Guns of Brixton, Haringey and Tottenham: routine armed patrols

[winjer]

David Lammy, MP for Tottenham blames Boris rather than Stephenson, although it's unclear why:

Who is running London? That was my first thought when Radio 5 Live called me last week to talk about the armed police forces patrolling the streets of Tottenham, my London constituency. There must be a mistake, I replied. Surely the national media wouldn't know about something as serious as this before the elected representatives of the areas involved. But I had been told nothing about an operation that could change totally the delicate (and until now improving) understanding between the police and my local community – let alone been properly consulted.

Nor was I alone. London Assembly member Joanne McCartney, who is on the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) and like me represents Haringey, was not consulted. Nor was Claudia Webbe, chair of the Operation Trident Advisory Group; nor Cindy Butts or Jennette Arnold of the MPA. All are rightly furious.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/28/armed-police-boris-london

Stephenson says it was the Met's press office's fault:

"There was a misjudgment that people did not see that by this small extension they were going to create a significant impression of a change in our style and that was a mistake and I regret it," said Stephenson, adding that the Met's communication department "had not been at its best" in responding to reports last week.

"As a matter of judgment I can say that had it been escalated in the way I think it should have been it wouldn't not have got to this stage. I wouldn't have needed to consult with this authority because it wouldn't have happened. That's simply it."

He added: "The Met has a long and proud tradition of being one of a handful of major cities around the world where officers are not routinely armed and I intend to maintain that position."

The meeting heard that Tim Godwin, a deputy commissioner, jumped from his seat and said "No, no, no," when he learned of the move Thursday.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/29/metropolitan-police-armed-stephenson

 

[gentlegreen]

I almost choked when I heard Kit Malthouse call Jenny Jones specifically "hysterical" on "Today" this morning. The interviewer repeated it for posterity.

Boris Johnson's deputy mayor for policing, Kit Malthouse, had accused concerned members of the authority of reacting "hysterically" to a report that surfaced last week suggesting a new unit would come from within CO19, the Met's specialist firearms unit.

Just the "Jenny Jones is Hysterical" bit :-
http://sites.google.com/site/gentlegreen/files/jennyjones.mp3?attredirects=0&d=1

whole segment :-
http://sites.google.com/site/gentlegreen/files/malthousejoneshysterical.mp3?attredirects=0&d=1

 

[tendril]

Armed police never make a mistake do they

And if I claimed we lived in a perfect world, you'd even have a point there. How should criminals be disarmed and deterred if the police don't carry guns?

So how should the police deal with armed criminals?

My point was clear......

The Jean Charles De Menezes shooting was IMHO a direct result of knee jerk policing with guns.

This new policing tactic is a direct result of knee jerk policing with guns.

The two are completely comparable.

What you WILL see if this is implemented is the needless death of a civilian who 'appeared' to be a threat to the armed officer. For instance a young teenage boy pointing a toy gun. Whilst this may be unwise at best, it would not deserve an extreme prejudice reaction such as happened to Mr De Menezes.

 

[winjer]

What you WILL see if this is implemented is the needless death of a civilian who 'appeared' to be a threat to the armed officer. For instance a young teenage boy pointing a toy gun.

Meanwhile, in 1973:
http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist//RTV/1973/03/02/BGY508270011/?s=stv

 

[xenon]

What's new about this. I thought the Police already deployed officers with automatic weapons in areas of high tention between armed gangs. Hopefully it's part of an intelegence lead specific operation against suspects, rather than just patrolling with overtly displayed submachine guns.

 

[tendril]

Meanwhile, in 1973:
http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist//RTV/1973/03/02/BGY508270011/?s=stv

I'm not sure of your point. The article details that 2 lads were killed, but were suspects in the attempted kidnap of 8 Indian High Comission staff.

 

[tendril]

What's new about this. I thought the Police already deployed officers with automatic weapons in areas of high tention between armed gangs. Hopefully it's part of an intelegence lead specific operation against suspects, rather than just patrolling with overtly displayed submachine guns.

The problem with Police Intelligence is that it is an oxymoron

 

[xenon]

The gangs aren't brimming over with Nobel Prize winners either. At least, if a copper shoots someone, it's a big deal. Investigations, scrutiny. As it should be.

 

[winjer]

I'm not sure of your point. The article details that 2 lads were killed, but were suspects in the attempted kidnap of 8 Indian High Comission staff.

Teenage boys pointing toy guns, no?

 

[winjer]

I thought the Police already deployed officers with automatic weapons [...] submachine guns.

Semi-auto only, not 'submachine' guns.

 

[tendril]

Teenage boys pointing toy guns, no?

Well, I read the article as 3 Pakistani boys attempted to abduct 8 India High comission officials using imitation weapons.

I see this as vastly different to a youth pointing a toy gun on the street in tottenham. If a gang of boys attempt to commit a crime using fake/toy guns then the appropriate response may well be armed.

 

[Azrael]

Many muggers are primarily out there because of need and greed. I call it the smack and crystal argument. An addict who just wants money will take the wallet and run. An mugger who wants violence, will not be appeased by a anything you do, they will actively look for an excuse.

Exactly my point. You've no way of knowing which is which, but the current law forces you to treat all attackers like "need and greed" robbers. Appeasement is useless against thugs seeking violence, either for its own sake, or as a side-dish to your wallet. I've not contradicted myself at all since I was referring to a specific type of person, whereas you were talking about the British population in general.

Ideally, there'd be no violence. Since this isn't an ideal world, it's a case of looking for the least-bad solution. Some police also abuse their training. It's no argument against the training or weapons, because the alternative is even worse. Paradoxically, the lack of a weapon could make serious injury more likely in some situations. CS spray allows a victim to incapacitate the criminal and flee without having to inflict injury. Take it away, and the victim may be driven to extreme methods by desperation, or be unable to defend themselves at all.

Pre-emptive violence could well be deterred by a death penalty. There's nothing deterring it at the moment, where judges are compelled to lie every time they pass sentence, and prisons are pointless warehouses. Above all, though, we must rediscover conscience. No ban is a substitute for self-restraint.

The bans on weapons didn't come out of a cool assessment of the facts. They arose through panic and idealism, always a lethal combination. They also discriminate against the physically weak. If the pro-equality Labour Party thought about them, I doubt it'd be so enthusiastic.

 

[Azrael]

And retire, because anyone who wants 'gun freedom' for all in the UK is a deranged fucking lunatic and I've now got far better things to do than to get tied up with them again.

"The rifle hanging on the wall of the working class flat, or labourer's cottage, is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."

Deranged lunatic.

 

[lang rabbie]

"The rifle hanging on the wall of the working class flat, or labourer's cottage, is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."

Deranged lunatic.

You (and American gun rights nuts who similarly selectively quote Orwell) really are quite amazingly stupid.

Orwell was writing in a wartime context about why working class socialists should join the Home Guard and be part of the national fight against fascism, rather than following fuckwitted middle class communist ideologues who wanted them to join in armed insurrrection against the ruling classes.

In full:

'Even as it stands the Home Guard could only exist in a country where men feel themselves free. The totalitarian states can do great things, but there is one thing they cannot do, they cannot give the factory worker a rifle and tell him to take it home and keep it in his bedroom. THAT RIFLE HANGING ON THE WALL OF THE WORKING-CLASS FLAT OR LABOURER'S COTTAGE IS THE SYMBOL OF DEMOCRACY. IT IS OUR JOB TO SEE IT STAYS THERE.'

It has nothing to do with domestic vigilantism.

 

[Azrael]

It has nothing to do with domestic vigilantism.

No, and neither does arguing that armed self-defence should be legal, as a vigilante is acting outside the law. ("Vigilantism" must be one of the most over- and misused words in English.)

A favourite part of debate is when opponents inadvertently help my case. Orwell's quote from "Don't Let Colonel Blimp Ruin the Home Guard" (Evening Standard, 1941) makes the same point I made earlier in this thread: that only a country that trusts its citizens can allow them to own weapons. Both it and self-defence against criminals link into the same basic point, about the limits of lawful violence in society.

This debate has been allowed to become a dead-letter in England, in part because violent crime used to be low enough for it not to be an issue. With the spiralling rise in criminal violence, it can only be so long until it's dusted off. (Along with the thought-free off-the-peg insult "gun nut". Quite a lot of people round here want narcotics legalised. Does this make them "drug nuts"?)

 

[Upchuck]

I don't trust David Lammy one bit. He was the invisible man in Baby P. I think he's a fake and a dodger.

 

[goldenecitrone]

The gangs aren't brimming over with Nobel Prize winners either. At least, if a copper shoots someone, it's a big deal. Investigations, scrutiny. As it should be.

And then you look at somewhere like Brazil. They have some seriously fucked up policing. And gangs.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/17/rio-favela-violence-helicopter

 

[xenon]

No, and neither does arguing that armed self-defence should be legal, as a vigilante is acting outside the law. ("Vigilantism" must be one of the most over- and misused words in English.)

A favourite part of debate is when opponents inadvertently help my case. Orwell's quote from "Don't Let Colonel Blimp Ruin the Home Guard" (Evening Standard, 1941) makes the same point I made earlier in this thread: that only a country that trusts its citizens can allow them to own weapons. Both it and self-defence against criminals link into the same basic point, about the limits of lawful violence in society.

This debate has been allowed to become a dead-letter in England, in part because violent crime used to be low enough for it not to be an issue. With the spiralling rise in criminal violence, it can only be so long until it's dusted off. (Along with the thought-free off-the-peg insult "gun nut". Quite a lot of people round here want narcotics legalised. Does this make them "drug nuts"?)

I don't trust most of the UK public to be allowed a firearm.

And before I'm called a snob, condiscending or whatnot, I include myself in that portion of the UK public.

 

[Azrael]

I don't trust most of the UK public to be allowed a firearm.

And before I'm called a snob, condiscending or whatnot, I include myself in that portion of the UK public.

So do I, as it happens. I have no wish to carry a concealed firearm. But it should be my choice.

If the British public can't be trusted with guns, should car ownership be massively restricted into the bargain?

 

[xenon]

So do I, as it happens. I have no wish to carry a concealed firearm. But it should be my choice.

If the British public can't be trusted with guns, should car ownership be massively restricted into the bargain?

They're not directly comprable at all, as you know. A car's designed purpose isn't to efficiently inflict fatal damage to a living creature. In fact, they're fitted with devices to minimise that as a potential outcome of their use. And further have their use mediated through regulation to attempt assuring the same lack of fatalities.

And to preempt any mention of bans on sport shooting. I'm not arguing in defence of that kneejerk post Dumblane ledglislation. I'm saying, In the UK, widespread gun ownership where they could be legally deployed with out unlocking 2 cabinets 20 yards from each other, wouldn't make it a safer place.

 

[joe 90]

I don't trust David Lammy one bit. He was the invisible man in Baby P. I think he's a fake and a dodger.

a Lammy dodger. one letter away from a buiscit.

i'll get my coat.

 

[detective-boy]

The Jean Charles De Menezes shooting was IMHO a direct result of knee jerk policing with guns.

So you do not believe that the use of armed police officers is an appropriate response to suicide bombers, bearing in mind that the operation was specifically intended to locate and detain those responsible for the failed attack the previous day.

How exactly would you suggest the police should have gone about that?

 

[detective-boy]

The problem with Police Intelligence is that it is an oxymoron

No. The problem with police intelligence (as with all intelligence) is that it is imperfect, incomplete and of unknown reliability. In all aspects the best that can be done in advance of any operation is to make an assessment of it's completeness and reliability.

 

[winjer]

If a gang of boys attempt to commit a crime using fake/toy guns then the appropriate response may well be armed.

But is an appropriate response a routine armed patrol, in that case from the SPG? Who according to witnesses, "without much warning" shot them dead?

 

[William of Walworth]

"The rifle hanging on the wall of the working class flat, or labourer's cottage, is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."

Deranged lunatic.

Old George was quite deranged** at times .


ETA : **Maybe not so much after all, just read lang rabbie's post. Well done for selective quoting Azrael, in common with your NRA lunatic mates it seems

 

[William of Walworth]

I don't trust David Lammy one bit. He was the invisible man in Baby P. I think he's a fake and a dodger.

... coming from YOU

I'm no particular David Lammy fan either, but this sounds like a groundless, gossip based, insinuendo-leaning , conspiracy theory type smear .. a derailing smear at that.

 

[detective-boy]

But is an appropriate response a routine armed patrol, in that case from the SPG? Who according to witnesses, "without much warning" shot them dead?

What on earth is the fucking point of discussing something from 1973 as if it provides the slightest fucking indication of current procedures and practices?

The problem is still the same (trying to decide whether or not a firearm is a real one or an imitation one without either (a) being possessed of the powers of absolute foresight that you and all other keyboard critics seem to have or (b) waiting for them to shoot someone dead). The procedures, policies, training and everything else are totally different.

 

[tendril]

So you do not believe that the use of armed police officers is an appropriate response to suicide bombers, bearing in mind that the operation was specifically intended to locate and detain those responsible for the failed attack the previous day.

How exactly would you suggest the police should have gone about that?

I do not think that armed police officers was an appropriate response to that specific incident. The appropriate response was missed well before Mr De Menezes even arrived at the station, and that response should have been to detain him upon his exit from his building. If he was indeed a suicide bomber he would have had his bomb with him, it would in my opinion be unlikely that he was going to pick it up from another location on the way. Catching someone unawares coming from a tower block, in my lay opinion, would have been much easier to accomplish with much less likelyhood of anyone dying, police, perpertrator or civilians.

I see that incident as a gung ho, Kaptain Kirk response that was so pumped up with adrenaline that someone had to die that day.


Make no mistake, I do believe that an armed response may be necessary in certain circumstances, but I feel that this should fall under the jurisdiction of the armed forces, perhaps the military police could work in conjuction to the regular police to carry out any armed operations.

I know that you were 5oh and I do have a respect for the institution of the police force. Unfortunately some very high profile miscarriages of justice temper my respect for the ordinary copper.

 

[tendril]

No. The problem with police intelligence (as with all intelligence) is that it is imperfect, incomplete and of unknown reliability. In all aspects the best that can be done in advance of any operation is to make an assessment of it's completeness and reliability.

That was a trite comment on my part. Of course with an organisation as large and diverse as the police, intelligence will be sketchy at best, and the police have to play the hand they have been dealt. Unfortunately because the police as a whole have lost favour with many citizens the potential for relaible intelligence decreases.

I also know that the police have a publicly stated policy of trying to integrate and gain the respect of the citizenship, and that process may take many generations.

Basically it is all fucked up and will take ages to sort out.

 

[tendril]

But is an appropriate response a routine armed patrol, in that case from the SPG? Who according to witnesses, "without much warning" shot them dead?

No, absolutely not. I am against these planned routine armed patrols. I was referring to a potential specific incident.... say a group of teens hold up a shop and take hostages. This may call for a specific armed response, but as I have replied to detective boy above, I feel that the armed response should come from the military, not the police. Sort of contracting out the shooty bit to professionals.

I am in no way suggesting that the military should take responsibility for prosecution of the law, that should remain with the police.

I'm just so proud that we have a largely unarmed police force in this country and would resist any attempt to expand the armed role of the police.