|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Police! Stop! Or I'll, err, say "Stop!" again!
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: Miscellaneous:
Police! Stop! Or I'll, err, say "Stop!" again!
Author: John Dow
Sunday, 11 August 2002 - 10:09 am |        | Just a quick question - does anyone know anything about the Victorian arms policy, re: police constables. I believe senior officers were permitted to carry revolvers, but what about run of the mill constables? Any pointers would be much appreciated 
Thanks
John |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Sunday, 11 August 2002 - 06:10 pm | | | John,In the British police force it has never been the policy to arm police constables in general.Only certain situations would warrant the use of firearms. At the siege of Sidney Street certain police officers were issued with shotguns but in saying that the army ( Scots Guards I believe ) were called in with Lee Enfield rifles to deal with the situation. Embassy protection police were armed with hand guns while the Flying Squad in later years had excess to firearms. Since the terrorist troubles in the 1960's the anti- terrorist police have been armed with sub machine guns etc. |
Author: Bob Hinton
Sunday, 11 August 2002 - 08:13 pm | | Dear John,
I believe I am correct in saying that at one time it was not unusual for British police officers to be armed. If you read 'the Crimebuster' by Jerome Caminada, he relates the story of arresting a violent criminal.
"Leave my hands free," he wailed "I've got nothing about me" meaning he was unarmed. I hit him on the head with the butt of my revolver and he quietened down.
Caminada had drawn the pistol from the arms store but didn't give the impression that there was anything unusual about this. In another incident he tells the story of a prisoner who started trouble in prison and was shot down by the wardens showing that it was also normal for prison officers to be armed.
I believe before the last war it was common practice that an officer in the Met on night patrol could take a pistol with him if he wanted.
Perhaps Martin Fido or Paul Begg could confirm or correct this.
Dont forget at one time it was usual for nearly all servants of the Crown to be armed such as custom officers and mail coach riders along with Bow Street runners.
I suppose the main reason the police force gradually gave up its arms was the the supposed protection the death penalty afforded.
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Sunday, 11 August 2002 - 09:28 pm | | John,
Historically,British police officers have been unarmed.That information is from an official police source. Certain police officers have carried guns under certain circumstances but the force as a whole HAVE NEVER BEEN ARMED.In England, Scotland and Wales firearms may be issued to trained police officers known as Authorised Firearms Officers, and then only on the authority of a senior officer.Authority is given when an officer is likely to face an armed criminal or when deployed to protect a person who may be at risk of attack. At the moment Armed Response Vehicles carry police officers trained to use firearms.In the last 10 years 41 people have been shot who were not carrying a firearm and 15 of the victims died.Offical figures show that since 1995 police have shot dead 14 people and wounded 22 others. This is not a very good situation especially when one finds that the police are trained to shoot to kill !!!I suppose 26 people in the last 10 years are thankful that police officers cant even shoot straight after such intense training!! Most of the above figures relate to the shooting of innocent people.Because of this alarming situation police in Bedfordshire became the first force to carry the baton gun which fires a plastic bullet and only 43 officers are authorized to use it.In relation to prison officers in England during and since Victorian times they have remained unarmed as a body. |
Author: Carl Dodd
Sunday, 11 August 2002 - 11:56 pm | | | The Police Training Institute, a part of the University of Illinois at Champaign, Ill., studies police shootings from all over the U.S. As a "general rule," most shootings occur within 7 yards, the shootout lasts less than 30 seconds and involve the police officer firing about 2.5 rounds. Of all the rounds fired, out of 4 bullets fired by officers under stress only 1 (one) will hit ANYTHING at all. That means people, cars, trees and walls. So what does that tell us? When it is reported that "26 people were shot in ten years," it probably means that closer to 100 bullets were fired under stress by officers. To be honest, cops can either be the best of shooters or the worst. Some cops who carry guns qualify only when they are forced, by order, to do so. Other officers like to frequently practice their shooting techniques. Most police agencies have, within their general operation orders, rules, very specific rules, about when a gun can and can not be used. In addition, there are various laws which dictate when police can and can not shoot. If or when a police officer shoots in an unjustified manner, he/she faces state/province criminal action, civil lawsuits, possible federal criminal charges and ostracizing from their fellow officers. If an officer wrongly takes a human life, their police career is over. This is the way it should be. |
Author: John Dow
Monday, 12 August 2002 - 03:56 am | | Thanks for that. My question was really just to clear up a loose end - referring to Arthur Conan Doyle, Inspector Lestrade was never (I believe) armed, but Watson was able to wield his service revolver around with impunity I guess what I'm looking for is: How easy would it be to get a hold of a revolver in 1888? Presumably, the number of ex-soldiers inhabiting the opium dens would make this a relatively easy thing to do.
Cheers
John
Edinburgh, Scotland |
Author: Bob Hinton
Monday, 12 August 2002 - 05:53 am | | Dear John,
The availability of firearms was the same as for any other item such as bead or milk. You simply went into a shop and brought one.
Up to the 1930's every type of firearm could be legally bought over the counter - fully automatic weapons (machine guns) were only outlawed in the early 1930's. Since then successive goverments have done everything to keep firearms out of the hands of law abiding people without being too concrned about criminals getting hold of them.
Since the last outrage of the handgun ban which deprived law abiding people of handguns, criminal use of firearms has soared with shoot outs and murders now a daily occurence on our streets.
Bob Hinton |
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 12 August 2002 - 06:46 am | | Hello everybody:
"Although Britain's unarmed police are a matter of national pride, and envied by many countries whose police habitually carry visible sidearms, firearms have always been maintained as a part of the Metropolitan Police supplies for emergencies and certain special duties. Between 1884 and 1936, constables in the outer Divisions weere permitted to carry revolvers on ordinary night beat duty if they wished and were given their superintendent's permission. Since 1967, special training has been given to selected officers, and today there are about 2000 Firearms Officers of whom about 50 are Specialist Frearms Officers of the Firearms Unit."
(Extract from entry "Firearms" in "The Official Encyclopedia of Scotland Yard").
Unarmed police are envied in other countries because they do not earn the kneejerk suspicion and unpopularity common in (say) France and (prior to September 11) America. The permission to carry arms on beat in the thinly populated outer divisions was granted following several attacks on police by armed burglars. The most notorious, the murder of PC Cole by Thomas Orrock, happened on N Division in Dalston, and Orrock's movements on the night of the murder had stretched back to Islington; the solution of the case leading to his execution in 1884 led right out to Tottenham marshes where he had fired practice bullets into a tree. [I've got the pragraphing problem again, so this will run unbroken from now on]. The outer divisions took up the permission very spottily, as some superintendents apparently discouraged firearms, while others enthusiastically sent many of their men for training. Whitechapel being an inner division, the general permission would not have applied, anyway. I haven't read the Caminada memoir, but the story sounds improbable, especially for for either the 1880s or the present day, at which periods physical assault on a surrendered suspect or perp would be regarded as serious malpractice. But certain branches had a much freer hand between about 1920 and 1965 so I suppose it is possible. By the 1950s, though, strict (written) accounting of any use of issued weapons (including the routine truncheon) had to be made, leading one old sergeant to advise a recruit I met (after his resignation from the force), "Use anything. Pick up a stick from the road if you have to. But don't ever draw that thing [the truncheon]. It's not worth it."
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: John Dow
Monday, 12 August 2002 - 06:55 am | | Martin, Bob, et alia -
Thanks That's absolutely perfect My fiction requires a constable with a revolver, and now I know it's possible
John |
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 12 August 2002 - 07:20 am | | Hi John,
Just make sure of your Division where you arm him. Bernie Brown (a frequent contributor to Ripperologist and Ripperana and, I think, Ripper Notes) is the real expert on that tangled topic.
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: LeatherApron
Monday, 12 August 2002 - 04:39 pm | | Hi all,
The topic of guns and shootings has always been an interesting one. Mr. Dodd brought up some very good points and I'd just like to add a few (though I don't know how good they are).
Victims of gun shots have a 30% chance of dying on average. With knives, the reverse is true. That is victims of knife attacks have a 30% chance of surviving, and a 70% chance of dying. (The nature of wounds is the relevant difference)
If a police officer discharges his weapon he or she must face a Shooting Review Board. This is similar to the case for legally armed civilians in the sense that no matter what the circumstances were in the shooting (e.g. justifiable self-defense) somebody will eventually take the shooter to court. Even if everyone considers a shooting justified and no one wants to bring charges against the shooter, the D.A. will bring charges against them. (This doesn't necessarily mean that a jury will convict the shooter of doing something illegal -- they are just as likely to be acquitted of all charges)
People who've undergone firearms training are taught to "know your target, what's behind it and around it", for the obvious reason that the innocent could be injured or even killed. (In the heat of the moment, or in a split second, this isn't always possible, unfortunately -- training can help reduce the chances for "bad calls" or mistakes in judgment)
Further firearms training tips... "the fight isn't over until it's over". This is taught because in numerous cases assailants did not stop their offensive attacks even after being shot. There are 4 D's that describe the type of individual who could most easily fall into this category; Determined, Drunk, Drugged, or Delirious. (It is obviously best to assume that the attacker is not going to stop until otherwise shown)
Another bit of police training is called the Tueller Drill. This drill demonstrates that an attacker with a knife puts a police officer (or civilian) in mortal danger if they are 7 yards (21 feet) away or closer. The reason for this is because the average male can cross that distance in an average of 1.6 seconds. (If possible, it is suggested to use cover or obstacles to put something between you and the attacker, such as your car)
Approximately 80% of all shootings occur at night or in low light conditions. Why is that important? Lighting. If you are involved in a shooting and are brought before a board or jury, a board member or prosecuting attorney will ask, "How could you see what you were shooting at?" For this reason, and the fact that most shootings occur in the dark, anyone who carries a firearm should always carry a dependable and directional light source.
Concerning target practice and distance. If a handgun is your self-defense weapon, the majority of your practice should be using targets 25 feet away or closer. Why practice at a target 75 feet (25 yards) away? If you shoot someone at that distance, an attorney will ask you, "How could they have posed any possible threat?" Unless they were shooting at you or attacking someone, they wouldn't be a threat. Even if they were shooting at you from that distance, you could have probably very easily found cover and waited for them to close the distance.
Ammunition... for civilians, the best policy is to find out what the local police use in similar weapons and purchase that. Don't go for nitro-mags or other expensive and more damaging and lethal variety just because you want to "get the job done". A prosecuting attorney could easily make you look like a malicious and dangerous person if you own extraordinary ammunition. (There's a lot more I could say on ammo, but I've run out of steam)
As Sean Connery once said in character, "Here ended the lesson."
Regards,
Jack
P.S. No, I've never been involved in a shooting, though I did have a close call once. And I'm not a police officer. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Monday, 12 August 2002 - 04:43 pm | | | Hi Carl, Very interesting post you placed here. Out of the 41 people mentioned who were shot and killed by the UK police not one policeman faced a prison sentence.The same can be said of the many deaths which have taken place in police custody.007 is not the only one with a license to kill with impunity so it seems. When the shoe is on the other foot in the UK and a policeman gets shot then just listen to them scream for revenge and justice.It is a pity that they do not practise what they preach. |
Author: Ally
Monday, 12 August 2002 - 04:46 pm | | Hi Ivor,
Interesting to note also that my dad shot and killed two men in the line of duty. You know what I have to say about that? Go DAD!
Ally |
Author: The Viper
Monday, 12 August 2002 - 07:15 pm | | A most eye-opening contribution, Martin. I had no idea that police were allowed to carry firearms in the 1880s, except by special issue.
Given the tiny gun culture of the British criminal class at the time, it would be interesting to know how many officers chose to carry arms, even in those divisions where the superintendent supported the idea.
Would you happen to know what constituted an 'outer division' though? For instance, Bethnal Green, or J Division dealt with Polly Nichols' murder in Whitechapel, but if memory serves, their area extended right out into what was then rural Essex. If they were not deemed outer, then given that all the Whitechapel Murders in the Metropolitan force's jurisdiction were dealt with by H, J and K Divisions, I don't see any realistic chance that the patrolling officers on standard duty were carrying guns.
Regards, V. |
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 12 August 2002 - 08:24 pm | | Divsional history and changes makes for desperately difficult historical study, Viper. In the 1840s, K Division ran from Stepney to Dagenham, so I should not be at all surprised to learn that J also ran out Essex-ward. Y Division (Highgate/Wood Green) and R Division (Greenwich and points south) are the two I noted as making most use of the freedom to have pistols on beat duty. While N Division (from Dalston to Edmonton) used very few, despite being the home division of the catalyst, PC Cole. I once had a list of the original Divisional parishes/boroughs, and the current alphabetical equivalents. But there proved not to be room for it in the Official Encyclopedia, and it did not survive on of those recurrent computer changes which entail the rather selective collection and transfer of files. It's possible Keith has it still. But, as I said before, Bernie Brown is the man who really knows this. I've only ever been a compiler and rephraser of other people's work on police history (apart from my studies of the police involved in the Ripper investigation).
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 12 August 2002 - 08:29 pm | | I've just noted your request for figures, Viper. I can offer 110 men from Y Division sent for arms training, and 311 out of 519 in Y Division. But only 2 from N Division.
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 12 August 2002 - 08:33 pm | | Second Y Division should be R. Sorry.
Martin F |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Monday, 12 August 2002 - 09:25 pm | | Hi Ally,
I hope that the people your father shot were not two innocent bystanders but rather two armed red necked ridge runners.For the record I believe that any criminals breaking into private premises who get shot by the home owner while doing so deserve what they get.But my main concern is that in the UK it tends to be innocent bystanders etc who get shot by the police rather than those who are guilty. The US has had a gun culture which has existed since frontier days and am I correct to state that the right to bear arms is written into the US constitution ? I am given to understand that the number of people who have died from the result of firearm incidents in the US far exceeds the number of men who were killed in the US civil war. It would appear that so many people were getting shot that they had to introduce the immigration policy just to keep the numbers up !! I know in the states they have the same answer to many internal and external problems which they commonly term "Firepower" In fact it seems to play an ever increasing part in US foreign policy these days."Firepower" has always been a way of life in the US and has always had its part to play on the US political scene.The main difference between UK and US politics is that in the UK they vote politicans out while in the US they just shoot them.I am sure there must be a clause in the US constitution which reads, "If it moves shoot it." |
Author: The Viper
Tuesday, 13 August 2002 - 04:12 am | | Martin,
Thanks for your help with this matter.
Concerning J Division, its head, Superintendent James Keating, said his area covered 40 square miles. I may be wrong here (and Bishopsgate Institute is closed until September, so checking it will have to wait until then), but I think his division stretched all the way out to places like Woodford and Buckhurst Hill.
For anybody interested, Supt. Keating contributed a little piece for the Eastern Argus at the height of the murders. It quoted from contemporary police statistics to illustrate the problems of working J Division's patch.
Regards, V. |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 13 August 2002 - 06:53 am | | Hi Ivor,
Americans' constitutional right to bear arms doesn't rest on a belief that rugged individualism must allow one citizen the old equalizer to confront another, but derives from the impassioned feeling after the Revolution (or War of Independence) that the civilian citizenry must always be in a position to challenge entrenched government if it becomes tyrannical, as the partisan militias grouped into Washington's army had held off the motherland British (and their Hessean mercenaries) until alliance with France ensured Washington's ultimate victory.
Sounds weird in an age of big armaments, but read Shaw's "Major Barbara" for post-industrial endorsement of a very similar position by a commtted socialist.
But today, of course, the most constitutionally minded Fourth Amendment men are those weird nutters who put on survival kit and entrench themselves in the wilds of Wyoming or Nebraska, ready to take on the Federal Government if it continues to ally with little green aliens and implant radioactive or electronic wireless chips in all its innocent citizens' brains so as to control asnd monitor their beliefs and movements.
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Tuesday, 13 August 2002 - 11:27 am | | Hi, all
A quick question regarding procedure inside Bisohpsgate Station and drunken people, Catherine Eddowes in particular. Once arrested, were offenders placed in a kind of drunk tank as we have them today (I've heard)? I'm unclear if Kate was thrown in with many others or if she had a cell to herself. I've read that people were fined or sentenced to labor--in the Eddowes case, she only seems to have been held until sober; would she have faced a court date had she lived?
Martin, I've a friend who is a rabid supporter of the NRA (and yet doesn't own a gun). He indeed has a belief that Americans need guns in case they "have to fight the government someday."
But how did you know about aliens and the Federal government? And implants? You'd better watch out, or the MIB's will get you
Thank you,
David |
Author: Jon
Tuesday, 13 August 2002 - 11:38 am | | David.
From the sparse evidence that remains refering to her detainment it appears Eddowes was confined in a cell to sober up, nothing more.
No mention of whether she was confined by herself or held with others.
Regards, Jon |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Tuesday, 13 August 2002 - 11:57 am | | Jon,
Thanks
Best,
Dave |
Author: Timsta
Tuesday, 13 August 2002 - 12:05 pm | | Jon:
Quoting from the A-Z, "At 1.00am [PC Hutt] released her and she asked the time. 'Too late for you to get any more drink,' he said."
I literally only just dug up this quote, but it reinforces my long-standing belief that she was released as soon as the pubs had closed, rather than because at this point she was sober. This may well have been unofficial police policy in respect of public intoxication at the time, I suspect.
If she was 'singing softly to herself' at 12.15am I think she may well still have been highly intoxicated 45 minutes later, although the cold night air may have worked wonders
Regards
Timsta |
Author: Jon
Tuesday, 13 August 2002 - 12:33 pm | | Timsa
I was usuing the testimony of the Station Sergeant James Byfield and the Goaler on duty PC George Hutt who both say she was held until sober.
At 12:30am Kate asked PC Hutt "when am I going to get out of here?", to which PC Hutt replied, "when you are able to take care of yourself".
The pubs closed at 12:30am, I believe.
Thanks, Jon |
Author: Timsta
Tuesday, 13 August 2002 - 02:47 pm | | Jon:
again, quoting the A-Z:
[Dialog as per your post]
"I can do that now," she replied. At 1.00am he released her and she asked the time. [And then dialog as per my post].
I think Hutt may have had no intention releasing her until it was too late for her to get any more alcohol, but of course that's supposition, as is the idea that this was common practice.
I thought 1.00am closing but I'll have to check. Where's my Fishman?
(Actually I think it contains quite a bit on the treatment of drunkenness; I'll post anything interesting I find.)
Regards
Timsta |
Author: LeatherApron
Tuesday, 13 August 2002 - 05:48 pm | | Ivor,
"The US has had a gun culture which has existed since frontier days and am I correct to state that the right to bear arms is written into the US constitution?"
Yes, it's in Amendment II of the US Constitution.
"I am given to understand that the number of people who have died from the result of firearm incidents in the US far exceeds the number of men who were killed in the US civil war."
This comparison is a little unfair. As of the most recent data I found (year 2000) the number of murders in the US was about 15,500 for the entire year and the number of those attributed to firearms was less than half, so it would take about 30 years for the total to reach the 204,000 KIA casualties of the US Civil War (which lasted 4 years). But this is like comparing the number of children who drowned in pools last year to those who drowned on the Titanic. Comparing a gradual social process to a known tragedy or disaster is an attempt to give the former a negative connotation. Often unfairly.
Now the rest of your comments regarding "Firepower" and US foreign policy, etc. is sarcastic to put it mildly, but it might surprise you to know that in many ways I agree with you. Just because we have the "might" does not make our government "right" in all its actions. The best advice our government could heed regarding its foreign policy is what our first president, George Washington, stated in his farewell address. To paraphrase it, the U.S. should not get involved in foreign entanglements and we should not show either a great favoritism or great hostility toward any one country. We wouldn't be in the fix we're in now if our forefathers as well as our current leaders would stop and think instead of dropping daisy cutters.
Re: Americans and firearms. I hope you truly don't believe that guns cause crimes to occur. Or that Americans are taught that violence is the solution to their problems. The media proliferate these ideas through constant biased news coverage concerning gun related crimes and glorification of violence through the motion picture industry. These things do not represent the reality of what average Americans believe about these issues.
Re: Police. I believe that because of personal experience you might paint the police with too broad a brush and are a little inclined to look for examples of police misconduct. Not to say that any mistakes perpetrated by law enforcement officers should be swept under the rug, but extraordinary exceptions that are statistically insignificant shouldn't be treated as if they were the general rule. This last bit would equally apply to civilians who own firearms because criminals who perpetrate violence, or nutcases like John Hinckley, Jr. who go berserk are exceptions to the rule, not the rule.
Martin,
"the civilian citizenry must always be in a position to challenge entrenched government if it becomes tyrannical...", and, "But today, of course, the most constitutionally minded Fourth Amendment men are those weird nutters who put on survival kit and entrench themselves in the wilds of Wyoming or Nebraska ready to take on the Federal Government..."
We must consider that the instant of time at which a government is perceived to be "tyrannical" occurs at different moments in time for different individuals. There were a great many people who argued for independence from tyrannical King George for many years while their brethren thought they were "nutters" and "extremists"; some even considered them unpatriotic, disloyal, and guilty of high treason. Don't get me wrong, people who believe that our government is in cahoots with aliens are indeed insane, but they shouldn't be lumped in with everyone who believes in the Second Amendment (why'd you write "Fourth"?).
This bit about what defines "extremism" is a very important point nowadays. Plato said there was a "golden mean" between anarchy and total dictatorship at which point a people should meet in agreement to form their rules of law and order and entrust a group of leaders to govern them. However, as is the case in the U.S., if our Republic began at the golden mean, but has moved more to the left over the years, then this action by default makes the people who were previously at the center appear more to the right, and the people who were on the right, now become "far right" and therefore "extremists". One doesn't have to look ahead very far to see that if the trends continue in this country, many who voice dissenting opinions will be considered treasoness, or possibly dangerous extremists and our government will take a more Communist tactic against them. Sad to say.
All,
In trying to discuss some sort of aspect of Jack the Ripper... I started wondering about the etymology of words in our language such as hijack and carjack and if they had any connection to the infamous nom de plume we are all here for. Sadly, it doesn't appear so, although I'd be interested if anyone has additional information.
hijack: It is first recorded in 1923 and is thought to be a back formation of highjacker, formed from high(way) + jacker. Jacker refers to "one who holds up or robs". There are several possibilities for jacker’s origins, but from 1841 we have jacker meaning "one who hunts or fishes at night with a jack light", and in about 1860 we have highjack lowjack, a game of cards. Any or both of these terms might have influenced the formation of hijack.
In the 1960’s hijack was applied to aircraft (then came skyjack in 1968), and in the 1970’s hijack referred to taking over any form of public transportation. Of course, now we've even got carjack.
Regards,
Jack
P.S. Sorry to interrupt this excellent discussion about British police firearms use in the 19th century. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Tuesday, 13 August 2002 - 07:43 pm | | | Martin,LeatherApron, Thanks for the very interesting comments you both made. |
Author: Carl Dodd
Tuesday, 13 August 2002 - 11:49 pm | | Ivor,
I agree that there are SOME cops who are not justified in using a firearm in some shootings. The truth is that in many, many cases officers do not shoot even though they are/were justified at the time of the event. This may explain why some officers fall to hostile gunfire. They're just too afraid to shoot. I've seen it go both ways. I saw an outstanding cop lose his job because he shot a guy on a traffic stop. The officer had his revolver out, approached the car the suspect was in and started to question the suspect. The suspect popped out of the car, a wrestling match ensued and it, the gun, went off. The bullet from the gun struck the suspect in the stomach and dropped him. The bullet did not kill the suspect but the officer should NOT of had the gun out in the first place. Because of this, the officer lost his job. Here's the kicker, in this case, the suspect's mom was a police dispatcher who was at work when her son was shot by the officer. She was working one radio over from the woman who was working the radio net involving the officer who did the shooting. Shootings can come back to haunt all sorts of people in many different ways. The extremely nice thing is that the vast majority of shootings, about 99% of them, involving police officers are justified. As for shooting review boards, not all police agencies in the U.S. have shooting review boards. When I was involved in my shooting I had no review board and I only had one guy question my shooting situation. Of course, he was a jerk that nobody on the force liked. When he started to tell me how I should have done things, I reminded him that when he tried to commit suicide that he hadn't gotten that right. He didn't know that I knew that he had once tried to kill himself. What really is nice about police officers is that less than 1% of all officers are ever called upon to use their guns. So, 99% of all police officers never get to use their guns against other people. The vast majority of shootings involving police, 99% of them, are really justified. So what does that mean? It means that if a person gets unjustifiably shot and killed by a police officer then God, in his infinite wisdom, decided to call that person back to him in one of the most freakish ways that could ever be done. Sadly though, that is exactly what does happen in a very small number of cases. What is interesting is that police shootings are, over all, "cleaner" than other things that can be compared to them. Compare the past conduct of elected representatives who now serve in the U.S. Congress. What's the name of the Ohio congressman just sent to prison for bribe scandals? Look at Ted Kennedy, a convicted manslaughter felon for Chappaquidick, is still serving in Congress. And so on. Want to comapre doctors and their work? Too many of them, doctors, are sued for some sort of malpractice. Ask your family doctor how many times he's been sued for malpractice. He'll balk at answering. Just about every one of them has been sued at one time or another. Sadly, most of those malpractice suits are not justified. It is, however, a part of their job. All jobs have their risks. Officers shooting people is a part of a cop's risks. |
Author: Jean-Patrick Moisy
Wednesday, 14 August 2002 - 12:00 am | | All:
Well, I searched all afternoon long on the 'Net about the right or not for Coppers to get firearms in the Victorian Era, and found nothing. Which tells a lot about the Internet limitations...
Who said that the Second Amendment may prove handy if the Government try to rob you from the First (read the news in the past six months?)? |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 14 August 2002 - 04:15 am | | Hi Leath,
I wrote Fourth rather than Second because my memory can be worse than shaky when referring back to a constitution I only know at secondhand, and I couldn't find my copy to check. (That copy, by the way, with Bill of Rights included, was given me by my son, essentially because he was so delighted to find it in Macy's with a price ticket - still on it - very firmly labelled "Fiction Dept"!)
You say that gun ownership doesn't cause crime. By and large I can accept the gun lobby's view that people, not objects, cause crimes. But I do think the unfortunate presence of a weapon to hand during domestic disputes leads to some shootings in American DV cases where England would only see a battered spouse.
I think but I'm not sure, that you realized that despite my amusement at the survivalist weirdoes, and my actual belief that the 2nd Amendment has now passed its sell-by date, I was direcing Ivor to its rational and defensible origin; and my reference to Shaw was meant to show that perfectly intelligent people from the post-industrial age may disagree with me about the importance of licensing the personal popgun so that freedom loving individuals can express their wrath against Uncle Sam's nuclear capacity.
All the best,
Martin F
PS I'm still intrigued by your awareness that one of my wives was Jewish. |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Wednesday, 14 August 2002 - 11:20 am | | Dear Martin:
I agree with you; I think that the Second Amendment needs to be updated:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
A friend (who happens to be a very liberal attorney) says that this relates to the need for a militia to protect the government (I think about the Minutemen when I think of this "militia") and therefore the people need and have the right to bear arms. She thinks that no one has any reason to own guns (especially automatic and semiautomatic) and that this right should be taken away. And while I don't completely agree with her, I do think that gun laws should be more strict.
Too bad we can't find a happy medium!
Warm regards,
Divia |
Author: Caroline Morris
Wednesday, 14 August 2002 - 12:31 pm | | Hi Ivor,
Did you see what Carl wrote? 'It means that if a person gets unjustifiably shot and killed by a police officer then God, in his infinite wisdom, decided to call that person back to him in one of the most freakish ways that could ever be done.'
That's comforting, isn't it, to know that, in future, if a rogue copper takes the law into his own hands and shoots a person without due justification, that person's family can blame it on the will of the Almighty... 
Love,
Caz |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Wednesday, 14 August 2002 - 01:19 pm | | Divia,
The Second Amendment is a complicated law. It was written at a time when the USA did not have a regular standing army nor a national guard. The law was intended to assure that state militias could maintain weapons.
In that era, individuals owned guns and cannons.
The law was intended to assure that federal laws could not outlaw individuals from owning weapons as part of their state militias.
Today, application of the law has changed. States have formal militias in which the arms are provided by the government. The national guard has also developed.
Consequently, the Supreme Court has not struck down any gun control or restrictions.
Were the law as absolute as many proponents charge, people would have the right to own machine guns, rocket launchers, nuclear missiles, etc. Clearly this is not the case.
At present, the United States government has the right to regulate arms in any way it deems necessary. Politically and practically, the decision has been made to allow citizens to own certain types of arms.
Regard,
Rich |
Author: LeatherApron
Wednesday, 14 August 2002 - 05:33 pm | | Ivor, I apologize if I sounded too pedantic.
Carl, good points, esp. about politicians.
Jean-Patrick, excellent point about the 2nd Amendment.
Martin, my old friend 
I seriously thought you might have meant something deeper by the Fourth Amendment reference. You will always be forgiven, at least by me, for any failings in the old memory banks. 
If the person is determined to kill the individual, yes, I agree, a gun in hand makes it easier, but that doesn't mean a knife or even automobile would not do just as well. In fact, I once heard a criminologist say that if you're going to murder someone in the U.S. use your car! That's because people who kill someone with an automobile are charged with lesser crimes and sentences and often simply given probation.
Respectfully, we should probably end this discussion about whether or not guns are a problem in themselves or if people who use them are the problem. It's been my experience that it's really a futile endeavour to try to change others views on the subject. The fact that guns are simply powerful tools that in themselves are not good or bad usually takes either upbringing or a traumatic life experience to understand. Unfortunately, in the latter case, it's usually too late for the poor anti-gun victim to change their minds.
With regards to the Second Amendment and whether or not it has passed its usefulness, I would argue that this is not the case. Everyone has a right to self-preservation and the heads of household should be able to defend themselves and their families lives with an equal level of firepower. From whence comes a family's enemies is irrelevant.
Not sure what you meant by the Shaw reference, but let me just say that if I were an omnipotent God, there would be no nuclear weapons, no guns, no bombs, no disease, no natural catostrophes, etc.
Best Wishes, and I'll let you continue to ponder my knowledge about your wife, haha.
Divia, Criminals don't abide by gun laws, strict or not.
Rich (also touches on Martin's point about the usefulness and origins issue),
I once wrote a story outline for a screenplay titled CIVIL WAR: 2000 A.D. in which I explored the dynamics of a 2nd Civil War in the U.S. Given the advancement of weapon technology over the years, which our forefathers, brilliant as they were, couldn't have imagined, and asking myself, what would some of the scenarios be? Say for example, Texas, which at one time had the 7th largest military force in the world because of the number of army and air force bases inside its borders, suddenly decided to secede because the federal government in D.C. had become too tyrannical for its taste. Now the problem is that the all-volunteer military force that we have in the U.S. and the fact that soldiers are "rotated" typically every 3 years in and out of different military installations, means that you could quite easily have a soldier living and working for Special Forces, 82nd Airborne in Ft. Bragg, North Carolina, but whose family still lives in Texas. This individual would probably try to thwart any attack against his family who still lived in Texas. In this situation, which would be repeated everywhere in the nation, and include the forces inside Texas itself, you'd have absolute mayhem ensue because of rebellion and sabotage inside the military. It's conceivable that states would either attack other states or join other states just as in America's first civil war. (as an aside, the U.S. is now more appropriately called the "re-United States" since the end of the first civil war) Now eventually, civilians would become involved. The sad thing here is that even though the Constitution proclaims certain inalienable rights common to all, and that these freedoms, such as the Second Amendment, must always be protected, it has been the State governments, such as California, which have actually taken these "inalienable" rights away from its citizens. Ultimately, the war would have to end by means of land operations because wars are won by troops occupying land, sometimes only temporarily. And these troops would largely be comprised of civilians who would have been handed weapons upon joining their respective forces. Imagine that the civilians in a small town or city were already prepared, thanks to the Second Amendment, to repel an enemy invasion (which was also comprised of civilians), before their side had the chance to arm them. It could well mean the victory or loss of a battle over a strategic location that could effect the outcome of the entire war.
Alas, I gave up on this script because someone had written something along the same lines, but maybe I should have taken the thing to its completion.
My head is swirling. I have to stop.
Best Regards,
Jack (NOT a member of the NRA) |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 14 August 2002 - 08:07 pm | | Hi Caroline, Yes I did see Carl's words. Many people believe that certain events are in fact the will of God.The Yorkshire ripper went so far as to say God told him to kill or attack those 13 women. The truth of the matter was that Sutcliffe was so insulted and slighted by a prostitute that this triggered him off.
LeatherApron. Please dont feel the need to apologize as I did not feel you were being pedantic.
Carl, You made some valid points in relation to gun incidents etc.The story about the guy who tried to kill himself and failed reminded me of an army officer fed up with army life. He wanted to get out of the force so he decided to shoot himself in the foot and make it look like an accident to get discharged. He took six shots at his foot with a revolver and missed every time!!! He was so disgusted with himself that he had a nervous breakdown. Some years ago a guy called Harry Roberts and two of his mates were stopped by 3 unarmed police detectives in an unmarked police car outside of Wormwood Scrubs Prison in London. Roberts and company were carrying guns and they shot the three officers dead on the spot. I do not agree with that sort of behaviour nor do I support the use of firearms in the pursuit of any crime.Those who use ANY violence in the pursuit of crime deserve all they get. |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Thursday, 15 August 2002 - 12:56 am | | Dear Jack:
"Divia, Criminals don't abide by gun laws, strict or not."
I agree with you; the gun laws I am referring to are things like background checks, waiting periods, education and training, etc. I think that the majority of the responsible gun-owning population of the US would find such things reasonable.
If someone wants to purchase a gun at a gun show, there is no waiting period, no thorough background check.
If we outlaw guns then the only the criminals will have guns in their possession. That is a scary thought to me. If I feel that my life is threatened, I would like to be able to defend myself from a DISTANCE!
I used to have a permit to carry a firearm and I had to take classes to qualify. I don't think it unreasonable to make training and education of firearms a part of ownership. Kind of like a certification program.
By the way, I am not a member of the NRA, either!
Dear Rich:
I understand what you are saying, and that was what I thought it meant. Honestly, getting into political discussions are rather distasteful and boring to me, so I try to stay out of them. My friend tends to drag me into them because she likes to talk politics. I live in the political epicenter; I fail to see how anyone living here could want to talk politics in their free time!
I have already stated my views on the subject; I have no reason or desire to discuss gun control further. If they ever outlaw guns here, I guess that means that I'll have to turn in all my anti-tank equipment!
Warm regards,
Divia |
Author: Martin Fido
Thursday, 15 August 2002 - 05:15 am | | Hi Leather!
Briefly, the Shaw point is that "Major Barbara" turns on the idea that an idealistic and pacifistic upper-class convert to the Salvation Army is brought to change her ideals and marry the heir to a huge armaments factory when he explains that the moral code of the firm demands that he supply arms to anyone who asks for them and is willing to pay, and only by this availability of firepower to all can idealistic revolutionaries and freedom fighters hope to challenge monolithic and imperialist states.
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Howbrow
Thursday, 15 August 2002 - 04:38 pm | | | Divia is very correct that there should be a "waiting" period for those who wish to purchase a handgun. Women,in particular,should educate themselves for their protection. Every male I know and I mean every one,has at least one "hogleg'. Some constitutional amendments NEEDED to be amended( the stupid Prohibition Amendment,which,naturally catapulted the Mafia and Organized Crime to power). But its probably unlikely anyone will fart around with the Second Amendment anytime soon... |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 15 August 2002 - 10:38 pm | | | Martin, God created man and Sam Colt made them equal!!!! |
Author: Martin Fido
Friday, 16 August 2002 - 08:07 am | | And John Colt proved that some are more equal than others.
Martin F |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Saturday, 17 August 2002 - 08:11 am | | | And I thought it was Krupp the kraut with his railway gun. |
Author: Martin Fido
Saturday, 17 August 2002 - 09:09 am | | Correction - John Colt preceded OJ in proving that some murderers are more equal than others.
Martin F |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Saturday, 17 August 2002 - 04:01 pm | | | I would go along with that Martin. |
|
|
|
|
