorious wreaths', are they? We didn't even win Eurovision!
"As it turned out things didn't get any worse than they already were..."
That's nice. But as I pointed out above, the first officers at the scene couldn't possibly have known that.
We are a disarmed populace because we are advised that the police are trained to sort out trouble on our behalf.
Now we find out that they won't. They'll wait for other police to arrive.
"Just as an aside, please don't make assumptions about how 'The English' would react in such a situation - this was Woolwich yes? Just how many 'English' are left in that (and other 'enriched') neighbourhood anymore?"
Good point!
"The ladies posed no threats so they weren't attacked. However, uniformed Police officers would have been seen as targets and more bloodshed, especially of the innocent women, may have been spilled."
Make up your mind. Did they only want to attack uniformed people, or not?
Or are you suggesting the women might have got too close to an ASP being swung, or something?
I probably worded that badly, and I apologise for that. The point I was trying to make was that if they two men had been approached by uniformed officers and had subsequently been attacked, if the brave ladies were still in the vicinity, they may have suffered injuries from a swinging machete or badly aimed gun. It is almost impossible to get inside the mind of a brainwashed, religious, fundamentalist (or Melv, apparently) so no one knew what would happen if the unarmed officers approached them. The fact that they were seen to be comparatively calm and talking to the women, the majority of whom have an in-built ability to calm things down, probably assisted in any decisions regarding approaching them. In any case, the officers would not have been allowed to take out their tin sticks until at least 2 had been dismembered, otherwise that very wise political head Keith Vaz would have had something to say about it, once he had climbed out from under the kitchen table after being told it was all over. This leads me back to the earlier point that no one knows how they would react to an incident of this nature unless it happens to them. It is always easy to criticise afterwards from the safety of a living room many miles away, when all the available facts have been obtained, and if you feel this is reasonable, then why not sack all the Police and let Vaz, Melv, Able, Ljh and others take their places? The Mets are still recruiting I understand. I know, the general response would be, "At least they couldn't do any worse.", but how will you know if you haven't done it?
Penseivat
Post a Comment