From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have read the posts resulting from my original reply
re the Falmouth incident with great interest.
A common thread is severe criticism of the Police. It
seems to be the consensus that the 'Police' are useless,
incompetent, dangerous, unnacountable, a law to
themselves, etc. etc. There is very little moderation
or informed argument, merely bland statements. I suspect
that many of the comments are made by people who are
merely propogating a popular myth. Whatever, the thread
is that the 'Police' are all the same.
Well, is that not rather hypocritical? The other common
thread is that shooters are not all the same as Hamilton
and Ryan, etc. Great offence is taken when it is
suggested that shooters are all the same, but not an
eye is blinked when everyone tars the Police with the
same brush. Imagine the uproar if I were to dare suggest
that all shooters have homicidal tendencies and should
not be allowed anywhere near law abiding people. Imagine
if I started to quote examples like Ryan, Hamilton, Robert
Elmer Kleasen, David Gregory, Robert Sartin, etc. as
being examples of why all guns should be banned?
Of course, I wouldn't, because I am a shooter myself, but
the logic is the same.
Back to anonymity. Why should a person who is merely
doing his or her job be placed under the extra pressure
that disclosure of identity would bring? Can anyone who
disagrees with this say that they would be prepared to
do the same job and be named and photographed publicly?
I have protective measures (communications equipment) in
my home because, in the course of my work, I have
confronted and dealt with some major criminals who have
actively attempted to discover my whereabouts. I resent
the implications that I have some sort of a magic
entitlement to this. Anyone who is directly threatened
can have it.
Lets get real here. Just what does the public want
from the Police? Does the person who wants guns banned
have any less right to say that than anyone here? Like
it or not, this is a democracy and although there are
some dreadful laws, it is the duty of the Police to
enforce them. It is the duty of the home office to
instruct the Police. It is the duty of parliament to
tell the home office what laws are in existence and
will be enforced. Dont keep knocking the Police please.
Look at the top end.
As an aside, I have spent lots of time in trying to
effect a reconciliation in my area. I have invited
clubs and societies to our training wing to see
how we train and what kit we use.Our licensing dept.
has invited clubs to visit them to see what goes on.I
have liaised with local clubs to assist their members
with problems in licensing issues. I have stuck my
neck out for shooters over long barreled pistols,
moderators and other things that cause grief. I am a
shooter through and through and have always tried to
help the private shooter as much as possible, as all
who know me will corroborate.
Having read the posts here, though, it puts a
different light on things in many respects. Although
I know there was resentment, I didnt realise it was
so deep and virulent. I am having a deep rethink of
my philosophy.
IG
--
Well, I personally draw distinctions between police
officers and different departments, I can't comment
on everyone else, everyone has a different opinion,
that's obvious.
However, on the narrow points of anonymity and what
laws there are on the books -
I have sympathy with the argument that someone who is
doing their job should not be placed in danger, however,
there is also a need for justice to be transparent,
and in cases where there is little threat to the officer
involved, which I believe this case in Falmouth to be,
there is no great need for the officer to retain
his anonymity. In my opinion. If there was a great
danger, i.e. the gunman was part of an organised
criminal gang or terrorist organisation, my opinion
would be different.
People such as Rusty are making the point (which
I disagree with) that the officer had no need to
shoot the gunman, and it has to be said that if
there hadn't been a need for him to be shot,
then the anonymity issue would be academic anyway.
On the point about the bad laws on the books, there
is no obligation for the police to enforce them in
the same way that that the Nurenberg trials held.
Police officers are not blindly obligated to
uphold bad law. It's not that simple I realise,
but it is also not as simple as the responsibility
falling entirely on the Home Office and Parliament.
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
