QuakerInfo.com Forum

[Pulpculture]

A slant on firearms.....


We may have sat opposite each other in Meeting. Maybe you recognise me?

Maybe I was the guy you saw in the street threatening
to shoot somebody with a nine millimetre bullet?

Maybe I was the guy you saw rolling around on the floor,
smeared with blood, fighting with some other people?

Maybe you saw me in the doctor's surgery having my wounds looked at?

Maybe you and I stood chatting about world politics
in the 1980s as the cruise missiles trundled past us?

Maybe you saw me get hit on the head with a brick?

Maybe you saw me giving First Aid to a man
who had tried to spray me with bleach?

Maybe you recognised my face as the bloke you saw engulfed in a fire bomb?

Maybe you heard my shout 'CS spray, get back'?

Maybe you heard me telling people to get away
from the danger? (and then walk straight into it)

Maybe you saw me directing horses and dogs to keep rival football fans apart?

Maybe you heard the man threatening to stab me?

Maybe you heard the screams as I told a mother she would never see her son again?

Maybe I held your hand and prayed with you as you lay trapped in a wrecked car?

Maybe you saw me wrestle the mentally ill man to the ground?

Maybe you went past on the train and saw me protecting
the scene of a squashed, dismembered suicide?

Maybe you saw me stare disbelievingly at a murder victim?

Maybe you wonder what sort of person is involved in that
grubby reality, where violence and death are real?

That grubby reality, where kind words and listening have been tried and failed. That grubby reality where split second decisions and the use of force are (sometimes) the only way of staying alive and protecting others.

Maybe you wonder who is responsible for commanding police firearms officers?

Oh no, surely not...

Yes, I'm a fellow member of the Society of Friends, a Police Officer and a trained, authorised commander of firearms incidents.

Oh no, surely not...

That's not the sort of member we want

When there are 20 drunken people fighting outside a nightclub at 2am and somebody is getting kicked unconscious, it takes more than kind words, 'the light' and God's presence to protect people. Sometimes, force is necessary to stop fights, thereby preventing serious injuries and death. Sometimes, force is necessary to arrest people and get them into the criminal justice process.

Like you, I hope for a society where there is; no violence, no guns and no wrongdoing. In the meantime, my colleagues and I live in that grubby world of crime and violence where, sometimes, there is no choice but to use the minimum of force.

Should police officers be allowed to become members of the Society of Friends?

Maybe you think that it's OK for police officers to become members of the Society of Friends if they are not involved in firearms incidents? Well, it's not that simple – unarmed officers can become involved in firearms incidents at a moment's notice. They can be tasked to collect information from members of the public and this information can be critical to the correct deployment of firearms officers. Also, unarmed officers could find themselves used to create a 'cordon' to keep the public away from the scene where a dangerous person is being 'contained' by firearms officers.

If, like other Quakers, you find the firearms thing distasteful... Just imagine if a deranged person armed with a firearm broke into your Meeting for Worship and randomly shot somebody every 15 minutes. Do you expect the police officers responding to this incident to be armed only with 'the Light'? The police officers will come armed with firearms. They come armed not so they can kill people, but so that they can; communicate, negotiate, protect you, protect the public and protect themselves – and go home to their families at the end of their tour of duty.

You may be wondering how do I, as a Quaker, cope with:

*Anti-war protests?

*The use of force to make arrests?

*The carriage and use of firearms?

With the anti-war protests, I have no problems of conscience or faith. I see my role as a referee. I believe I am there to allow both sides to carry out their democratic rights. The military to carry out the will of the state and the protesters to carry out their right to protests. (Remember, in other countries Quaker protests against the military would be met with abduction, torture and execution). I am pleased if the protesters are able to make their point without being banned or interfered with (as may happen in a Central American country). Whilst I am greatly troubled by war and all the preparations for it, I consider my role to be essential in allowing the protesters to exercise their lawful, democratic rights.

With regards to the use of force to make arrests, I am totally committed to making sure that the minimum force is used in the arrest and detention of suspects. I expect my staff to use good communication skills to resolve situations. However, if they are left with no alternative but to use force, to protect themselves or others, I expect them to be decisive, utterly professional and to use the absolute minimum of force.

The police use and carriage of firearms causes me no problems of conscience or faith. To me, the firearms and less than lethal options, such as baton rounds (plastic bullets) are vital pieces of equipment. This equipment is used in a defensive mode and allows officers to carry out their duties, with an increased chance of survival against an armed suspect. I enjoy the reward of safely arresting a dangerous suspect and the firearms team going home to their families, rather than the mortuary.

As an authorised firearms commander I am privy to the initial debrief of firearms operations carried out throughout England and Wales. The tales of bravery and restraint shown by firearms officers are breathtaking. Many are the occasions when they could have discharged their firearms, within the law and procedure. Instead, they take incredible risks in order that suspects may live.

I have been prompted to write this article by recent developments within my Monthly Meeting, where a long-standing Friend raised a concern over my suitability for membership, due to my involvement in the police carriage and use of firearms. I have received genuine support from many Friends for my chosen career, whilst a small minority of Friends display a polite coldness, prejudice and ignorance about my career. I have heard of other police officers receiving a similar response from their meetings.

I am left wondering, what sort of people does the Society of Friends want as members?

The writer is a serving police officer and is a trained, authorised commander of police firearms incidents. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own and are not those of a particular police force.


Courtesy of The Friend
_________________
.


I said don't forget Burma!

[sorianofan]

That is very well thought out. Because one should always anticipate tyranny, I see no problem with an armed citizenry. Guns themselves do not create moral implications for the owner.
_________________
Cats rule and that is the truth.

[Anthony]

I don't think it was expected that every Quakers would be a conscientious objector during the two world wars; however, it's not too difficult to understand the concern about guns. Surely it's a matter off individual conscience; is one able to request a transfer to another unit rather than work directly with guns? - even now the vast majority of British police are unharmed. Most Britons disdain and fear guns, we have never been a gun culture, but the times are a changing.

Does any member of a police force have the right to conscientious objection? Is it acceptable for a Quaker to be involved with the use of guns in law enforcement?

[wsamuel]

The traditional Quaker testimony is specifically against war. I'm not aware of any Friends body which has come out against armed police. It's a matter of individual conscience. Many Friends are pacifists, and would not engage in any profession which required carrying a gun and possible us of it on people. But that goes beyond the testimony as generally expressed in Quaker disciplines.

There has been some controversy in recent years among Friends about the use of armed forces termed police in international conflicts. In the USA, the Friends Committee on National Legislation, the Quaker lobby, has favored this, but this stance has shocked many Quakers.

Where is the line between an army and a police force? That's sometimes a difficult one to draw, but this question isn't raised by the ordinary police force we have traditionally known.
_________________
Bill Samuel, Webservant, QuakerInfo.com

[CelticNorth]

It should be acceptible that membership in all police forces be open to not only Quakers, but all religious faiths. It is the community which empowers and makes up the ranks of these units, with many departments utilizing community service officers as public education and crime intervention specialists. To not have a Quaker presence would be to abandon community service in one of its most crucial departments. Law enforcement is community service, and should reflect the community it serves.

[Anthony]

I have a question: why do police shoot to kill and not to wound? There have been several incidents in Britain, over the last few years, when police have deliberately shot dead someone who was later discovered to be innocent. One person was shot because he was simply carrying a table leg that was thought to be gun. Why are people not shot to be disabled? Could the young Brazilian, shot dead at point blank range in London, not have been shot in one of his joints instead of the head?

Alternatively, why do we not see more use of stun-guns, particularly for close proximity confrontation, instead of shooting people dead?

[Pulpculture]

It is difficult to shoot to wound someone. As an officer your life (or someone else) is in danger and that is when the decision to kill is taken. If officers tried to wound they might not wound sufficiently and the person could then kill others. We are all used to seeing people die in movies and in the real world it more often than not isn't anything like that. I have been on a shift when a man was running amok in a town with a large jungle knife. He was CS sprayed and still he continued. He then attacked a patrol car forcing the 'sword' through the roof of the car many times missing the officer’s head by inches. THe police car reversed and drove him through a glass bus shelter and still he got up. Another police car then drove into him whilst officers with riot shields pinned him to the ground. Taking life is always our last decision. Firearms officers (as we have in the UK) have set procedures to adhere to. When the person oversteps the mark they are shot. The alleged offender has ample chances to comply.

Stuart the two incidents you have highlighted are unusual ones. We can only go by info in the media. The newspapers seem to have only discussed the bits that make these cases appear a controversial case. The chap with the chair leg was behaving in a most erratic manner in the bar he was drinking in and (from what I have read boasted about it being a weapon) people in the bar were perturbed by his actions and phoned the police. The officers therefore had information along the lines of - Man in pub (therefore possibly intoxicated!) and carrying a bag with a possible gun in it. They confronted the man and he started to level the bag in a manner that would make them think it was a gun. Split second decision for the poor officers and the man is now dead.

Regarding the man shot in the head 8 times in the head at point blank range on the tube train - this is the only way to deal with a suspected suicide bomber in a public place with members of the public around. Any other action from the officers could have lead to the man detonating a device on his person.

Don't get me wrong I am not condoning any of the above actions of the officers or the people involved however the media never reports all the facts.

Stun guns are being used more however they are carried by specialist firearms units (as officers are not routinely armed in the UK). The specialist units are thin on the ground in fact you would be amazed if you knew how many were on duty at any one time and the geography they had to cover. (I am of course not referring to Manchester or the Met (London forces)).
_________________
.


I said don't forget Burma!

[Anthony]

There was also the case a few years ago when a man was shot dead whilst sitting in his car at the traffic lights but it turned out to be a case of mistaken identity. There have been several recent cases of people being shot dead because it was 'thought' they had guns in their possession, but several of these turned out to have been replica guns. I find it very difficult to accept that skilled marksmen (as we are told that the police marksmen are) cannot target legs or arms, etc.

[Pulpculture]

If you were to hit someones leg they could still shoot you. To hit someones arm you would have to shatter the bone. Even a muscle shot in the arm could allow them to still turn and fire at you. If the officer is using a handgun then accuracy is even harder.

The other factor is these officers are making split second decisions. Decisions of a magnitude that most people will never have to make. One error an the officer is dead. Deciding if the handgun the suspect has is a replica or if they intend to use it are big decisions when their own lives are seriously at risk.

Not a job I'd like to do!
_________________
.


I said don't forget Burma!

[Anthony]

So, Matthew, it is shoot to kill.

[Shay]

It is shoot to kill, however, it's shoot to KILL, not shoot to mortally wound, which is the other problem with shooting to wound- shot in the gut is a nasty way to die, so is bleeding out from a major leg wound.

I don't know if you've ever shot a gun, but there are two reasons to shoot for the chest rather than an extremity:

1) The chest area moves slower and is more predictable based on body language than arms and legs to hit
2) Bullets generally don't come through the chest and hit someone behind them
2a) Since arms and legs move more, you're paying attention to the movement and your aim rather than what's behind them- which may be a person or gas tank or whatever.

I agree that the police should have the discretion to shoot to protect citizens, however I think the entrenched racism in most sectors of at least the American and probably European life make the decision biased in favor of white folks and taint the officer's decisions in most cases- but both problems are being worked on, I would hope, from the societal level as well as the precinct/station/etc training and atmosphere.

[Little Nell]

What a very thought-provoking thread.

I am saddened by the sight of armed policemen in the streets of London. I know that the heightened alert following the recent bombings has caused this, but although many people I know claim that the sight of policemen with guns has made them feel more secure, I feel very uneasy.

Once you arm the police and provide them with a shoot to kill policy (and I fully understand that it would be impracticable and dangerous to try to shoot to disable), inevitably innocent people will be shot in error, just as in war many soldiers are killed by "friendly fire".

We live in difficult times. I know that my first reaction, should my children ever be threatened, would be to protect them with every power available to me, including violence. But I also believe that violence isn't an answer.

nell

[Anthony]

Hi Shay,

I detest guns, even for shooting animals, let alone people - there is only one function of a gun and that is to kill or maim. Ban them all, stop making them - a gun culture breeds guns. We rarely had problems with them in the UK until quite recently - our cops had truncheons, and that's all they needed. I'm not sure what went wrong. It all seemed to start when we abolished capital punishment, however, as I'm against this also, it's not a considered solution. Anyway, perhaps I'm being too simplistic.

[CelticNorth]

The American position on firearms is articulated in the Bill of Rights because of the abuses of George IV. Groups like the National Rifle Association remind us that first and foremost, an individual has a right to protect ones hearth, home and person from unwarranted intrusion when they feel their life is threatened. The American expansion into Indian Territories only heighened the perceived need to defend oneself, given the absence of a standing militia in those areas. You were on your own, and there was a sense that police powers should not be granted to a central power. We still fear the abuse legacy of George IV in our political awareness of abuse of power and the federal government. Being a descendant of William Wallace of Scotland, I'm sure our English brethern will appreciate his contribution behind the right to bear arms movement as well. The individual right to bear arms is so deeply ingrained in the American tradition, that it is as easily recited as the right to religious freedom, free speech, and the right to vote. We have basically rewritten the Ten Commandments over here to include our national struggle for identity and independence, centered on the protection of individual rights, and encoded them in our founding documents. God given rights were expanded, along with the individual responsibility to respect them. For current legislation and arguments, go to the NRA website- they fight government encroachment on this issue tooth and nail.

[Shay]

Okay- if you nothing about gunfire, and I'm guessing you don't know from practical experience, I can't really have this conversation about shooting to kill vs wound with you. It would be like me debating the merits of vegetarian diets with you- not only am I unaware of what goes into a healthy vegetarian diet, but I really don't have a motive to care because it's not a choice I've made for myself. So I hope you don't mind if I just answer your questions where I can.

1.So, do we shoot to kill someone because it is easier?

Yes, we (and not really we, I guess, more 'police,' I assume criminals and soldiers shoot people for varied reasons) shoot to kill because it generally causes the least all-around damage- by damage I'm including other people, surroundings*, and the eventual outcome of gun battles; it also is the most efficient way to stop someone who (i hope) has already proven themselves to be uncaring of human life and is willing to dispatch it themselves.
Easier than aiming a stun gun? Unquestionably- a stun gun, ijn order to carry a truly debilitating dose at a distance, needs two little wires to trail behind it and carry the charge, limiting it's use to a clear continuous shot as well as a very small firing range. Also, if a taser hits someone with a heart condition or high on drugs, they're just as dead. Fried to death, actually, if the taser malfunctions somehow. Somehow the public find the police electrocuting people more distasteful than shooting them.