Thursday, 3 June 2010

Why couldn't police stop him?

Am I the only person wondering why, on Bird's 4 hour rampage, there was seemingly no attempt to place police-roadblocks to stop him, or at least police marksmen helicoptered in to stop him continuing to kill? Surely after the first few deaths, when police realised roughly what they had on their hands, and started telling people to keep indoors etc., they should have thrown the dice and attempted to put a swift stop to further killing by Bird.
 
Meanwhile: It's still pretty easy to get a gun in Britain: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7798318/Cumbria-shootings-puts-spotlight-on-Britains-gun-laws.html http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article7142983.ece . We now know that Bird had his guns LEGALLY. It's time to ban the kind of 'sniper rifle' he apparently had, & drastically to tighten up access to shotguns. #Banthegun
 
What I want, is a country where the police are ready to take down lunatics with weapons, but where it is very rare that any lunatic will have a lethal weapon (at least, a gun), because we are successfully preventing them from having any legal access to them.

9 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Firstly i should state my total sympathy with the injured and their families, the families of the dead and also the family of the perpetrator.

you really should wait for all the facts to become apparent before going for your politicians soundbite. The 'sniper rifle' was a .22 vermin gun, fitted with a telecopic sight. These can be fitted to most sorts of rifle. Maybe we should ban these sights rather than the rifles.

Apparently the police helicopter was in for routine maintenance. One can imagine the confusion in cumbria, the police where undoubtably inundated with calls from various locations at various times so his actual whereabouts were very hard to pinpoint. Now bring in the idea that you want a police helicopter to bring in a police sniper to take him out, one, it has to put it in a situation whereby a positive id has to be made, so probably close enough for him to fire back....or worse a case of mistaken id by the crew.

Two, shoot lunatics...are you serious?

Quite a right wing response, I'm shocked by it, Rupert

GS

3 June 2010 at 17:35  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

3 June 2010 at 18:42  
Blogger Rupert said...

dear GS;

>"Firstly i should state my total sympathy with the injured and their families, the families of the dead and also the family of the perpetrator."
Exactly the kind of predictable stuff one would expect from a politician. Please say something substantive.

>"you really should wait for all the facts to become apparent before going for your politicians soundbite."
It's so easy to snipe at politicians, isn't it? But we still haven't had anything substantive from you.

>"Apparently the police helicopter was in for routine maintenance."
So what? There are loads of helicopters in Cumbria. The Mountain Rescue helicopters, for instance. They should have immediately commandeered one of those. In fact, as soon as they knew that the police helicopter was going in for routine maintenance, they should have arranged a contingency for that in advance.
Thanks for writing something substantive. Shame it doesn't help your case.

>"Quite a right wing response"
Nope; just an honest response. There is no monopoly on wanting to protect the public for rightwingers!

>"I'm shocked by it, Rupert."
Then you should get out more.

3 June 2010 at 21:44  
Blogger weggis said...

Serious point here Rupert.
We have listened to sex workers and based our policy on their views, have we not?

Should we not also listen to the Police, I mean the real ones on the front line, the ones who, like sex workers, put themselves on the line?

3 June 2010 at 22:05  
Blogger Rupert said...

Weggis: absolutely. What this police inspector is saying is disturbing. It seems to be part of a good answer to my question in this post. 'Why couldn't police stop him?' Perhaps partly because of red tape and a lack of specialist equipment suitable for stopping an armed criminal on the loose. If so, that has got to change.
Preventive action to stop real and present dangers of violence is part of what good policing and indeed the ethic of violence-minimisation requires. Occasionally, the most non-violent action one can take is using force to prevent a criminal from violating others.

4 June 2010 at 10:03  
Blogger Jon said...

Having a marksman award with .22 rifles, I think your comment about telescopic sights is ridiculous. Banning a sight would not stop this weapon from being able to kill at a range of up to 1 mile. I could place five shots within the size of a 2p coin, 25 metres away using just my eyes and this is a standard many were able to achieve.

What the authorities should restrict, is access to ammo. The ammo should only be available within the grounds of shooting clubs, or available under license which must be granted for the particular purpose. This purpose could possibly be supervised by a member of the police if it is a non-club related activity.

Then we could own weapons legally like now, but possessing ammo would be illegal unless within designated controlled areas, or for licensed and overseen activities.

It would be fairly simple for the Police to have powers to randomly search people after engaging in shooting activities, to see if they are carrying ammo, and if they are to take away their license.

This would possibly have prevented what happened, as Bird would not have been able to use his firearms in the way he did, without any ammo.

4 June 2010 at 19:05  
Blogger Rupert said...

Thanks for your comment, Jon! I agree with it (Apart from your odd remark about telescopic sights - I never said anything about telescopic sights!)

5 June 2010 at 10:38  
Blogger Jon said...

My comment re telescopic sight was aimed at anonymous - "Maybe we should ban these sights rather than the rifles"...

7 June 2010 at 21:43  
Blogger Rupert said...

Thanks Jon - sorry, yes, I should have spotted that.

8 June 2010 at 09:32  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

1. 2. 3. Rupert's Read: Why couldn't police stop him? 4. 12. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 23. 24.

25. 26. Why couldn't police stop him? 27. 28.

29.
Am I the only person wondering why, on Bird's 4 hour rampage, there was seemingly no attempt to place police-roadblocks to stop him, or at least police marksmen helicoptered in to stop him continuing to kill? Surely after the first few deaths, when police realised roughly what they had on their hands, and started telling people to keep indoors etc., they should have thrown the dice and attempted to put a swift stop to further killing by Bird.
 
Meanwhile: It's still pretty easy to get a gun in Britain: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7798318/Cumbria-shootings-puts-spotlight-on-Britains-gun-laws.html http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article7142983.ece . We now know that Bird had his guns LEGALLY. It's time to ban the kind of 'sniper rifle' he apparently had, & drastically to tighten up access to shotguns. #Banthegun
 
What I want, is a country where the police are ready to take down lunatics with weapons, but where it is very rare that any lunatic will have a lethal weapon (at least, a gun), because we are successfully preventing them from having any legal access to them.
30. 31. 32.