This morning, I read They shot the "wrong man" , smintheus’ diary on My Left Wing, relaying the news that the man who was shot in the head five times, at point blank range had nothing to do with the London bombing. This is all, of course, very sad, distressing, disheartening, and a few other frowny-face words I can think of. But one of my thoughts, "How typical!" was actually pretty uninformed. Like a lot of people, I get used to thinking of the world events through an American-centric lens, and I forget important details that I actually do know somewhere in the back of my mind. Like the fact that in the U.K. police typically don’t carry guns, so the British people are likely to have a different perception of this tragedy than many Americans do. Charlie Grapski, who runs the online Democracy University , and who spoke at DeanFest last month, shared some thoughts on Blog for America earlier today that helped me put things into better perspective. That, and some on-topic satire by The Frantics below the fold.
Charlie Grapski’s comments, in the wider context of the discussion he was participating in, can be found in this Blog for America thread.
As far as I am aware – it is illegal in neither the US nor the UK to wear a heavy coat. It is certainly not a threat to anyone that would justify that person being murdered in cold blood (that is what happened – five shots, point blank, to the head while he was being held down on the floor of a train).
As far as I am aware – not “stopping” when police order you to stop – does not justify taking that individual’s life.
As far as I am aware – there are many reasons why someone wouldn’t stop in such a situation.
For example:
The “officers” were in PLAIN CLOTHES – and were not clearly identifiable as police. Someone yelling at you and chasing you – is reason to NOT stop.
Some people are DEAF.
Some people don’t speak ENGLISH (and don’t understand when it is spoken to them – or YELLED at them).
etc.
This is why police in the UK are generally NOT ALLOWED to carry guns (because, ordinarily, they are quite a bit “smarter” than we in the US when it comes to such things. And by and large – they have LESS crime (and far less VIOLENT crime) in the UK. And far less abuse of power by police.
Followed up in a later comment…
There is no way to “know” what motivated the officer. Most likely – it was the CONTEXT.
He was given a gun. Told to use it. And was put into a situation that would have a high probability that would cause someone, in that context, with those instructions, to do that very thing.
Unlike in the US – where we as a nation would likely just say – “Oh, OK. Simple mistake. Lets move on.” (Only because it is an “authority” that made the mistake – when individuals make the same mistakes – the same people scream for them to be executed as a result); in the UK – this has raised the ire of the average person, who DISTRUSTS giving authorities guns and the power to use them AT THEIR DISCRETION.
One thing that occurred to me, when reading this, is that you probably get a different kind of recruit–in personality profile, career interest inventory terms–joining the police force in Great Britain compared to the U.S. Certainly, there is some overlap, but there is a type of recruit they most likely aren’t attracting, for the most part, in a police force where you don’t expect, up front, to be carrying a gun. Having just heard this bit on the Dr. Demento Show this morning, I immediately thought of the “Army Careers” sketch by The Frantics. You can download and listen to the MP3 of Army Careers here. Here are the words, lovingly transcribed by yours truly:
Ed: Hey you! Is this where you join the Canadian armed forces?
Recruiter: This is the recruitment center. Would you like to enlist?
E: Do you have guns?
R: Yes we do.
E: I’m in!
R: Well done. Welcome aboard. First the paperwork…Name?
E: Ed. Ed Gruberman. I can’t wait to boot some head!
R: All right. Well, would you like Army, Navy, or Air Force?
E: Who has the most guns?
R: Uh…Army.
E: I want Army!
R: Okay, now, which courses would you like?
E: Courses?
R: Yes, to learn a career.
E: I don’t want a career–I want a gun. I want a biiiig gun!
R: Everyone wants a free education. It’s our incentive to enlist. Now, pick three from this pamphlet…
E: Introduction to International Politics…Computers 101…Antique Restoration?!
R: Yes, that qualifies you to work on our helicopters!
E: Look–don’t you have any courses with guns?
R: Well, yes. Last page…
E: (with increasing enthusiasm) Intro to Ammo…Advanced Wounding…Creative Bazookas! Ooh–ooh! I’ll take all these!
R: Fine. Any mental diseases or physical deformities?
E: Okay, I’ll take paranoia, three nipples and a really—
R: No, no, no–never mind. Would you like in on the pension plan?
E: No.
R: Christmas club?
E: No! Look, I want a gun! I want to kill people!
R: Who?
E: Uhhh…Afghanis!
R: But we’re not at war with them.
E: We will be after I start killin’ em!
R: No, we don’t kill people.
E: Not even Al-Qaida?
R: Oh, no, no, no! They’re dangerous–we don’t want to get them angry!
E: What a wimp!
R: I’m not a wimp! I’m extreeemely tough. I do advanced pilates!
E: You’re a wimp. Have you SHOT anyone lately?
R: The Canadian army isn’t ABOUT shooting people–it’s about career training and being all you can be on a limited budget.
E: I want to bathe in a geyser of enemy blood!
R: That hardly sounds sanitary.
E: Screw sanitary–I want to blow things up like in Shaving Ryan’s Privates!
R: The movie was “Saving Private Ryan.”
E: What movie?
R: (Confused stammering and “What? Huh?)
E: Look–let me explode a few buildings!
R: No!
E: One stab wound–
R: No! Our insurance rates will go up!
E: What are you–a bunch of girls?!
R: No! Well, except for the girls.
E: There’s GIRLS in the army?!
R: And they’re just as tough as the men!
E: So they don’t shoot anyone either, huh?
R: That’s not what we do!
E: Wimp! What DO you do?
R: Peacekeeping
E: Wimp!
R: Border patrol
E: Wimp!
R: Parades..
E: Wimp!
R: Typing
E: WIMP!!
R: Filing…
E: WIMP!!
R: That does it! Get out of here before I do something!
E: Oh, I’m real scared. What are you gonna do–FILE me out?
R: Wait–wait a minute. Just what are you doing here anyway?
E: I told you–I want a gun, I want a lot of guns, I want to start killing anyone I disagree with!
R: (Laughing) Oh–you want the AMERICAN Army!
E: Oh, okay! Thank you–bye bye!
I wrote a bit about Charlie’s DeanFest talk, and posted a picture, in my DeanFest, Day 2 diary here:
http://renee-in-ohio.mydd.com/story/2005/6/28/195815/955
The Frantics, mentioned above, have something of a “boot to the head” motif that is seen in this sketch. Earlier examples are “Last Will and Temperament” and “Tae Kwan Leap”.
http://beagleweb.com/personal/boottothehead.html
A few observations before I stagger to bed.
You are certainly right that the typical recruitment path is either straight from secondary school into the police cadet service or from univeristy into a “fast track” promotion scheme intended to produce senior officers in due course.
Compared to the USA, very few serve in the armed forces before joining the police. Any gun expertise gained in the army would not be considered and advantage in the civilian police force as it might in the US. On the contrary, the atitude required in the police service is so different that it would be quite unlikely that they would be accepted onto a specialist firearms unit.
Another point of course is that no police service posts are elected. Oversight but not day to day operational control is exercised by elected members of local authorities. In the case of the Metropolitan Police, this is part of the duties of the London Assembly but in other areas it is a committee of a local authority or a special committee drawn from a number of counties.
There is probably a view that the armed police are more closely selected and are restrained in the use of force. Mistaken killings do happen but all deaths are fully investigated by the independent Police Complaints Commission in all cases. While there may be criticism of the policies, including in the Stockwell case, of the authorised method the shooter was trained in; there is probably greater acceptance that the police act within their training and guidelines and that when they go outside these they are prosecuted.
Police discharging a gun of any sort is rare. Deaths are even rarer and for that reason are always shocking. This may explain the more mooted reaction to the actual method of killing that has many from the US fired up in these forums. Horrible as it may sound, when the multiple shots to the head are explained as policy so that no movement to detonate any device is possible, there is an understanding of the reasons.
There is little gun culture in this country. Shotguns are allowed for sporting and pest control purposes and very limited licences are given for hunting rifles. All guns have to be kept in what are effectively safes when not in use. There is a “gangsta rap” culture and fashion to carry illegal guns but possession of an unlicensed gun or ammunition carries a minimum five year prison sentence. Many of these guns are converted replicas or re-activations of previously blocked guns. Because of this, there are proposals that possession of replicas carries the same sentence as live guns. This has drafting difficulties (how do you phrase the difference between a replica and a child’s toy without leaving loopholes or bringing the law into disrepute). Even so, the use of a replica in a crime as if it were a live gun carries the same sentence. Any item that is presented as a gun is covered so sticking your finger in your pocket and shouting “stick em up” while robbing a bank can carry that sentence.
Is this draconian and breach an American’s right to bear arms. Yep – but how many kids get killed in your state every year because they or a playmate found daddy’s pistol in the nightstand?
Thank you for this: I have been getting increasingly purturbed by an essentially american response to a british incident. I have seen a number of posts (on a variety of blogs) that characterise the police as trigger happy racist thugs – not a perception of british police that I recognise.
Because our police are not generally armed, they tend to be more experienced at defusing situations and dont hold people at gunpoint for ordinary crimes. Every time a shot is fired, an investigative process takes place. I don’t live in London and I have only seen armed police on the streets of my town once in all of my 50 years.
This is a tragic mistake that shouldn’t have happened. I grieve for the victims family but am also sorry for the police involved who reacted to a high pressuse situation in the wrong way.
I am heartened by the police stating that they take full responsibility and apologising – not something we hear often in these days. On another blog, I saw a post invoking the names of Rodney King et al: I don’t recall immediate statements taking responsibility and admitting fault in those cases.