Crime

[fpb]

The reaction of London's emergency services to the four bombs exploded across its public transport system last July, and to the four more attempted two weeks later, struck everyone as exemplary. While the Health Service dealt swiftly and efficiently with the wounded, the police, starting from total ignorance about causes and suspects, and in spite of tremendous material difficulties especially about the Russell Square explosion, managed in a few days to identify a number of suspects and accomplices, and, in the case of the failed bombs, to round them up in short order. This was a first-rate feat of investigation, achieved by unsparing use of resources (at the height of the investigation, 5,000 policemen were involved), high class detecting technology, massive support from the public, and that element of good luck that sometimes helps even a deserving cause.

So when I heard that a man had been shot down by armed police in the course of the investigation, I was tempted, as I dare say millions of others were tempted, to say: "Another gone to meet his 72 virgins. Too, too bad." I was tempted; but, as readers of this blog can testify, I did not say it. I was held back, at first, by a feeling without a name, so thin as hardly to be distinguished from mere laziness; but which, as time went by, grew into a slowly swelling and and gathering cloud of doubts.

I would say that it was the police's prolonged silence - I think it was a good couple of days before anyone said anything about the man's death - that made me uneasy; or, rather, that caused a crawling, increasingly unpleasant sense of recognition. I had seen that sequence of events take place before - first the announcement of the shooting, then the dead silence. And indeed, from the moment that the head of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Ian Blair, went on TV to declare the dead man's identity and give the first few detail, events followed each other with the inevitability of a script. The man turned out to be innocent. The police said little, but, in a standard pattern of deception, sources close to them - in this case, the pathologist who had performed the first and (irregularly) only post mortem - released details that made the victim sound rash, even provocative - he wore a bulky jacket - he had run from the police - he had vaulted the ticket barrier. The family expressed doubts - the man had been stopped by the police before - he was law-abiding - he had no such jacket. Then an avalanche of evidence from all sides had simply buried the police version of events, leaving us with one simple certainty: a police marksman had approached a wholly innocent, inoffensive man who had just quietly sat down in a Tube seat, and, in front of a wagon full of people, had fired eleven rounds of ammunition at his head at point-blank range.

By the time this became clear, I was not in the least surprised. You see, this is a regular pattern of behaviour of the weapons unit of the Metropolitan Police. This case has resonated across the world, and (as I said to a friend a few days ago) I would not want to be the spokesman who tries to explain this assasination to 180 million angry Brazilians; but to those of us who pay attention to local events here in London - a city that is, after all, not only a world metropolis and setting of great works of literature, not only the capital of an ancient empire that has left its marks across the planet, but also the familiar setting of domestic life for eight million people - the script, the unleashed series of events, had a loathsome kind of familiarity. There was the case of that professional criminal who was riddled by police bullets as he lay half-asleep, naked and helpless in his girlfriend's bed. Sure, he was a villain; but short of being handed to them bound hand and foot, there was no imaginable circumstance in which he could have been less ready to do any harm to anyone. And sure, this was a gangster's girlfriend; but was that any reason to awaken her to the crash of a door being broken down, the roar of gunfire, the spurting of the blood of the man she had been lying with, staining her from top to toe as he was murdered in her bed, in front of her eyes?

Then there was the Harry Stanley case. Some six years ago, a carpenter called Harry Stanley was walking along the street with a table leg in a clear plastic bag. Some hysterical moron, whose name was never made public, took the table leg for a shotgun (an easy mistake to make, you will agree, if you are blind and paranoid) and called the police. The Weapons Squad came, and, without so much as telling him to halt, and in spite of the fact that the supposed shotgun hung harmless in a plastic bag and could not possibly have been pointed at them, let alone fired, shot him dead like a dog. It was their bad luck that Harry Stanley left a widow and five children, all with indomitable tempers and a justified sense of grievance, who have been pursuing them through the courts ever since. They have not appreciated the way that the Metropolitan Police have waged a genuine campaign of vilification against Harry Stanley; and that they, in spite of losing court case after court case because of the evidence of their misconduct, have not so far paid her a penny compensation.

Recently, a timid attempt to discipline - five years after their crime! - the officers/assassins responsible, has provoked an outright mutiny in the ranks of the Weapons Squad. If I had been Sir Ian Blair, I would have taken the opportunity, said "don't let the door hit you on the way out," and sacked them all; instead of which, Sir Ian, who has brutally persecuted some ordinary officers guilty of mild anti-Islamic jokes, caved in like the most craven of cowards, and let himself be used as the mouthpiece of these gon-toting scum.

This is not the only such case; indeed, a man was on TV the other day to claim that the same kind of thing had happened to him - only, he had survived - twenty-five years ago. It is a regular pattern of behaviour by the Metropolitan armed unit. And it is difficult to eradicate. Unlike many other countries, Britain has no national police services. Police units and command are highly localized, dispersed in 43 county units, each practically independent. It follows that when a police unit goes really, seriously bad (and it has been known to happen; as in the case of the infamous West Midlands Serious Crimes Squad), it is very difficult to simply break it up, as people do in other police forces, by dismissing a few and reassigning the rest elsewhere in the country. The only thing that can honestly be done is what Sir Ian Blair was too craven to do - dismiss the lot, and start again.

And there is a further and even more fundamental problem, in my view. It is a matter of pride for the British that their police are not, except for Northern Ireland, armed. But having taken these cases into consideration, it seems to me all too evident that this has led to a mentality where to call in the armed police means that you are supposed to kill someone; that these men have been trained to kill their quarry, and that they do not understand any other use for their guns. I have to wonder whether arming the whole force, like every other police force in the free world is armed, would not dilute this murderous mentality and actually make Londoners safer in their streets.

Comments

[super-pan.livejournal.com]

"a police marksman had approached a wholly innocent, inoffensive man who had just quietly sat down in a Tube seat, and, in front of a wagon full of people, had fired eleven rounds of ammunition at his head at point-blank range."

I just don't know what to say. That's really awful. I'm sure that you are right, though, that having a small, elite force that has guns does give them a feeling of need to use their guns, and a feeling of entitlement. As for whether it would help to give all the police guns, who knows. It might, or it might just be more goobers with lethal weapons running around, shooting their feet. (like around here!) I hate guns. They just flat out terrify me. Guns give people power, and some people use it well, and others abuse it, and most people make mistakes. I think it is important to try and sort out which is which in cases like above. It makes it even harder in such intense times as we have now.

Tough call.

[patchworkmind.livejournal.com]

Here in the United States it's getting harder and harder for law-abiding, above-board citizens to get their hands on guns. It has, however, actually become increasingly easier for the criminal element to get the things, and this statistic exists much to the chagrin of law enforcement, who come up against these weapons in the course of duty. It is a sad fact that sometimes, almost exclusively in the larger metropolii (I hope my Latin's right there.), that the criminals' weapons are more sophisticated and deadly that the law enforcement's. That being said...

Most police in this country, of whom I know a great many quite well, rarely ever use their sidearms. When they do it's more often than not a media event, regardless of the reason. It seems there are usually police-fault firearms fatalities when it comes to "elite units" such as you describe or when there is a tense situation involving a large number of police officers with weapons drawn. I believe that with your notion on arming all police officers you may be on to something.

One interesting American statistic is that in states and localities where the citizens are allowed registered "conceal and carry" gun licenses (with appropriate training) the violent crime rate has dropped quite noticeably. In areas of the country where it is registered citizen posession of firearms is discouraged or near-forbidden violent crime is quite high.

Very, very interesting post.

[chthonya]

And there is a further and even more fundamental problem, in my view. It is a matter of pride for the British that their police are not, except for Northern Ireland, armed. But having taken these cases into consideration, it seems to me all too evident that this has led to a mentality where to call in the armed police means that you are supposed to kill someone; that these men have been trained to kill their quarry, and that they do not understand any other use for their guns.

That's a good point. I'm not particularly comfortable with police carrying guns, but as rachel_w and I discussed in our debate about guns last November, there's something to be said for being familiar with guns so that they are seen symbolically more as tools than as [criminal] weapons.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Link please.

[chthonya]

I can't find it, I'm afraid. Maybe she would remember - I thought it was on my LJ or hers but it could have been someone else. This will teach me to put my lengthy comments on other people's LJs into memories!

Basically, she was saying that being in an area where many people were armed made her feel secure because she knew that criminals would be wary, and I was saying that being in a place where police were armed made me feel uneasy at the thought that the police needed guns. We talked it through a bit, and ended up coming to the conclusion that in areas where guns are a part of everyday life (e.g. for hunting meat that forms an essential part of the family's diet), people's attitudes to guns are more positive, while in the UK, where most people's knowledge of guns comes from movie shootouts and news coverage of serial killers, people are more likely to react with fear, and/or to associate guns with military or criminal activities.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

I would add that guns make more sense in rural areas, where people live fairly isolated lives, than in cities, where they are cheek by jowl and help ought to be easy to obtain. I am in general against widespread gun ownership, but I would make an exception for the countryside.

[dreamer-marie.livejournal.com]

I just heard on the radio that they were going to rethink the policy of the armed police in Great Britain. At least, the man won't have died in vain. It's better than the French police, who are armed, and it happens way too often that there is a "bavure" where someone is interrogated way too vigorously at the police station or where a car should have stopped. It's disturbing.

[gunderpants.livejournal.com]

The policy here is that only police officers and farmers in remote areas (plagued by wild pigs and crocodiles) are entitled to arms: after Port Arthur, the Government did a massive buy-back of all non-essential weapons. I remember the outcry from the Americans who thought were were OMGALLGOINGTOBESHOTINOURBEDS.

That said, the criminal underworld here still have their guns, as evident by the gangland murders in Melbourne, and for that reason alone I would understand the police here needing their guns.

At any rate, our police are more content to just cause internal bleeding by other means.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

So are ours. According to the stories that come out of Stoke Newington nick...

By the way,

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Wild pigs are a danger in the Australian outback? I heard about dingoes and crocs, of course, but I had not realized that feral pigs were so dangerous. Guess they aren't touristy enough. Here in Italy, the wild boars are a menace, and they are subject to regular culls by National Park authorities.

Re: By the way,

[gunderpants.livejournal.com]

They're a menace in that they do a hell of a lot of damage to the ecosystem with their trotters: Australian soil, in particular around waterholes and rivers, is so easily degraded by hoofed animals like cattle and pigs. This, in addition to the fact that they actively seek out and kill young lambs and other animals, will attack a human if provoked (and those tusks can disembowel) and they eat any crops or native plants that get in their way, make them a particular menace. Hence why pig-shooting is quite the leisure activity out in the sticks.

Re: By the way,

[fpb.livejournal.com]

I see. I did not know that, but I am not surprised. Of course in Australia pigs, like rabbits, would have no natural predators, and they are intelligent and greedy animals. Would you believe that someone has reintroduced wild boars into England, where they ahad been extinct?

Re: By the way,

[gunderpants.livejournal.com]

That sounds like a biological introduction on the same level of stupid as the introduction of cane toads into QLD to combat beetles eating sugar cane crops.

Re: By the way,

[fpb.livejournal.com]

It's the same as with wallabies and minks - they escaped from a farm. Actually, the boars do not make nearly as much damage as the minks, who have wrought havoc with the native population on English riverbanks.

Re: By the way,

[gunderpants.livejournal.com]

I want a pet mink.

Guns

[super-pan.livejournal.com]

As I said in my earlier post, I am terrified of guns. But, in the States, it is in our bill of rights that we have the right to bear arms. The function of this is so that the populace has the means to protect themselves against either an invading or occupying force, or, if necessary, our own government, in addition to everyday self protection. While the first two seem farfetched, it's still something that applies to everbody, not just certain parts of the population. If only rural folk had the right to bear arms here, then they'd be making cash selling guns on the black market.

Re: Guns

[fpb.livejournal.com]

And that is true enough. However, according to Gun's comment, that is exactly the solution they have reached in Australia, a country that is both geographically and culturally very like America.

Re: Guns

[gunderpants.livejournal.com]

Well, I suppose a culture of guns is one thing we haven't really picked up so much. There was hardly an uproar over people handing over their guns after Port Arthur, and a hell of an outrage at people like Martin Bryant being allowed access to a gun. We're always going to accept the fact that for some groups, like the police and farmers, guns are a necessary evil, and we simply don't want more situations where people like Bryant, or Ivan Milaat, or the Morans in Melbourne, have guns, so as a society we've pretty much reasoned that we do want guns and weaponry off civilians.

Re: Guns

[fpb.livejournal.com]

The same is true for most European countries. Of course, to the American right this is only more evidence of the inevitably wimpish and compromising habits of European minds.

Re: Guns

[goreism.livejournal.com]

Lucky for Australia, they got the convicts while the Americans got the Puritans.

Re: Guns

[super-pan.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but I guess because I am American, I simply don't comprehend the concept. I'm not even being sarcastic; I don't get letting some people have guns, and not others. Even though I really hate guns, I still do not want to give up my right to own one, if I wanted. Mostly because I don't want my Bill of Rights to be changed around, because that would be a slippery slope. Also, we really don't have any dangerous animals; we've pretty much killed them all. Although what animals are left often come into human populated areas due to decimation of their own habitats. Sorry, it's late and I can't sleep, so now I'm just rambling, on and on.