Near Hull yesterday the police shot dead a man who was threatening them with a "sword-like" weapon.

Down in Kent after a "panther sized" cat had a attacked a man, the police turned out with tazers (stun guns) and tranquiliser guns to tackle the beast.

Looks like they're more concerned about the public reaction to their killing of a cat than killing an obviously deranged human being.

Are police marksmen so inept that they are unable to shoot to disable rather than shoot to kill someone who would only be a danger to them at very close quarters ?

Report here....

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,172-1537506,00.html

they are always taught to shoot for the torso. Messing about shooting at limbs is not a good way to train.

I'd like to know what exactly this "sword like" object was though. Until then i'll withhold judgement.

I don't think that the police are trigger happy, as standard they'll try to resolve the situation with non lethal means (in this case baton rounds) but certain scenarios are going to mean lethal force is required. If the offender is on substances like PCP for example then a baton round/taser is not going to make much of a dent.

Police are accountable for all use of weapons (be it lethal or nonlethal) and have to justify their actions in every event. They are aware of the power they have and use it sparingly.

I can safely say that if a man weilding a sword is any where near me or mine and police have fired baton rounds at him and he's still coming then as unpalatable as it sounds then I fully advocate using lethal force.

The fatal shooting, the first occasion in the history of Humberside Police that a member of its armed response unit has fired a weapon at a suspect, led the force to contact the Independent Police Complaints Commission, which said that it was carrying out an immediate investigation.

- from The Times article referenced by Greybeard

I think that in itself shows that the police aren't 'trigger happy'?

Its a pity that you can't shoot with an instant tranquilser that would stop the offenders in their tracks immediately!

That way no one gets permanently hurt and I am sure that which ever officer fired the lethal round doesn't just go home and put their feet up without feeling regret over what they have had to do.

As has been pointed out, shooting to disable is pointless if the person is on drugs or fanatical.

First of all you might not stop the person. Secondly you might miss a leg or an arm that's flailing around and shoot soemone else.

The torso is the largest target on the human body, and unless they're wearing body armour a wound there will lay someone out almost immediately, assuming it doesn't kill them outright.

The panther was unlikely to be stoned, psychotic or fanatical.

However, there have been a couple of occasions where people with swords have killed total strangers, so I think that on the evidence supplied the police were justified. After all, I assume that they asked the guy to lay the weapon down before hand?


Joe

Originally posted by Swan_Vesta
If the offender is on substances like PCP for example then a baton round/taser is not going to make much of a dent.



I take it you've never been on the receiving end of a taser. No matter how much PCP you've taken you are not going to ignor several thousand volts.

I don't think they are, i think that they use force where its needed and only after all other means of stopping them have failed.

I think that the reason why british gun crime fairly low (comparable with america) is mainly due to the fact that our police don't carry guns with them at all times, i think if they ever did arm them selbes like they do in america, the criminals would start carrying guns themselves to shoot back.

why can they not use a tranquilliser dart like the use on animals :confused: i am sure this would be better than using a bullet

Originally posted by Knoxville
I take it you've never been on the receiving end of a taser. No matter how much PCP you've taken you are not going to ignor several thousand volts.

Thank God, No. However, if the subject is in an unhinged state then the taser is not as effective as it would be in test situations meaning that police need to resort to more serious means of resolving the problem.

Originally posted by craigmason
why can they not use a tranquilliser dart like the use on animals :confused: i am sure this would be better than using a bullet

Because it takes time to take effect, and the suspect would be capable of either shooting you/chopping your head off with a sword depending on what they're armed with.

Originally posted by JoePritchard

The panther was unlikely to be stoned, psychotic or fanatical.

Joe

You've obviously never been to Sydenham!

I don't want to turn this into another racial thread but why is it that 9 out of 10 big cat attacks are committed by black panthers?

Back to the subject. No, I don't think they are trigger happy.

Shooting dead one human being brandishing a sword and not responding to being shot at with baton rounds is hardly being trigger-happy is it?

The same fuss was made when the police shot a man brandishing a table-leg wrapped in a plastic bag...some might say that in such a situation it would be a good idea to shout something along the lines of: "Please don't shoot me, it's a f*cking chair-leg" might have helped matters a little.

Greybeard, from your posted article:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,172-1537506,00.html

"After the van collided with a car, its sword-wielding driver is said to have tried to hijack several vehicles before he was confronted by armed officers at a service station.

Police initially tried to incapacitate Mr Murden with plastic bullets, but he continued to approach officers, which prompted the decision to fire live ammunition."

They knocked him down twice with rubber bullets, and he got up, and carried on.

All I can say is, in that situation, they seem to me to be justified.

What would you suggest a sword wielding man has to do to be stopped, would you prefer he actually had the opportunity to kill an innocent passer by?

:loopy:

do we know if it was 'shot at' or 'hit' with baton rounds. Being shot at by them isn't exactly an acid test of whether they will stop you.

Originally posted by Cyclone
do we know if it was 'shot at' or 'hit' with baton rounds. Being shot at by them isn't exactly an acid test of whether they will stop you.
Geesh, do I have to post the entire article, click the link above.

OK, here's the next paragraph:

"David Davis, the local MP and Shadow Home Secretary, said last night that Mr Murden’s behaviour had put the police in fear of their lives. “They tried to stop him,” he said. “They fired two baton rounds, the very heavy rubber rounds . . . used in Northern Ireland. They hit very hard. They knocked him down, but he got up again. At that point, they believed they had no choice but to shoot him.” "

Notice "They hit very hard. They knocked him down, but he got up again. At that point, they believed they had no choice but to shoot him"

I don't think there's any question whether it was justified, based on the reports.
The police hit him with two baton rounds, which I've held and would bloody hurt, but the bloke still came at them with a large sword.

As pointed out earlier, I'm sure the officer who fired the shot will have this on his conscience for the rest of his life, but I'm sure he'd rather live with that than what might have happened if he hadn't stopped the male.

Something else that hasn't been picked up on yet - after the male was shot, the police did everything they could (including CPR) to keep the man alive.

I know, lets stop the crazed samuri sword wielding lunitic doing an arnie impression, lets stop him with flowers and offer him a spliff. 'here you go man you look like you need to chill a little, I'll go get some munchies'.
It's like 'Oh my god man the police shot someone man, I can't be arsed to read the whole article so lets go wige about this'
Art students

Of course it is very very sad that police have to resort to shooting someone dead in order to stop them. From what I have read, it appears that the police did everything they could and had to make a decision - a decision based upon the possible consequences of NOT stopping him.

What would we be all saying if he had been allowed to hi-jack a car or seriously injure or kill innocent people?

We don't have all the information available and I would assume there is much more than what is reported in the press. I don't think the police are 'trigger happy'. I think at the moment the police in this country have got the balance right. There is no need for all police officers to be armed, but the public do need to be assured that, if necessary, armed police will be called to incidents such as this and take the action that they have to - albeit reluctantly. No normal, sane person wants to kill anyone else and I wouldn't like to be the police officer who did it as all of these incidents are investigated very thoroughly. No matter how certain an individual is of their action it must be stressful to have intense press and public speculation as well as internal investigation of their every action.

I was a pistol shooter and shotgun owner for years and have plenty of experience with firearms in club shooting and hunting and I am well aware of what these weapons can do. In an open space like the one this man was shot in, with ample time to calculate and compensate for missed or pass through projectiles hitting bystanders and at the distances involved I am sure these officers could have wounded rather than killed him. I have read stories in the papers of how police officers have shot suspects in very questionable circumstances. Not so long ago one man was shot whilst he was in bed with his girlfriend. Admittedly PCP would change a suspects threshold to pain but I have yet to hear of one shooting victim in this country who had tested positive to Phencyclidine. As for baton rounds, I have seen these beasts and seen what they can do and I would be surprised if he could retain any sense of composure after being hit with them. If I was the officer involved I would have first used CS gas on this individual and not bullets, afterall he had a sword not a firearm. CS gas can hit its mark from a safe distance, even on someone weilding a sword. Of course its all different when your there in what I have no doubt is an extremely stressfull and frightening situation for all involved. Unless he is naked you have no idea what he has secreted about his person. Its a hard job for anyone and I guess its easy for me to say its overkill or their trigger happy.

Originally posted by AJ sheffield
In an open space like the one this man was shot in, with ample time to calculate and compensate for missed or pass through projectiles hitting bystanders and at the distances involved I am sure these officers could have wounded rather than killed him.
As was said in the 2nd post on this thread, the Police don't prat about trying to 'wound' they have one simple brief - to 'incapacitate'. That usually involves an injury that will kill.

I personally can see no alternative.

Police appear to "prat" around in every aspect of their work nowadays. Why should armed confrontations be any different.

Originally posted by AJ sheffield
Police appear to "prat" around in every aspect of their work nowadays. Why should armed confrontations be any different.

Never had any experience of the police 'pratting' around in all fairness. And to answer your question, because there's lives at risk.

Originally posted by AJ sheffield
I was a pistol shooter and shotgun owner for years and have plenty of experience with firearms in club shooting and hunting and I am well aware of what these weapons can do.
Yes well, in your heady days of shooting defenceless paper targets, and small fluffy animals I'm sure you know all about facing down an armed opponent and the "ample time to calculate and compensate for missed or pass through projectiles hitting bystanders".

I am confident that you were often pressurised into snap decisions to protect the public from rampaging grouse, or aggressive clay pigeons.

I am therefore humbly indebted to you for your unique insight into this awful tragedy, whilst of course being 100% glad that I was neither in the immediate vicinity, nor relying on you to protect me or my family.

Thanks again.

:rolleyes:

LMAO poo fighter, is that the best you can do. Read it through properly next time, specially the bit near the end. You know the bit about where I acknowledge how stressful the situation must be. You blithering idiot. You are indeed an ignoramus of the highest echelon with what appears to be an argumentative streak almost as wide as that yellow one running down your back.

Originally posted by AJ sheffield
LMAO poo fighter, is that the best you can do. Read it through properly next time, specially the bit near the end. You know the bit about where I acknowledge how stressful the situation must be. You blithering idiot. You are indeed an ignoramus of the highest echelon with what appears to be an argumentative streak almost as wide as that yellow one running down your back.
Phnar, phnar, you said "Poo".

Oooh, I really respect you now.

;)

PS Your arguments still make no sense, if you'd ever been in a situation anything like the one we are discussing you'd see that. Instead you are too busy trying to look big, hard and clever by stating that you've shot a paper target (and "hunted"), and calling people names. If that's what turns you on, oh dear. :rolleyes:

As long as I can provoke a response out of lightweights like you then yes.

Originally posted by AJ sheffield
As long as I can provoke a response out of lightweights like you then yes.
AJ,

I'm intrigued.

On what basis do you feel it suitable to

1) accuse me of having a yellow streak running down my back

2) accuse me of being a lightweight


:confused:

If you wish to obtain any credibility, please argue the points at hand rather than resorting to petty abuse.

You really will not gain any respect on this forum behaving otherwise.

:)

I dont see how stating that I had hunted in the past makes me look hard in anyway. It was merely stated so that users would know what particular activity had alloweed me to gain some knowledge of firearms. I am of course much older and wiser nowadays to have changed my outlook on hunting in a big way but thats another issue. I can assure you I would do everything in my power to help protect even you if someone was trying to hurt you. Dont take it so seriously you turnip. I dont come here to gain credibilty. This place is virtual, I dont have to live here. I come here to express some freedom of speech. Something there seems to be little of nowadays.

Mod: Ahem. Please take this 'debate' to PM.:thumbsup:

OK Tony sorry mate your right this thread appears to have gone of course. I apologise for the names Foo.

Ah good, now it's been unlocked I can edit this to what it should have said (as already advised to Tony & AJ).

Sorry about that Tony, it was getting a little PM like, but others can join in if they wish. ;)

Apology accepted AJ, we all go a bit OTT sometimes, no problem.

Now, would you all care to discuss the points at hand, regarding the very difficult position the officers found themselves in…

…and as everyone will have already guessed, I don't believe (in the circumstances as we have had them reported) that they could (or should) have done anything much differently.

:)

See above post.