In Florida, a man who was pulled over in a routine traffic stop ended up killing the traffic cop who stopped him. The deputy was shot eight times, including once behind his right ear at close range. Another deputy was wounded and a police dog killed. A statewide manhunt ensued. The man was found hiding in a wooded area with his gun. SWAT team officers fired and hit him 68 times. The media asked why they shot him 68 times. Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd (pic), told the Orlando Sentinel...
"That's all the bullets we had!"
..and Rose West sits in luxury playing game boy and demanding bigger puddings.......
Bring back the death penalty.
More details here:
Now that's what i call policing! No fannying around. Unlike here. Could you imagine the situation here:- on the scene ACAS, Liberty, Amnesty International- then the police. Maybe with fire-arms. More than likely with a speedometer.
Isn't this a take on the wonderful Private Eye cover when the SAS shot an IRA suspect in Gibralter 8 times. I seem to recall the same question being posed (via a bubble) eliciting the reply "We ran out of bullets"
That will teach him. He shouldn't have shot the dog.
It happens in London as well. One of the terrorists at the Iranian Embassy siege in 1980 was shot 27 times by the SAS. I don't think they actually ran out of ammunition. Probably thought that was just about enough to make sure that he was dead.
exactly - stuff the plod - US ones are even more ignorant and much more cowardly than they are in the UK - its justice for killing the dog.
11,000 gun deaths in USA per annum, about 100 here. What on earth are you Tories doing pimping USA gun madness?
This is where the right to bear arms leads. Inexorably.
It wouldn't work here. The police don't seem to be able to get the swat team thing right. Instead they all tool up in their custom baseball caps and race round to ten year-old boys' bedrooms and confiscate replica guns or arrest women for waving air rifles at the local delinquents, or imprison farmers for shooting burglars.
At least in America, if you are scum, you die like scum and too bloody right you should.
Don't be so cynical Wrinkled Weasel
Our police managed to handcuff a 76year old pensioner who was peacfully refusing to pay his council tax yesterday. They can be quite tough when push comes to shove.
Before everyone goes off talking about the death penalty and armed police does anyone remember Charles DeMenezes?
That's the flip side of getting it wrong.
It warmed the cockles of my heart. Once the call goes out "Officer down!" there are no rules any more. And that goes for killing the canine officer, too!
A very, very fine job of policing.
May I invite that SWAT team over here, rendezvous: Westminster?
ps: that wasn't you Verity, was it?
Maybe you can make this into a feature, Iain, a story a day of police killings that your regulars can chuckle over.
Excellent post. What a clever way to smoke out the depraved right wing "hangers and floggers" who occasionally drift onto (or in Verity's case have part colonised) your Blog.
Just to make Verity's day even further she might like to take a look at a photo of the victim:
Yes, Judith. It was me.
Chris Paul writes in hushed shock: 11,000 gun deaths in USA per annum.
Out of 302m people, I personally don't think that is excessive. What provincial jerks like Chris Paul can't get their single brain cell around is, most of those deaths are of perps.
That fellow in this report will be included in next year's figures, yet clearly, he was an oxygen thief whose time had come. He murdered two police officers.
In the majority of states in the US, you can shoot an intruder in your home. So all those scumbags who get shot dead while in commission of a crime are also included in those figures. There are a lot of them killed in convenience stores by quick-witted employees, too. They will be included in that 11,000. I would rather see a dead perp than a dead innocent person.
BTW, in the city I lived in in Texas, the police always advise people: "Shoot to kill. Don't shoot to wound, because once he's recovered, he'll sue you, saying you invited him in to help you move a heavy piece of furniture; or to have a drink because you said you were lonely."
Shoot to kill and all you end up with is a statistic.
You British had your rights surgically removed by Tony Blair because he was afraid of anyone acting for themselves. Everything should be decided by the state, headed by him. And what cowed puppies you have turned out to be. No outrage. Just a shrug and a sigh.
In more bracing countries, the police licence guns and they trust the citizenry to use them for self-protection. (Perps don't have licensed guns, needless to say.)
Welcome to tabloid blogging
Do you mean to say that as a senior police officer he failed to extend his deepest sympathies to the family of the deceased murderer? Was there no similar expression of condolence, plus a promise to bring to justice those wanton police killers from the DA's office? I think Sir Ian Blair and Sir Ken MacDonald ought to get over there ASAP and start showing them how it should be done!
I dunno about Verity Paddy, but I certainly enjoyed seeing it....and I wasn't surprised either! Do you take something Paddy to be such a smug git? Haven't you got any sport or branding to wrie about. You are so predicatable in your postings that you are now a real bore!
Paddy Briggs - "Just to make Verity's day even further she might like to take a look at a photo of the victim".
I went to your link and many thanks! I would say that his hairdo alone was a crime, but he murdered two police officers and the levity would be out of place.
I am afraid you have failed in English comprehension again though, Paddy Briggs. First you don't understand that "phobia" means fear. Now you don't understand that a criminal who murdered two on-duty police officers and then gets shot dead in retaliation is not "the victim".
The victims are the two dead officers. The fellow in receipt of 68 messages from the police force was the perp, or murdering scum.
I think you need to look up a course for remedial English, Paddy Briggs. I sincerely hope you are not speaking your first language.
Did he die??????????????????
Anonymous 3:12 - "Did he die??????????????????"
You should hear the "99" call !
http://www.nbc5i.com/news/5289996/detail.html (unfortunately parts are bleeped out, link to raw tape busted).
November 9, 2005
For immediate release
Suspect shot by homeowner after hiding from police in her home
Arlington police have arrested a man who was shot by a homeowner after he attempted to hide from officers in her closet. The suspect, Christopher Lessner, 22, is being treated at Harris Hospital in Fort Worth for non-life threatening injuries. The Chevrolet pickup he was driving was reported stolen out of Euless. After conferring with the Tarrant County District Attorney's office, Arlington investigators plan to charge Lessner with unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, evading arrest, criminal mischief and criminal trespass.
The incident started at about 11:15 p.m. Tuesday Nov. 8 when an officer in the 700 block of westbound Interstate 30 attempted to stop a black Chevrolet pickup for speeding. The driver of the pickup exited at Fielder Road, turned north, and drove onto Parkcrest Terrace. In the 1700 block of Parkcrest Terrace, the suspect jumped from the vehicle while it was still moving and fled on foot from the officer. The suspect climbed an eight-foot fence, jumped over a chain link fence and ran into a heavily wooded area. The officer chased the suspect and called in his location and description to dispatchers. The suspect was described as a white male with no shirt and gray sweatpants, about 5 foot 11 inches, 160 pounds, with short hair.
Additional officers, the Arlington canine unit and a Fort Worth helicopter were called to assist in the search. During the search, officers heard a gunshot and were told by dispatchers that a shooting had occurred less than a mile south of their location on Northaven Court. The suspect in the shooting was wearing clothing similar to the missing suspect and matched his description.
Once officers arrived at the home in the 1700 block of Northaven Court, the suspect had fled. The 66-year-old female homeowner told officers that she got up at about 12:30 a.m. to let her dog out. The woman said she usually carries a handgun because she is afraid of coyotes in the area attacking her dogs. The woman's 28-year-old granddaughter told her that she heard noises and glass breaking. As the woman was letting her dog into the backyard, she saw a muddy footprint on the back porch that she hadn't seen before. She then noticed that her cats were out of the room that they usually slept in and that items in another room had been moved.
As she was checking the house with her gun (a .38 revolver) still in her hand, she found the suspect hiding under a coat in a closet near the front door. The woman told her granddaughter to call 911. The suspect leapt out at the woman. They exchanged words and he attempted to take the gun from her. The woman shot the man in the upper leg and fired a second shot, but missed. The suspect fled and officers found him a few houses away on an upstairs balcony.
Arlington police do not anticipate filing charges against the 66-year-old homeowner By law, citizens have the right to protect themselves if they fear serious bodily injury or death or fear for the serious bodily injury or death of a third person.
The "Victim" was the police officer doing his duty. You are referring to a Jamaican; a serial offender who was shot to death because he shot two policmen and a dog.
I don't believe in the death penalty, or flogging, as it happens, but I do believe in the right of every individual to defend themselves. On the balance of probabilities, this bit of pond life was not going to come quietly, so therefore he got what was coming to him. I really don't care about him or de Menezes, who incidentally was an illegal non-contributing alien who should not have been in this country in the first place. Had he been a law abiding citizen, he would not have been shot. It was a terrible mistake, made in a fevered climate.
I feel deeply for those two police officers who died doing there duty, who work to protect total filth from harming their community.
You, Paddy Briggs, should be ashamed of yourself.
Gun restrictions started in the UK in 20s&30s largely because HMG was afraid of unrest in the General Strike & perhaps spillover from the nascent USSR. Rules got tighter after WW2 due to a spate of armed crime by (mostly) returnees. Things then stayed pretty much the same until the hysterical overreaction to Dunblane.
verity, in Texas police do NOT licence guns, If I want one, I can go buy one (background check applies). The only licence required is if you want to carry one concealed (CCW/CHL permit), then there's training, a test, FBI background check & then the licence (for a fee). And before the shrieks of horror go up about this, it's worth noting that car-jackings and home invasions (a rising rate in UK), to give just two examples, have plummetted since that law was passed in 1995.
Those who live by the pork sword, should die by the pork sword!
Yak 40 - thanks! Stories about Texas warm the cockles of my heart.
You're correct, of course, they don't actually licence guns, but nowadays you do have to undergo a background check. You can no longer walk into a gun shop, buy a gun and walk out with it. It was George Bush as Governor who passed the right to "carry concealed", if memory serves. A very fine man.
When I had an intruder late at night and called the police, the first thing they asked me was "Where do you keep your gun?" I showed them that it was in the drawer of a bedside table, and they said, "For tonight, keep it out on the top."
The didn't catch the perp who had been creeping around my yard and trying to look in the window, but the moron came back after they'd gone. I called again, and this time, it was two squad cars, a couple of the officers armed with rifles, so they were clearly snipers or professional marksmen or something.
Again, they saw signs of someone having been creeping around the back of the house, but again, he seemed to have a wall he could jump over into a neighbouring house - perhaps his own home.
On this occasion, the police warned me to shoot kill, because if they recover, they can lie. They also said, "If you shoot him, before you call us, make sure his feet are over the threshhold."
By now, I was such a bundle of nerves that never mind sleep, I couldn't even close my eyes long enough to blink. I walked around the house carrying the gun.
Unbelievably, obviously getting a thrill from the drama he was creating and knowing he had a bolt hole, he came back and I saw a figure near the back door. "Feet over the threshhold, feet over the threshhold."
Anyway, I called the police again, and this time two more cars arrived speedily, plus a police helicopter that flew low and floodlight my garden. Again, footprints and disturbed plants, but the perp had fled.
I couldn't stand it any more, and called a friend at 3 a.m. and he came over to pick me up with his gun.
Police response times were absolutely excellent, as was the police attitude. They are 100% on the side of the complainant.
WW- Agree about de Menezes, as I've said several times.
Verity said ... 'I am afraid you have failed in English comprehension again though, Paddy Briggs. First you don't understand that "phobia" means fear.'
As usual, you are too ready to jump in and wrongly criticise other people's use of English.
Most dictionaries define 'phobia' as "extreme fear OR HATRED" of something.
My personal favourite american firearmism is the tank commander in gulf one who when asked by a beeboid journo how he could differntiate between friendly and unfriendly Arabs replied with...
'Any body comes near my tank with a tea towel on there head gets it'
4:54 - Then "most dictionaries" are wrong. (How many did you check, by the way?) According to my etymological dictionary (Partridge): "from the Greek phobos" a phobia ia s dread, a fear, a fear-determined aversion.
I suspect your "most dictionaries" are fairly recent and have, incorrectly, adopted definitions from the illiterates in New Labour.
I have said it over and over and I shall say it again, get yourself an identity - then the rest of us might start to treat your comments with respect.
While you remain just anonther "anon" you may as well piss in the wind.
WW writes: "get yourself an identity - then the rest of us might start to treat your comments with respect."
Not me. It's probably Paddy Briggs defending himself anonymously.
Anyway, his statement is incorrect.
Great, extra-judicial killings! Yay! Good one Iain, that really sounds like a good source of humour and something that the right should be celebrating. I am sure you found de Menezes getting five bullets in the head equally delightful.
Don't be such a prat.
Paddy Briggs - I'm sure your concern and compassion for the criminal do you credit, what a shame you can't spare some for the victims and their families.
There's a story in the newspapers here today about a law-abiding citizen who politely asked three yobs not to use foul language in front of his children. In return, they attacked him and kicked his head 32 times which effectively turned his brain to mush. He now lives in a nursing home. The yobs? One is out of prison after a few months and the others will no doubt speedily follow.
Tell me, does that strike you as justice or even a deterrent for criminals? Perhaps you could take an interest in the welfare of the yobs still in jail - you're not likely to have any sympathy for the victim, his wife or children, are you?
Timur Leng - I have no feeling one way or another about de Menezes. He was in the country illegally. If he'd left when his visa expired, seven years earlier, he could have been sipping rum punches on Copacabana Beach even as I type.
Instead, he paid to have a counterfeit stamp put in his passport and stayed on for seven more years - presumably not as a taxpayer.
Certainly, the death penalty for overstaying a visa would have been a trifle harsh. But, as you know, the point is, had he obeyed the law and not been in Britain, he would not be dead today. Unless he'd been shot by the police in Rio, of course.
Re the recently deceased perp in the current case, it is fairly well known in the US - even to people with fanciful, self-regarding hairdos - that if you shoot a police officer, you have eaten your last Big Mac.
Paddy Briggs, thanks for the link: I'm glad he's dead but was hoping that it would be a picture of his PG Tips-style corpse (with all those perforations).
But you said it was a picture of the victim, and I can't see the dead or injured coppers (or dog) anywhere on the page. You must have been mistaken as there were no pictures of any 'victims' to be seen on your link.
"Arlington police do not anticipate filing charges against the 66-year-old homeowner By law, citizens have the right to protect themselves if they fear serious bodily injury or death or fear for the serious bodily injury or death of a third person."
How astoundingly sensible! Why does no one ever talk about loosening the ridiculous gun laws on this side of the pond? I think you could make quite a sensible case for it, starting with the fact that before 1920 there were no gun laws to speak of in Britain.
6:59 - I can only speak for Texas, where I lived, but I believe similar laws apply in Colorado, New Hampshire and the other 40 or so states that allow gun ownership. If someone has entered your home without your invitation, you are free to shoot them and kill them. (All the perps are very well aware of this, which is why there is not that much breaking and entering in Texas.) If you shoot an intruder to death (preferred), the police will ask you to come down to the station and make a statement and sign it. And that about wraps up the paperwork.
The weight of the law is on the side of the householder and the law-abiding in Texas.
It baffles me that the British sneer at American laws. They are like beaten, cowed dogs. Servile. Sniggering at the freedoms (most) Americans enjoy to defend themselves, their homes and their families.
Among all the hysteria here, let's just look at a couple of facts:
Hot (ie when the householder is at home) burglaries in the US almost zero. Hot burglaries in UK 50%.
Insurance rates in areas of US with more restrictive gunlaws - much higher than those in similar areas but with less restrictive gun laws.
And the final point: GFW's in "gun crazy" areas don't put their money where their mouths are. While happily benefitting from the lower crime rates and lower insurance costs their "gun nut" neighbours bestow upon them, none have yet to live up to their consciences and place signs on their properties advertising that there are no guns around.
Oh and as for de Menezes. As far as I know he had done nothing worse than become an illegal immigrant. The scrote in Florida killed two cops. And a dog. I think most people can differentiate between the two and dedcide which deserved a cap (or 68) in his ass and which didn't.
Anyone who can't really needs some help.
"Timur Leng - I have no feeling one way or another about de Menezes. He was in the country illegally. If he'd left when his visa expired, seven years earlier,"
His visa couldn't have expired 7 years earlier. He entered Britain in 2002 on a visitor's visa, later changed to a student's visa which expired in 2003, and was killed in 2005.
The British would hold a pointless and inconclusive public inquiry costing tens of millions of taxpayers money, so at the end of it they could say "lessons must be learned".
The Americans are far more sensible; he killed a copper, they killed him back - case closed.
Remittance Man - Correct about gun ownership in the United States.
But re Menezes, no one here has suggested that he should have been shot for being an illegal immigrant. Several, including me, have pointed out that had he not been an illegal immigrant, he would be alive and well today. It's a passing observation.
9:35 - OK, I was misremembering the dates as they're not relevant. If he hadn't been in Britain illegally, he wouldn't have been on that tube and been shot. That is all.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this thread, which is the shooting of the jerk in Arlington who murdered a police officer and a canine officer and wounded another human officer. One more oxygen thief bites the dust.
Gun owning states have a robust attitude to law enforcement. Blair and Brown use/used lawlessness as a weapon against the citizenry.
It's amusing how Americans feel the need to lecture other countries on gun crime, when the UK gun murder rate is approx 40 times lower per capita, and the general murder rate 4 times lower (the disparity being because hardly any UK murders are via guns, but something like 2/3 of US murders are)
Oh, and the UK gun murder is dropping btw - it was down from 75, to 50 in the last two years we have stats for. By comparison, New York, the safest large city in the US, has something like 300-400 per year (can't be bothered searching for exact figures).
My computer suddenly malfunctioned and wiped everything off the screen for a split second, so don't know whether my previous comment will be posted. Apologies if it is.
A silly anonymous - 11:32 p.m. wrote in all his ignorance: "It's amusing how Americans feel the need to lecture other countries on gun crime," ...
Could you give us a few links?
I've never heard of an American who had the faintest interest in gun crime anywhere outside the United States, but Anonymous apparently runs across them all the time on the internet.
Anonymous - Americans aren't as interested in you as you are in them. They think Britain is Four Weddings And A Funeral. Hugh Grant. They know nothing of feral Britain and wouldn't spend 10 seconds on the internet reading about it. They couldn't be less interested in us. Plse do provide some links where Americans "feel the need to lecture", you silly little provincial.
It's interesting the way British people talk about gun crime. It's often a very objective view, but it's based on virtually no information (as in occurrences) at all.
I can't help but feel that you might change your tune somewhat (maybe even completely) if you lived in a country which actually had a gun crime problem, rather than hypothesising in a rather paranoid manner.
verity said...A silly anonymous - 11:32 p.m. wrote in all his ignorance: "It's amusing how Americans feel the need to lecture other countries on gun crime," ...
I think Anon 11.32 may be assuming that you are American.
A propos nothing in particular, I recall an anecdote from "That Ol' Ace in the Hole" by Annie Proulx, about a penitentiary chef. With a mixture of pomposity and sang-froid, a condemned prisoner asked for his last meal to be pheasant (or something). The chef was not impressed.
"The SOB got a cheesburger like everybody else. And if I'd-a-had my way, he would have had a road kill."
The American CJ system has its faults like any other, but that line always raises a smile.
weasel wrote "You, Paddy Briggs, should be ashamed of yourself."
Eh, no he won't. He also threatened posters here on this blog to denounce them to the authorities, for politically incorrect thought crimes.
Paddy Briggs has not much left to be ashamed off...
6000 - It is no problem for the British to run off at the mouth about the United States despite being in possession only of information they have picked up on sitcoms and H'wood blockbusters - and sneering one-liners from alternative comedians.
They run over to Google and pick up statistics they don't understand - as in the Chris Paul above who cites 11,000 gun deaths a year. He doesn't understand that the majority of those deaths will be perps shot by police or citizens defending their property. If you naively Google "gun deaths", without understanding categories and degrees of gun deaths, you will get all gun deaths.
The fatuous sense of superiority manifested by so many posters on guns and the United States ignores the fact that those opining live in, essentially, save speed limit and parking enforcements, a lawless society and the citizen is helpless.
Try walking around the city centres in Manchester and Dallas and tell me where you feel safer and freer.
Anon @ 11:32
Who says I'm American? If you'd read the profile you'll see i'm a Brit in South Africa. A country where gun crime and murder is spiralling out of control, the police are patently useless and the government tries desperately to disarm the law abiding citizenry.
Last weekend there were three murders in Kleinkudoeskop (population <20,000). One victim was a church minister's wife who had her throat slit by burglars on Saturday afternoon. The other two were an elderly couple living in a supposedly secure old age home. They were killed by robbers on Saturday night. The security guard saw their car leaving at three in the morning but thought nothing of it!
Cops? Absolutely nowhere.
Now do you see why I own a couple of guns, one of which I keep on my person at all times?
Individual examples of violence are of no import, Remittance Man, in any country.
The issue is, the citizenry of a free country must have the right of self-defence. This means the ability to own a gun, legally, and to use it to defend oneself, one's family and one's property.
For the government to monopolise the defence of the citizenry is bullying and Fascist - even if they did so effectively.
That's the nub. The right to self-defence and not be dependent on the whims of any particular administration in any government.
And that is the nub of why over 40 American states think private gun ownerships is perfectly normal. Because it is the front line against an overmighty government.
In Britain, the citizen has no defence against the criminal, or the government.
True, but three individual examples (all decent, law abiding human beings by the way) in a small town over one weekend does illustrate he scale of the problem
The Remittance Man - No. The "scale of the problem" in S Africa or anywhere else is not the point.
The point is, it is the right of citizens to protect their own lives and property. If there is no problem, they will not need to exercise that right.
The important thing is the right, not "the scale of the problem", because that suggests some cut-off point at which a government can say, "Well, there's no problem, so no need for you to keep firearms."
The scale of the problem is absolutely irrelevant.
Post a Comment