[Closed] Zap! Taser works

Odd - doesn't say he was threatening anyone or that he put up a struggle?

Still, any chance to get shooting off those cool tasers ehh?

he was carrying a handgun gun though.

Odd - doesn't say he was threatening anyone or that he put up a struggle?

Still, any chance to get shooting off those cool tasers ehh?

WTF? He was apparently carrying a hand gun and arriving at a busy airport.
How much of "a struggle" would you have suggested was appropriate before they tazed him? 🙄

Seriously - I appreciate he had a handgun, but surely they give the person a chance to surrender the weapon first don't they????

How much of "a struggle" would you have suggested was appropriate

A "Handgun gun" spotted yesterday:

[img] [/img]

[i]Seriously - I appreciate he had a handgun, but surely they give the person a chance to surrender the weapon first don't they????

How much of "a struggle" would you have suggested was appropriate

Something like 'hand it over now, or we taser you' and if he doesn't, he gets tasered. [/i]

Would you seriously ask someone 'request' an armed man hand over his weapon rather than tasering him and removing the weapon safely. Sounds like the safest course of action for both the armed man And the security guard.

Zule-Eleven, surely that's table leg + Irish accent?

i suspect Jean Charles de Menezes would have prefered a tazering

I was gonna mention that mmw.

If i had or was presumed to be carrying a gun i would much prefer to be shot with a tazer than with a bullet.

Something like 'hand it over now, or we taser you' and if he doesn't, he gets tasered.

Fair enough if you know exactly where he has the gun, so you know you are not in any immediate danger.
Not sure I'd take that approach if all I knew was that the bloke had a gun concealed [i]somewhere[/i], especially if his hands were not in plain view.

Basically, as usual, we have very little to go on either way from the reported story.

Having seen the cops wandering about airports with MP5s, and having had a conversation with one that started with me asking whether or not he was prepared for the carnage that using a weapon like that would have produced in a busy airport terminal, I'm reasonable happy that they used tasers on this occasion TBH

Basically, as usual, we have very little to go on either way from the reported story.

the trouble is that the met's reputation on furnishing us with the facts around these things is not the best....

I'm reasonable happy that they used tasers on this occasion TBH

..assuming the only options are gun and taser.

the trouble is that the met's reputation on furnishing us with the facts around these things is not the best....

Gatwick would be Sussex Police not the Met I think

mrmichaelwright-Isn't it easy to be wise after the incident. 🙄

I'd be interested to see how you would get on when tasked with the protection of the public, including those ready to tear you limb from broadsheet for dischaging a weapon in a public place, when faced with a potentialy lethal situation.

They're damned if they do, and damned if they don't.

which anti police outburst for a mass shooting at an airport???

not sure i get your comment there notlocal

i haven't made any anti police comments

i'm pretty sure the right to criticise those who are tasked to protect us is called democracy.

if the facts fit then this is a far better outcome than the de Menezes case in which the police were found guilty by a court of a significant number of failings. Failings about which they clearly lied and tried to cover up.

With all this ability to make instant accurate judgements with little or no information to hand, I'm surprised that none of you folks are firearms cops.....

Incidentally, tazering someone carrying a bomb is generally deemed to be a bad idea in response to the Jean Charles Demenzes point. Apparently X thousand volts being jolted through someone carrying one is a bad idea for some obscure reason.

There is nothing in that story to go on and it seems a good deal more sane than some of the tasering that's been brought to our attention.

But [i]if[/i] the policy is that they hit you with a taser before challenging you if someone has told them that you're armed then that's not something I'm wildly keen on. There simply [i]must[/i] be reasonably safe ways of getting hold of someone who may or may not have a gun in his pocket and hasn't been challenged that don't involve tasering him.

I agree with nickc about the machine guns in crowded spaces though. They give me the absolute willies.

duntmatter, yes, given those choices I think a zap would be preferable to "gunfight at the OK Terminal",

Well said BigDummy 🙂

i'm pretty sure the right to criticise those who are tasked to protect us is called democracy.

No, it's called being judgmental. Democracy is the right to an elected government.

The anti police line wasn't aimed at you in particular. It was aimed at the "bobby bashers" on here. On the whole they do a damn fine job, and suffer from the same beaurocracy as any public office. I know several police officers and don't envy them one bit, they get sh1t from the public and very little recognition from above.

get notlocal with the titty lip.... 😀

I think I'd be happy to describe one of the defining principles of democracy is that all citizens enjoy legitimized freedoms and liberties, which probably for the purposes of argument means having complaints about the civil law enforcement body being listened to, and taken heed of...

LOL @ nickc

......9,10
calmed down now 😉

Having seen the cops wandering about airports with MP5s, and having had a conversation with one that started with me asking whether or not he was prepared for the carnage that using a weapon like that would have produced in a busy airport terminal, I'm reasonable happy that they used tasers on this occasion TBH

is this not the plot for Die Hard 2?

Based on a complete lack of information in this situation I think the cops were right to tazer him. I'd rather someone were tazered without warning than warned so they could start shooting. I mean what normal person carries a handgun to an airport? None, so you can expect they're likely to be out to use it.

[i]"started with me asking whether or not he was prepared for the carnage that using a weapon like that would have produced in a busy airport terminal"[/i]

Yeah, because they'd not have thought it through at all, and probably just 'spray' from the hip, having not restricted them to single shot only either. 🙄

Goon you're probably right, after all these guys train for ever, don't they? And the chances of being caught in the crossfire in an airport shootout are probably no greater than say; wandering on to an underground train whilst unknowingly being chased by panicking cops and being shot at point blank for no real reason...

I was going to make the same point as G, no point tazering someone carying a bomb thats probably activated by an electrical signal...........

I'm with the police on this one, and 99% with them on the JCM incident

And the chances of being caught in the crossfire in an airport shootout are probably no greater than say; wandering on to an underground train whilst unknowingly being chased by panicking cops and being shot at point blank for no real reason...

never happened to me or anyone I know.... 😈

Nah, you're right nickc. I imagine you know far better than the combined minds who draw up the strategy for the section of the police that carries a fire arm.

[i]I imagine you know far better than the combined minds who draw up the strategy for the section of the police that carries a fire arm. [/i]

As I said to Duntmatter, given the option of a shoot out and a zap, I'm happier with the volts...I imagine most of the airport cops probably are as well.

I saw a documentary once about terrorists at an airport... there was a big shootout and lots of innocent bystanders were killed, and then there were some explosions, and then the bad guys took off in a 747, except some bloke in a vest unscrewed the fuel cap and lit the trail of fuel with a cigarette and the 747 blew up in mid-air.

At least, I think it was a documentary 😉

Yes, I understood that bit. It's the bit where you ask an armed policeman if he realises the weapon he's carrying might be a bit dangerous I'm struggling with. Like I said, he'd probably never thought about it, and he was probably glad you pointed it out before anything went wrong.

Well, I would be relieved that I had not had to kill someone if they were carrying or not. And if not I am sure they will be unhappy, but at least they would be able to say so.

Putting myself in the same position - if I were plod and a man was reported with a gun, would I shout "Please stop and give me the deadly weapon that you know it is illegal to carry and don't even think about using it!" or tazer him and apologise profusely if it turns out to be one of the starters off to practice for 2012 at the new Olympic Stadium.

Think I prefer the latter.

[i]Like I said, he'd probably never thought about it, and he was probably glad you pointed it [/i]

I do hope so, I like to think of myself as an upstanding citizen... 😉

The thing I find funny about this story is that a great emphasis is put upon the fact he did not make any threats to anyone.

Now, correct me of I'm wrong, but a handgun is a prohibited weapon, unless you are authorised to carry by the home office. I think we should assume this person was not authorised to carry, and I'm guessing it wasn't a muzzle loading flintlock pistol.

This person is displaying a certain level of criminality, by the mere possession of the gun. Does he need to make a threat, whether verbal or non-verbal? Does anyone on here consider that his merely having this to hand a tad threatening? I know I do.

Next, lets consider the location. He's on public transport enroute to a very busy airport. Mmm, starting to look like there's some kind of intent. Given recent history, say from 11/09/01, He's either naive, stupid, mentally unwell, or has some kind of criminal intent, or a mixture of all of these - possibly with a few intoxicants thrown in.

Given that the Police cannot be everywhere all at once, they will have had to kit up, rendezvous, receive a briefing of sorts, and come up with a spontaneous tactical plan. This time element has given the person chance to get to Gatwick. At this point I'm asking myself "what's he up to?". And I'm guessing he hasn't just forgot to put it away before going on his Jollies, a bit like forgetting to cancel the milk.

So, here we have someone who is potentially mentally unstable, drunk, drugged, plain stupid or master criminal, in possession of what appears to be an illegal firearm enroute to one of europe's busiest airport. Based on this, is it prudent to challenge the man, giving him chance to draw, shoot, grab a hostage, whatever... or do we give him a pre-emptive strike of less lethal, and question his possession once he's safely detained?

Over to you guys.

wandering on to an underground train whilst unknowingly being chased by panicking cops and being shot at point blank for no real reason

I thought he was running through a station and leaping barriers being shouted at to stop?

I think we should assume

and I'm guessing

potentially mentally

Yeah molgrips I think that was what the Police were going with, but I think they had to have another look at what the truth was after loads of witnesses and CCTV showed that was a load of old bollards...

What I said earlier by way of caveat to nickc's point was

..assuming the only options are gun and taser.

What I hoped to imply was that the assumption about their [sic, for any illiterate pedants] being the only two options was itself problematic.

We agree, nickc, I think.

A lot of hugely ill-informed blather has been posted by others here. It seems to be based on an intuitive grasp of criminal law. Criminal law is not intuitive. That's why judges direct juries.

Mildred-

I don't think anyone would really disagree with you, but it depends on how sure the police are that someone [i]does[/i] have a gun. Is going straight for the taser if someone wanders up to you and says "See that guy over there? He's got a gun, he has" the best way forward?

If they were pretty sure he had one then I think they did the right thing.

Mastiles, I too hope the Police response was based on more than guesses and assumptions given that it was an informant/witness led response. I've only chucked in my two penneth based on the little information contained within the story.

Knowing how these things pan out and considering the gravity of the consequences if this type of information was ignored, the informant would have been thoroughly interrogated, including questions to gauge their knowledge of firearms, the authenticity of their account, whether the informant is truly independant/unbiased and honest. Based on what the Police have, a tactical plan would have quickly been formed. This tactical plan could be anything from do nothing but surveil the alleged offender, send local un-armed officers to attend to assess, to a full blown control of the terminal. But certainly the Police cannot afford to ignore this kind of information.

MrSalmon, unless you actually see a gun with your own two eyes, I don't think you can ever be "sure", but you'd certainly have reasonable suspicion. Lets face it, the response to these type of incidents is based upon the same type information that people are sent to prison. That is, witness accounts. The difference is that in a sponataneous firearms incident you don't have the benefit months of investigation and reflection to fall back upon. Again, it would be based on reasonable suspicion derived from witness accounts.

mrmichaelwright - Member
i suspect Jean Charles de Menezes would have prefered a tazering

If hed one back when his Visa expired, and not been an illegal, then he'd never have had to worry about the options..

lame

BTW any chance this guy was authorised to carry a gun?

I'd sooner see a tasering than a shootout especially as I use Gatwick a bit.