Sponsored Ad

Dismiss Notice
For fuller site visibility and advert-free browsing, simply log-in or register.

Breaking News - London Bridge gunfire

Discussion in 'Military News and Clips' started by Ninja_Stoker, Jun 3, 2017.

  1. Ninja_Stoker

    Ninja_Stoker Admin

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2007
    Posts:
    34,298
    One thing, mulling over these attacks, apart from the obvious (9/11, Boston Bombings, etc.,) what is interesting is the USA, despite their appalling record of mass shootings by lunatics and accidental gun deaths, with 6,469 already killed this year, they do not appear to have anywhere near as many "home grown" acts of terrorism.

    Wonder why this is? Is it because all police are armed? Is it because citizens have a right to self defence and can carry firearms? Are they doing something right that we are missing? If so, what?
     
  2. R

    R Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2008
    Posts:
    1,771
    Interestingly I know afew people in america that have saved their own lives through gun ownership, an example being when amphetamine addicts broke into a family friends house and were shot by the elderly occupant when they came into her bedroom with knives. The perpetrated were then linked to numerous violent robberies and crimes throughout the state, and had illegally entered the country from Mexico.

    I do find that more people seem to identify as Americans primarily once they have citizenship rather than their home country, for example someone telling me they were an american Latina. That might be a factor as they identify with the country and people, less than creating little multicultural segregated enclaves which seems more prominent in europe.
     
    • Gen Dit Gen Dit x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  3. wellmemedmyboy

    wellmemedmyboy Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2015
    Posts:
    459
    App Stage:
    Joining other service
    America is a true example of a melting pot not multiculturalism, from East to West every normal American is American and holds American values, people come for the American dream and as they say "you just hate us *text deleted* you aint U.S"
    I suppose many on the bridge may have wished to be conceal carrying, we are a disarmed populace and police in the face of extreme hatred and violence
     
  4. ThreadpigeonsAlpha

    ThreadpigeonsAlpha Royal Marines Commando

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2015
    Posts:
    4,334

    More people are killed by Prius' than by Guns in the US.

    Guns don't kill people, people kill people. If you look at violent crime rates, states with concealed and open carry have lower violent crime than states with strict gun laws.

    A lot of recent gun attacks have been in openly displayed "gun free zones". Which is madness, the advertise to everyone that the people inside are unarmed and easy prey.

    I admire the Americans with their no BS attitude to self defence and looking after your family. We can't carry anything in the name of defence, for fear of being locked up for possession of an offender weapon.

    It seems to be that it's just accepted that you get mugged/assaulted/raped and shouldn't fight back, or defend yourself or your family. Which is madness.

    Everyone has an inherent right to self defence. And by stripping away people's ability to defend themselves, leaves them at the mercy of criminals who have no regard for the laws that everyone else are following.
    Everyone is praising the 8 minutes it took for the police, but that's still 7 people dead. Yea fair play they responded well and fast but if people had CCW then things could be a lot different, same with Charlie Hebdo attacks and Rigby.

    There's numerous accounts where CCW have helped to prevent or lessen a violent attack. It's almost seen as a public duty to be able to defend yourself and those that can't defend themselves.
    There's an aspect of Sikhism that has an aspect of honour in defending those that can't defend themselves or the oppressed. We have had this attitude stripped from us in the UK.

    It's worth noting as well that German legislation in 1919 severely restricted gun ownership by private citizens. If the German people had the right to bear arms, could the outcome of the entire WW2 have been different?



    When the seconds count, the police are minutes away.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  5. Ninja_Stoker

    Ninja_Stoker Admin

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2007
    Posts:
    34,298
    What is interesting, is when this latest bunch of misfit nutters went on the rampage, the public started to fight back. In future I sincerely hope these misfits are thwarted and ripped apart by those they seek to terrorise.

    As for the US and the tens of thousands of people killed each year in shootings, I find it difficult to accept that as a by-product of the right to self defence. Much as I appreciate guns cannot be un-invented, if there were ten thousand Americans killed each year by terrorists, I doubt the general public would think it as acceptable as they currently seemingly find 30,000 annual road deaths and 10,000 shooting fatalities....but they still won't legislate the wearing of seatbelts.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Gen Dit Gen Dit x 2
  6. Fibonarchie

    Fibonarchie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2015
    Posts:
    957
    App Stage:
    Not Applied Yet
    As you say, guns are now so ingrained in America that they can never be removed owing to their availability (though I do believe access to explosives up to and including RPGs and mortars is ridiculous). If you were to illegalise them, criminals would still have them but the general populous would be defenceless. On the other end of the spectrum, I'm in favour of our fire arms laws as they prevent availability to criminals (though I'm given to understanding there's a seller in almost every Manchester estate). However, we are forbidden to have any form of defence (anything is designated an offensive weapon it is carried for self defence) which I do not support. I think the best system is similar to Germany where minor weapons are allowed such as stun guns, rubber bullets, blank firing guns, kubotans, APS batons, pepper spray (which is a class 1 firearm here!!) which allows self defence but limits attack potential of assailants. Seems good to me.
     
    • Gen Dit Gen Dit x 1
  7. TangoWhisky

    TangoWhisky Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2014
    Posts:
    188
    App Stage:
    Joining other service
    Just to clarify, I am posting the following to stimulate debate and discussion. Under British law, we have a right to self defence using 'reasonable force'. What are people's thoughts on how the justice system would respond in a hypothetical situation such as this:
    • Members of the public fight back against a person or persons committing an act of terror.
    • Said attackers are armed with knives, they are not wearing fake suicide vests.
    • The public remove the knives from the attackers and incapacitate them. The attackers are now posing little/no threat.
    • If the attackers were to receive fatal injuries (from those members of the public defending themselves) after the threat they posed had been removed, would the public's use of force have been 'reasonable'?
    • Would the CPS bring charges against the defenders for an excessive use of force? Considering the threat from the attackers had been removed, can self defence still be claimed?
    I hope my thought trail is clear and that I haven't misinterpreted any of the legislation.

    Thoughts?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Fibonarchie

    Fibonarchie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2015
    Posts:
    957
    App Stage:
    Not Applied Yet
    It depends on evidence. If terrorists attack with knives, are tackled by public and end up with stab wounds - no action could be taken as there would be NO proof of wrong doing (they could have stabbed themselves ect). If there was a video in which the public tackled them and stabbed them in the fray, they would be protected by the law as a)they have produced a defence of reasonable force b)they have acted in the heat of the moment and c)it was defence. If said video showed the attacker seem to attempt surrender (back away or whatever) and the public member continued and stabbed them they MAY still be eligible for heat of the moment and under the circumstances would probably be ok. If, as I guess you meant, the attackers were clearly ended (held down, unconscious ect) and the public member just walked up and stabbed them, THEN it would technically be murder. Defences to this would be:
    1)If the public member had immediately prior been involved in the altercation they could claim they were unaware of circumstances;
    2)There is provision in times of trauma for temporary 'loss of control' (much cooler sounding name in law).

    My guess would be that there would be an investigation which would then be either dropped in public interest or found in favour by police. Personally I find it quite unlikely that someone would go to jail for it but frankly it wouldn't surprise me, the way we treat terrorists.
     
  9. TangoWhisky

    TangoWhisky Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2014
    Posts:
    188
    App Stage:
    Joining other service
    I appreciate where you're coming from, but to play devils advocate:

    These terrorists seek to undermine our way of life and our libertarian society. Essentially, the basis of the freedom that they hate is the rule of law. If you were the CPS and were dealing with such a situation where someone had overstepped self defence, do you drop charges due to the circumstances? Wouldn't doing so undermine the rule of law that these people are trying to undermine? Do you prosecute to send a message that nobody is above the law and no amount of terror will change that? Do you prosecute to enforce the message that we will not lower ourselves to their standards?
     
  10. Ninja_Stoker

    Ninja_Stoker Admin

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2007
    Posts:
    34,298
    To be honest it's pretty much impossible to hypothesise what the law would decide.

    Not so long ago many would've thought it unlikely a frontline combatant could be convicted for murder after killing an adversary who, only seconds earlier, had tried to kill him.

    The only defence against such lunacy is to either plead temporary insanity yourself or claim at the time you believed your attacker was still a threat. Or both.
     
    • Gen Dit Gen Dit x 1
  11. Fibonarchie

    Fibonarchie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2015
    Posts:
    957
    App Stage:
    Not Applied Yet
    No, I'm quite with you. If it went to court, I think they would be convicted, probably of manslaughter under plea of temporary insanity. However its my belief that police would be loath to follow the case. After all, they are only average guys like you and me.
     
  12. Chelonian

    Chelonian Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Posts:
    8,207
    In this specific circumstance prosecution would almost certainly be a consequence. Would such a case go to trial? The probability is high. Would a jury convict? Anyone's guess.
     
  13. ThreadpigeonsAlpha

    ThreadpigeonsAlpha Royal Marines Commando

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2015
    Posts:
    4,334
    And look what we have today.


    Oh look Sadiq Kahn trying to get more lefty BS in. It’s got nothing to do with hating our diversity. (Which is arguably the cause/contributing factor towards these actions.)

    Absolute outstanding effort by the members of public though. Bloody good show.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  14. Chelonian

    Chelonian Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Posts:
    8,207
    Even though the story continues to evolve at this early stage it appears that there was a cracking response from members of the public before emergency services arrived.
     
  15. SarriesFan

    SarriesFan Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2017
    Posts:
    65
    App Stage:
    Not Applied Yet
    Those MOPs deserve a medal and money for what they did today and thank God old bill slotted him straight away.

    Now I'm going getting on my soapbox. First of all the media are absolute *text deleted*s! Today they will praise my colleagues for their actions but tomorrow it will be the same old crap about us abusing power and being racist, we'll have the same *text deleted* said to us by the public as well. Secondly I'm fed up with the MP's and their empty words of "support" because I can guarantee you that they will find any reason to find fault in our actions and so will the IOPC. Thirdly I'm pissed off with society in general. People are scared to travel in London, why?! This country has suffered much worse at a higher frequency for decades when the IRA were active on maimland UK soil before I was even alive. The situation won't improve. It'll only get worse.

    Rant over, and I'm really controlling myself
     
    • Disagree. Disagree. x 1
  16. rkec

    rkec Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2008
    Posts:
    268
    Absolutely spot on. Global message sent to the rest of those thinking of trying it.

    Same with MPs getting blown up in the 70's and 80's. Suddenly one gets killed in 2016 and we must all bow, light candles and worship at the feet of the left.

    Sadly I believe you are right. I can't see anything changing this side of some serious civil unrest. I'll be honest, I'm already formulating my own list of offences that will get an instant not guilty from me regardless of the evidence if I'm on a jury.
     
  17. Johnny_Anonie

    Johnny_Anonie Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2019
    Posts:
    705
    The offender not only stabbed members of the public, he also engaged in life threatening behaviour in order to create a situation where a police officer would shoot him. Whether or not this terrorist fully appreciated the consequences of his actions he played with fire and got burnt. He gave the AFO no choice but to kill him.

    The most effective way to minimise the threat posed by a suspected suicide bomber is to fire without warning, aiming multiple shots at the brain stem to minimise the risk of detonation of a bomb. Something Armed response officers train for but thankfully are rarely caused to carry out.

    Those involved in armed deployments are required to make critical judgements in the most difficult of situations and often in life-threatening circumstances. Their contribution in helping to resolve these situations and in providing protection to the public and other police officers should be highly valued by all.

    Police officers have a positive duty to protect the public from harm – a duty of care to all involved must be the overriding consideration. When a Firearms Officer is involved in a shooting there are strict guidelines and procedures in place to ensure that what has happened is thoroughly investigated. This isn’t a witch hunt, it’s the law. When a Police Officer is involved in a shooting they will be investigated with regards to their actions, and ultimately to determine if they acted within the Law and their training.

    A Post incident manager would be deployed (Usually an Inspector) who is there for the officers welfare. Then a written account from police witness’ at the scene who clarifies who was present, what their roles were and who fired shots.
    A solicitor will be called to represent officers that have discharged their firearms, and others who request advice given their role in the incident (Tactical or Strategic Commanders)
    Officers involved in the shooting would have a private consultation with their lawyer.
    All officers involved would see a doctor. This is to ascertain if they have any injuries.

    Police shootings are very rare thankfully. When they do occur they change many peoples lives forever, including the officers.

    Thoughts with all effected.
     
    • Like Like x 9
    • Gucci Info Gucci Info x 3
    • Disagree. Disagree. x 1
  18. sharpe

    sharpe Active Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2019
    Posts:
    196
    App Stage:
    Parent
    Some truly inspiring scenes of members of the public engaging this guy today. Police had no chance to do anything other than deliver deadly force. Rules of engagement are so different to my day but now they just can’t be passive reactive anymore
     
    • Like Like x 5
  19. Ninja_Stoker

    Ninja_Stoker Admin

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2007
    Posts:
    34,298
    Couldn't agree more.

    Like many of us, I'd like to imagine I'd run towards the attacker rather than away. In truth, I'm not sure.

    Those on the scene presented with the opportunity rapidly unfolding in front of them, who have my upmost admiration, acted upon instinct and will, I'm sure, be suitably recognised an honoured for their fantastic efforts in due course.

    A coin attached to a coloured ribbon is the traditional way of recognising their bravery. In truth however, it seems such a paltry reward - particularly for their loved-ones in the event they do not survive their selfless act of heroism.
     
    • Like Like x 6
  20. rkec

    rkec Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2008
    Posts:
    268
    No good deed goes unpunished though. This country has a habit of punishing people who do the right thing and act in the countries best interests.

    I see there are reports now that the guy was released from prison for terrorism. Seriously what is the point anymore? The game is stacked against us.