From: Rusty�Bullethole, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Strange as it may seem to the likes of "IG", my concerns
over anonimity in the Cornwall shooting stem not from a
bitter shooter, but from a citizen alarmed at how "armed"
standoffs between the police and the depressed, mentally
deficient, drunk and plain stupid, have decended into
what can only be compared to a "turkey shoot".
Gung Ho operational policy and a kind of "judicial
privelege" that anonimity plays a part in has ensured
that there is no requirement to preserve human life.
I think history will prove that the police in the UK
have been grossly negligent in ignoring the unassailable
fact that almost all of their armed encounters do not
involve real firearms (guns, not airguns). By not
altering their operational policy to account for this
they have facilitated the deaths of perhaps a dozen
or more "unfortunates". We all agree the officers must
be properly trained and equipped for real armed
encounters, but a bit less of the "my only tools a
hammer so every jobs a nail" mentality would save
lives and go a long way towards dispelling any doubt
as to the officers conduct.
Its scandalous that only only a couple of police forces
in the UK seem to be actively doing something to prevent
further tragedies such as the one in Falmouth.
Durham police need congratulating on this front, having
a baton gun available in ARV's specifically to deal with
situations such as the soldier with the air rifle - had
the officers there been similarly equipped, the guy would
most probably be still alive - bruised and in jail.
(before anyone comments it would appear the officers had
plenty of time to use a baton gun, having shouted several
warnings before shooting).
Sooner or later the relatives of one of these "unfortunates"
will successfully sue the police for their heavy handed
approach in the face of clear evidence that the vast
majority of their encounters are of minimal risk to themselves.
>As far as accountability goes, well, if the police werent
>being held to account, then what the hell is the inquest
>doing? Open your eyes for gods sake! The comments about self
>incrimination are not really worthy of comment, other than
>ask what on earth Rusty is going on about? 'Seeds' of
>evidence? Where is that term mentioned in any legislation or
>description of the judicial process? What does it mean?
Coroners call witnesses to inquests, although the inquest
does not seek to aportion blame, any evidence that may
result in proving that a person was "unlawfully killed" is
admissable - that includes evidence concerning the
character, demeanor or mental state of the officers
involved - how on earth could a witness with relevant
character or incriminatory evidence come forward if no one
knows who's in the dock?
"Seeds" - something small from which something large might grow.
Rusty
--
I can't fault the police in this circumstance for shooting
him. I also don't think a baton gun was much of an option,
baton guns are designed for crowd control, you're supposed to
aim at the ground in front of the target and the baton is
supposed to bounce and clobber people. Firing a baton gun
at the distance in this case would just have likely have been
fatal.
The police received a call of an armed man, they responded
with armed police, he was challenged, aimed at an armed officer
and was shot fatally. I can't see that the police did anything
wrong in that particular circumstance, perhaps they could
have done something better, but if someone is aiming a gun
at you, even if you are behind cover, well, I know I would
shoot back.
There have been more dubious cases, one I can recall the police
shot a man who simply had an air pistol in his hand but wasn't
pointing it at anyone.
LAPD use shotguns loaded with bean bags, but even then, if
the subject points a gun at them they're likely to switch to
the real thing.
The Home Office has recently issued guidance on the use of
armed officers, essentially requiring a bit more prudance on
the part of the police as in most cases when the police confront
an armed man it usually is an airgun or replica that poses
little threat. This was as a result of the case in London
where the guy with the table leg in a bag was shot dead.
(Although the Home Office won't say that, of course).
With criminals using real guns, in 99.9% of cases the armed
police arrive too late to challenge them, because they are
involved in a robbery or a drive-by and flee the scene.
When armed police confront armed criminals who are carrying
serious ordnance, it is usually as part of a planned operation,
an arrest or whatever.
Most of the police who actually engage armed criminals
in the process of the crime being committed are
unarmed, because they are the first on the scene. The
Home Office actually has some research that shows that.
The Knights case in Feltham is perhaps the most graphic
example. The problem is that the police then face a massive
risk to themselves, because it takes time for the armed
police to respond and quite often the armed criminal does
escape because unarmed police cannot stop him. Knights
was a good example, he ended up taking several people
hostage in a house, fortunately he didn't kill any of them.
The only real solution to that is to arm all the police,
which would bring its own problems, so any solution to
armed crime in this country is always going to be imperfect.
I wrote a paper on the subject which is on the website.
Steve.
Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org
List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___________________________________________________________
T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
