Getting back to the OP’s original question…vigilante justice. Actually, first there would have been an attempt to assist those who were helping the downed soldier, but once it became apparent the helpers were the in fact his attackers, they–the attackers–would have been torn to pieces. There probably would have been a lot more casualties.
I just wonder why no one can read adaher’s posts in this thread. He flat out said, repeatedly, that he wasn’t talking about guns. Any argument based on him saying he supported guns is therefor null and void.
I’ve still yet to see anyone address his first question, which is whether it is legal to carry non-lethal weapons such as pepperspray. He made the assumption from that that it was not legal, and argued that it should be.
I personally have a lot of contempt for most of the people in the situation. At least a guy trying to shoot the bad guy would show he cared about his fellow human being. It is in fact lucky that the guy was not just a garden variety loony and instead had premeditated anything. The woman, no matter how skilled, was indeed lucky. The second someone starts killing someone, it is stupid to sit there and try to evaluate the situation. You either react in trying to stop it, or you get out of there because you are afraid something bad may happen.
People just standing around watching? Yeah, I have a problem with that. It bothers me that people who do care about their fellow human beings have a greater chance of dying than the people who don’t.
And, yes, I know about the whole crowd thing. Doesn’t make it moral.
We had a police officer try to talk a guy into dropping his weapon by lowering hers. He shot her dead. If you don’t know the background of the confrontation it’s tough to guess how a person is going to react.
Not recently. Ordinary bobbies — patrolmen — were not armed from the start, although the original peelers were issued cutlasses they didn’t wear them on patrol . However at no time have the British police not had access to firepower when needed. Starting from Peel granting the Mets 50 flintlock pistols.*
Certainly in London, you are likely to see cops with Heckler & Koch MP5’s, and now G36’s *** around certain protected places, but in general one can say cops don’t have guns to hand here, but they can get hold of them pretty fast. Which is the same as it has always been.
And just as well they don’t carry arms, considering that they seem to shoot innocent people as often as not.
I’d think the reaction in Australia would be pretty similar to what happened in the UK.
Most people would just get the hell out of the road when they saw someone prowling round with a blood soaked machete and hands, some would call the cops and a few would video the guy on their phones in case he suddenly took off and they could help the cops identify him.
The likelihood of people grouping together to attack an armed man is pretty small.
I think the most disturbing thing about that article is that it was apparently written by a junior barrister.
Rambling, incoherent and full of spelling and grammar mistakes, if that’s the standard of our supposed learned legal representatives then we’re in trouble.
That and I always find it rich that people who aren’t actually doing the job feel the need to remove or deny the appropriate tools from/to the braver men and women who are actually doing it. Granted a HK36C may be a bit much for the average English bobby (the average peeler in Northern Ireland is trained on them but then its a different world here) but a Glock-17 certainly isn’t.
Whats the saying, “Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it?”
There was a, now unfortunately defunct, blog by an English police inspector going by ‘Inspector Gadget’ which was frequented by many serving and ex-police officers and the general concensus was that if the same poll was asked of serving front-line officers only the majority would prefer to be armed.
Edited to add: Why not give the individual front-line officers the option whether or not to be armed?
I thought I’d take a shot at answering the OP’s actual question. I live in Everytown, USA, so I think my answer is pretty universal:
At first the crowd stands there in shock, forming a ring around the terrorists. Then, one figure steps forward. It’s probably either a child or a grandmother. He or she doesn’t say anything, though - just stands there. One of the terrorists steps forward, but there’s hesitation in his step. Has he misjudged the character of the citizens of Everytown, USA? No matter! The child/grandmother is an easy target. But he couldn’t have expected what happens next! A shopkeeper of a different race and socioeconomic status than the child/grandmother steps forward as well as says, “You’ll have to go through me, first.” Possibly he speaks with an accent, like, “You’ll’a hafta go through’a me first!” In any case it’s not one of the scary foreign accents. There’s an expectant hush, and you could hear a pin drop (or an American flag flutter in the breeze). A businessman steps forward, next. “And -me-!” he says. There’s a chorus of agreement. Everyone is wearing American Flag lapel pins. The knife drops from senseless fingers. The terrorists try to run, but there’s nowhere to go because these colors don’t run. The police arrive to take the terrorists away, but by now it’s clear that they weren’t really needed. The citizens of Everytown, USA are the real heroes here.
…and the opinion of anonymous bloggers should dictate policy as much as meaningless slogans such as “Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it” should. As in not at all.
Both the British and New Zealand people have made it pretty clear that they prefer that front line police officers are not armed. It would be silly to go against the wishes of the people unless there was a genuine need to arm all front line police: and that is a case that you haven’t made.
Fine, if the blog isn’t up to your standards then read the books, ‘Wasting Police Time’, ‘Wasting More Police Time’ by David Copperfield and ‘Perverting The Course Of Justice’ by Inspector Gadget. The debate isn’t as clear-cut as you make it out to be, certainly not from ‘on the ground’ officers.
And it would at least have given the two female officers who were recently shot dead by a wanted criminal who lured them into an ambush a fighting chance. He probably wouldn’t have done it in the first place if he had known the officers turning up would be armed.
…I’m sure Stuart Davidson AKA David Copperfield has interesting things to say. But seriously: you’ve just cited David Copperfield and Inspector Gadget. Next thing you’ll be citing Inspector Morse and Jonathan Creek.
The debate is pretty clear cut. The people are happy with how things are. If there is a ground swell of support for change from the people there won’t be any problem making changes. Thats how the system works.
Nice appeal to emotion. If Yvonne Fletcher had had a pistol she very much would likely still be dead as well. And maybe if the police had been armed the wanted criminal would have turned up with more bombs and more firepower than he did. And if England had enforced the follow-on it is likely they would have defeated the Kiwis today instead of having to settle for a draw.
The people are happy with the status quo. I always find it rich that people with no stake in the debate are the biggest advocates for change.
I guess it cuts both ways - it’s not uncommon for Brits to wonder out loud if any specific gun crime/death incident in America is at all correlated with the prevalence of guns in America.
I guess I’m just a puss, but if I heard there were guys beheading people with machetes I’d GTFO, not loiter around rubber neckin’. Especially since the cops might show up and start shooting.
…yeah, no problem with that. I was responding to this:
[QUOTE=Disposable Hero]
That and I always find it rich that people who aren’t actually doing the job feel the need to remove or deny the appropriate tools from/to the braver men and women who are actually doing it.
[/QUOTE]