Most pointless thing of all time: unarmed police officers.
A reader named Page sent me this heartwarming story of what happens when you let liberals run things unfettered, which takes place in London:
Two unarmed police officers who were attacked by a mob of 30 adults and teenagers were today receiving hospital treatment after being bitten, kicked and punched.
The officers were attacked by the gang after asking a teenage girl to pick up some litter. Other teenagers and adults then attacked the officers after the girl refused their request and dropped the litter again. When they asked her to pick it up again a friend with the girl became aggressive towards the officers.
The incident escalated quickly as a group of 30 people gathered around the officers and attacked them. Around five young females were joined by a group of older males in their thirties and forties. All members of the gang were described as black.
A Metropolitan Police spokesman said the officers, aged 34 and 29, were on sick leave suffering from bruising and knee injuries. One officer, who was white, was bitten on the shoulder. The other officer, who was black, was kicked in the knee, police said.
“The incident escalated very quickly as a group of people gathered around the officers and intimidated and attacked them,” a Met Police spokesman said.
Inspector Simon Ellingham said… “We have heard from several retailers in the area who were horrified at the level of violence used by the crowd against the officers.
“Whilst we would never use the word ‘mob’ which is an inflammatory word, we can confirm that eye witnesses have described their initial fear that officers were going to be seriously injured or killed.”
So 30 people attack two officers to the point that witnesses feared the officers would be KILLED, and you don’t want to use an “inflammatory” word to describe it? Why, it might hurt the attackers’ feelings? Don’t want to sound like a racist because they were all black? Don’t want to anger any more littering teenage girls and the grown men they hang out with?
For the love of God, Britain. You really, really, really, really need to grow your balls back.
A good first step would be to arm your police. I know it sounds all hillbillyish and redneckian, but there’s something called “deterrence.” It’s this crazy concept we uncivilized rubes over here in ‘Murrica apply in order to give our law enforcement the ability to, you know, enforce the law.
I expect the followup article to this one to explain how the injured officers are being sued for inflaming the rage of the crowd, and maybe even a few arrests will be made of the witnesses for hate speech because they described the scene as “horrifying.”
at least they’re being sort of fair and have the entire law-abiding populace disarmed as well
July 18th, 2008 at 1:00 pmThis quote at the end of the article is, to me, really indicative of total surrender. The yobs are even killing each other instead of banding together. (I know, that’s not necessarily a bad thing). Total anarchy.
Assuming, *ahem*, they were there in the first place.
July 18th, 2008 at 1:10 pmWell, as TPFKASNTKBO (The Poster Formerly Known as Anonymous Now Temporarily Known as Beautiful One) pointed out, the bobbies are as unarmed as the civilians.
Do you think that only having the police be armed in that statist/ socialist wanna-be-communist country is a good idea? I’m all for the cops AND the civilians (in this case, not here in ‘Merica) being unarmed together against the goblins of society. Misery loves company and it’ll be interesting to see how the bobbies (champions of the “ooh, civilians shouldn’t have guns ’cause they’re dangerous” cause) react to being treated by the goblins just like the down-trodden civilians are.
At least, until the ‘govt give the bobbies guns and the civilians are twice as screwed…
July 18th, 2008 at 1:21 pmDid you scroll down to the comment section in the Times online? Check out this stupidity:
And here’s
So, in view of the pattern of violence against unarmed officers: no standard sidearm, a Taser only if you’re lucky, and an actual firearm? Only for a handful of elites!
It’s like they’re trying to make Antarctica look good!
July 18th, 2008 at 1:24 pmIs it wrong to laugh at this just a little bit?
Seriously, I’m sure we all know that American cops have also been attacked by angry mobs before, but how many of those attacks were instigated by the officers asking someone to pick up their fucking trash?
July 18th, 2008 at 1:36 pmEven the French arm their police.
July 18th, 2008 at 1:59 pmWow. I read a lot of British and American crime fiction, and the difference between the two countries is amazing. In American books, the police usually catch the criminals, and even in the more depressing ones there is usually a glimpse of restored order. On the other hand, British writers usually just let the criminal get away with it–apparently, they don’t feel that it would be realistic to put them away. Granted, fiction doesn’t always reveal the true condition of a country, but sometimes it does, and I think it might in this case.
July 18th, 2008 at 2:04 pmYou know what would fix this? Unions! That’s right - unions! Let’s send the AFL-CIO to Britain, have them unionize their police, and then let the government continue to insist on unarmed police officers. I guarantee you the entire police force in London would go on strike within minutes.
In other news, an armed society is a polite society. The inverse is also true.
July 18th, 2008 at 2:13 pmWell I’ll use it…mob,mob,mob, F’ING MOB.
What is wrong with these people it’s like they’re taking crazy pills. They are afraid words will inflame? Picking up litter inflames these people. Saying “mob” is the least of their problems.
England is pathetic and dying. I hope we can prevent this crap from happening here.
July 18th, 2008 at 2:15 pm“Even the French arm their police”
LOL
July 18th, 2008 at 2:29 pmBritain is the new France.
July 18th, 2008 at 2:37 pmSome comedian said it first, but it’s worth quoting here:
“Stop! Or I’ll say ’stop’ some more!”
Or the one from Aliens: “What are we supposed to use? Harsh language?”
I mean, seriously. Once the rock-throwing starts, I think we can pretty much count on sweet reason not being able to put a quick stop to it.
July 18th, 2008 at 2:47 pmI hate to point this out, but the British Bobbie has traditionally been unarmed. It used to be an officer carried enough heft not to need one.
“‘Ello, ‘ello, wot’s all this, then?”
July 18th, 2008 at 2:47 pmSo mob is a bad word, but they throw around the C word like it’s going out of style? Uh, right then.
July 18th, 2008 at 2:56 pm‘Some comedian said it first, but it’s worth quoting here:
“Stop! Or I’ll say ’stop’ some more!”’ That was Robin Williams, who also came up with the statement that the UN is a lot like a traffic cop on Valium.
Anyway, looks like the British have discovered what ‘unarmed police’ really stands for: ‘targets of opportunity’.
July 18th, 2008 at 3:11 pmMaya, the “C” word means something different Over There, and it applies to men, not women.
So how come Brit cops aren’t quitting in droves? Oh yeah, it’s because they still lord it over the law-abiding citizens to give them hell every chance they get.
Here’s hoping this event is a proper wake-up call to both the Guvmint and the Police.
July 18th, 2008 at 3:21 pmGeez…I’m sure they’d look at my cop hubby with horror. He’s saving to buy another gun to go with the two he already carries on duty and the other several at home.
July 18th, 2008 at 3:31 pmI read somewhere (I think it was at the Memphis police museum) that originally cops in U.S. were armed with a whistle to be used to signal to citizens that a crime was being committed. It was the citizens who then stopped the crime and restrained the criminal.
It could be bad memory, or bad history, but it’s always stuck in my mind.
It takes a village to police the village.
July 18th, 2008 at 3:40 pmOne of the first things I learned in my former profession was we’re the police only as long as the public consents to being policed.
It doesn’t matter whether your armed or not once the public stops consenting to being policed your just a dickhead with a badge.
July 18th, 2008 at 3:42 pmWell, let’s analyze this one a bit more. And I think it’s consistent with Jeff Setaro’s point.
Let’s say this was in the US. Two cops, armed with guns tell the little girl to stop being uncivilized and the mob attacks them.
I think in the US, even our police might be reluctant to use firearms against people who are punching and kicking. If there are 30 people in the mob, their best course of action is to leave, because even with guns, they can’t stop the mob without using deadly force.
Legally, they would probably get a pass if they did so, but the public outcry would be tremendous, and it would be hard to convince much of the public that killing Bobby Joe was necessary so that they didn’t get bitten. Also, the likelihood that a gun gets taken away from them in that situation is quite high, putting them at great risk. It’s likely in such a neighborhood that someone is already armed. Best bet is to beat feet and come back with a plan.
Like Setaro says, the police are only effective if their authority is recognized. Once that recognition is gone, they have no power. To regain recognition of authority after a mob is formed takes more than two men, even if they do wave pistols around.
So, yes, cops should carry guns, but this example is more a reflection on the descension into barbarity by that neighborhood than it is about the police. And that is a sociological pathology that is much harder to correct than it is to create. Britain seems to be going where we were in the 70’s with most of our big cities (think NYC). I hope they get better soon.
July 18th, 2008 at 4:02 pmThe Brits should take a lesson from the Israelis. This was reported on YNET.
July 18th, 2008 at 4:09 pmI saw an old episode of Cops the other day on TV. The location was London and one of the PCs they followed around made many statements about fewer guns in GB. One of the statements seems about right here. He said that he thought Brit cops not being armed made them more approachable. It seems he’s right. It also makes them more easily ignored and assaulted.
July 18th, 2008 at 4:12 pmI’m actually surprised they were candid enough to mention race at all–especially in a country that feels a dislike of any ethnic food is racist. I feel quite certain a U.S. newspaper would gloss over the race bit, seeing as how our news media rarely even mentions the race of an at-large murder/rape/kidnapping suspect when listing their identifying features. It’s usually just: “Be on the lookout for this suspect … he’s 5′10″.”
July 18th, 2008 at 4:15 pm@Skyler, exactly the only thing you can realistically do in a situation like that is retreat and call for backup… You’re not going to win a 2 on 30 fight.
Once your backup arrives and you have sufficient manpower to control the mob you can isolating the agitators and start making arrests.
July 18th, 2008 at 4:22 pmMaybe we need to loan the bobbies a few
July 18th, 2008 at 4:27 pmSkyler, there are inner-city cops who HAVE handled mass attacks- and broke them- without drawing their firearms. All it requires is training, will, and a good length of oak.
July 18th, 2008 at 4:28 pmAsk yourself this question: Now that thirty “rioters of inteterminate origin” have absolute proof that they can bully the Metros pretty much whenever they feel like it… what happens the next time they run into a constable? Or a common citizen, just trying to get home after work?
You know I thought the same thing, initially. But the I got to wondering what ethnicity the mob primarily was. I can’t help but wonder if it was a group of “immigrants”. Because the new pecking order for minorities in Europe goes is Muslims, then Blacks.
I know, very narrow minded of me, but if were a mob of stereotypical British men (bowler or top hats, umbrellas and monocles), you just know it would have made its way into the story.
And yes, I do think every British man looks like Mr. Monopoly.
July 18th, 2008 at 4:39 pmJeff is right. In the U. S., the cops beat a hasty retreat, call for back up, then restore order if the miscreants haven’t already taken a hike. Things do get out of hand at times after sporting events but we’re talking thousands of jackasses, not a couple of dozen. As for gun laws in the U. S., that horse bolted the barn 200 years ago and it ain’t ever going back. Americans are not Europeans, we’re not colonials. We’re Americans. If we didn’t have guns, suspect we’d have at each other with knives and slingshots. With all the Scots Irish and Italian in the mix, it is a genetic proclivity. So what.
July 18th, 2008 at 4:45 pmRachel,
Sir Robert Peel must be spinning in his grave. When Peel established the Metropolitan Police Force in 1829 he set down nine “police principles” which set the tone for the use of unarmed officers (although there have always been armed officers available). While it took a few years to get their reputation established, the “bobbies” earned the repect of the populace, and for the most part were able to conduct the majority of their police function unarmed.
For most of that time, the average citizen in Great Britain (or perhaps I should use the more PC “United Kingdom” because “Great no longer applies) could own firearms, and frequently would take action when an armed response was immediately needed. Like some of the previous commenters, Peel believed that “the police are the public, and the public are the police”, and could only function so long as the public was willing to allow themselves to be policed.
When things began to take a turn for the worse in the UK was about the time that the government began to disarm the public. Along with that disarmament, came the concept that the average citizen should not use force in order to protect themselves or their property. That it should all be left to the police. This began to create a separation of the police from the public.
When you can’t even defend yourself in your own home from someone who has broken in and is stealing your property and/or hurting or threatening you, then there is something seriously wrong with the society in which you live. To make matters worse, the police in the UK are notorious for extremely slow response times, this leaves the public totally at the mercy of the dregs of society.
So now it is that only the police can stop or intervene in any criminal activity. A citizen isn’t even allowed to defend themselves lest the bad guy get injured in the process. This has set the police totally apart from the public and totally detroyed the respect that the police in the UK have relied on to do their jobs.
In this country, we constantly see bystanders intervene to assist officers who are being overpowered. The bystanders in GB who were so horrified at the violence would not have been allowed to intervene lest they injure one of the perpetrators and be charged themselves.
The UK has certainly taken a long hard fall from the days when “the sun never set on the British Empire”, and the police need to stop trying to police in the way that Robert Peel set them up to do. They no longer have the respect of the wussified public. On top of that, the criminal class is totally emboldoned and have no respect or fear of the police whatsoever.
I’m sure glad we separated ourselves from them over 200 years ago, but I fear one day we will head down the same path of self-destruction if the liberals have their way.
July 18th, 2008 at 5:04 pm14 karat wrote:
Assuming, *ahem*, they were there in the first place.
This isn’t fair or accurate. They sure had cojones in both world wars and the Falklands conflict, just to cite a few examples, because they were convinced they had something to be proud of, and which was worth defending. Somewhere along the way they have become convinced otherwise…so sad to watch.
July 18th, 2008 at 6:03 pmmob against 2 people = disparity of force, which justifies the use of deadly force in normal-people lands
July 18th, 2008 at 6:05 pmYeah, well, normal people appear to be in somewhat short supply these days.
Skyler does have a point. If two lone cops are attacked by an entire mob, even if the cops happen to be armed, the best overall strategy is to retreat and call for backup. Firing into an unarmed crowd, even a crowd that is viciously attacking, is a great way to be “asked to resign” or demoted to a permanent desk job. Plus all the anti-gun nuts will point to it and say “See? SEE?! Guns are bad! Guns hurt people!”
However, the real question is this:
If these cops had been armed in the first place, would they have been attacked at all?
July 18th, 2008 at 6:16 pmI saw the headline earlier today : ‘Mob attacks cops who made teen pick up litter’ with no reference to where. I didn’t even click I on it - I just said to myself ‘England.’
Sho’ nuff.
July 18th, 2008 at 6:17 pmT — I should have added a wink, since I was JK. I was *thinking* Thatcher, my friend!
July 18th, 2008 at 6:40 pmI say this as a former police officer, you’re wrong. The best thing you can do in a situation like that is retreat and call for backup. Once the backup arrives you can start cracking heads… You use deadly force against an unarmed mob and you’re screwed, departmentally, criminally and civilly screwed.
July 18th, 2008 at 6:55 pmAbsolutely, 100% agreed. There is nothing to be gained by firing into an angry crowd. Did we learn nothing from Kent State?
July 18th, 2008 at 7:00 pmI agree with 14K and Jeff Setaro, but odds are, if the officers had been armed to begin with, the attack would have been less likely to occur. But yeah, once the unarmed mob is coming for you, retreat is your only safe option. And hey, they’ve got surveillance cameras covering every square inch of Britain now, so they could always identify the mob ummm…. the group of individuals who temporarily came together for a violent purpose …. and prosecute umm…. slap them on the wrist… later.
This is definitely just sad. The police clearly need to step up their presence and be conspicuously around in the next month or so, to display to the community that they can’t be run off.
It goes without saying that the mob should be identified and prosecuted fully. And for those of you who believe that will happen, please call me, I’ve got this lovely, rarely-used bridge available for sale.
July 18th, 2008 at 7:31 pmLet’s hope they do just that instead of declaring a no-go zone!
The article does say that the CCTV footage will be examined — for what that’s worth — sigh!
Retrocop,
July 18th, 2008 at 7:49 pmWell said. Since the 1920 Firearms Act, the Brits have steadily disarmed their law-abiding citizenry, yet failed to arm their constabulary — truly baffling to contemplate!
““Whilst we would never use the word ‘mob’ which is an inflammatory word…”.
Any questions?
N. O’Brain: “‘Ello, ‘ello, wot’s all this, then?” Shades of old Ealing Studio movies. Those were the days, when citizens (even crooks) had respect for the law. Here’s another line from that era you won’t hear all that often: “OK, that was a fair cop, guv”. (”fair arrest”, for the newly-arrived)
Here’s a question to roll around in the old grey matter: What’s the difference between a society with unarmed policemen, and one with no policemen? (I’ll ignore the first obvious answer: “England”.)
Now if every street patrolman was a graduate of a 6-year Ninja Assassin course, it might make some sense.
Retrocop: “… I should use the more PC “United Kingdom” because “Great no longer applies)…” That’s on the mark. I use “Formerly Great Britain”.
I did read today that they were relaxing the rules against defending yourself, so maybe people like the English farmer who shot two home-invasion robbers won’t be spending the next several decades in Reading Gaol.
I agree with the posters who say that firing into a crowd is a seriously bad idea (go review a bit of American History, around the time of the Revolution), but many an Old West lawman has quieted an angry mob by showing a shotgun and asking, “OK, folks, who wants to be first?”.
It’s a lot harder to stop a bomb going off once the fuse is burning. The trick is to not let it get lit.
July 18th, 2008 at 8:01 pmHey! , though, remember? (Not to say that I think that makes it a good idea now — have to agree with PatHMV, 14k, et al on that score!)
July 18th, 2008 at 8:11 pmJeff Setaro et al
though i do not dispute (and have not disputed) the wisdom of attempting to retreat, i stand by the fact that as a general rule a violent attack by a ratio of 15:1 constitutes disparity of force and justifies, under common and case law if not written law, the use of deadly force by the victims to stop the attack
google is your friend
some have cited kent state and the boston massacre. whatever. though the details of those shootings are disputed, i do not believe either of them threatened harm to the shooters, and certainly they did not involve actual harm, as is the case here
July 18th, 2008 at 8:22 pmSorry, T, I forgot to sign out of my son’s log-on before I commented. Now that he is commenting here, I will have to make sure we both clear our info before the other posts.
Sorry, big guy, that was me and I did not post on your behalf : )
July 18th, 2008 at 8:28 pmThis is an exact quote from one of the injured at Kent State. The actual threat of harm matters nothing when the perception of anger and intent prevails.
These national guardsmen walked into this scenario. Please don’t tell me it wasn’t a seething cauldron of liberal fury with “citizens” engaging in behaviors of an illegal nature. That would be revisionism at its finest. What they did was exactly what could have happened in this scenario. Who gets to define which person deserves to be publicly executed for illegal behavior?
You just don’t take potshots into a crowd of unarmed citizens. It is both illegal and immoral. Officers — do you not undergo rigorous questioning regarding use of force following every discharge of your weapons?
July 18th, 2008 at 8:36 pmThen again, the miscreants are being released back into the socialist hell hole that England has become, and it could be argued that is punishment enough.
July 18th, 2008 at 9:13 pmI am this close to renouncing my British heritage. Good thing I’m Danish on the other side. They still have some semblance of testiculos.
July 18th, 2008 at 9:41 pm@The Poster Formerly Known as Anonymous Now Temporarily Known as Beautiful One:
Regardless of what common and case law might say the practical realities are this:
If a police officer fires his weapon into an unarmed mob he will A) more than likely loose his job B) be tried and convicted in a criminal court and C) sued in civil court.
@14 Karat: Most police officers never fire their weapon “in anger”. When I was on the job it something like 1 cop in 20 would fire his weapon in the line of duty once in 20 years.
Anyway to answer your question, yes, if an officer is involved in a shooting he has to submit a written report documenting the incident in detail and at the very least he’ll by interviewed someone from internal affairs and probably detectives from an outside agency. In Connecticut, for example, the state police investigate all officer involved shootings.
July 18th, 2008 at 10:10 pmWHOA! Jeff, if you extrapolated that from my comment, I do apologize. I never said that a PO would fire in anger anywhere in my comment. The anger comment emerged from one of the guys in the crowd who was shot.
When I said “anger and intent”, I meant the rationale behind a shooting. If you, as a cop, are approached by a suspect with “anger and intent” who refuses to comply and puts you in danger, you have no choice but to use the gun provided for your safety and the safety of the public. That is the task with which you have been charged.
Please don’t say I said an officer fired in anger. I absolutely did not. In a very recent comment section right here on this blog I was compelled to passionately argue that calling the police is ALWAYS the best option where violence is involved because they bring the voice of reason into most otherwise terrifyingly volatile situations. I took a helluva lotta crap for it, too. I absolutely believe that, especially here in my little burg.
Thanks for your service, sir.
July 18th, 2008 at 10:19 pmMany cops in the past have shot unarmed people that was attacking the police officer. Do a google search. It’s nothing new. All cops have the right to self defense period. If you attack a cop you will get shot. Period.
You can’t outrun a mob. That’s only happens in the movies. You take charge of the situation. If you back down all hell will break loose as seen in the LA Riot.
If the British cops had guns, that alone will be a deterrent. Having one hand on the firearm about to draw will more then likely stop all aggressions.
July 18th, 2008 at 10:26 pmThat’s not true. If the officer is being attacked he has the right to self defense.
July 18th, 2008 at 10:27 pmDitto to what Retrocop wrote. I was going to post a pale shadow of that, before I read that far.
The Brits have simply painted their police force into a corner. No Peelian policing anymore, no guns for regular officers*, their courts don’t lock up offenders, no right of self-defense for law abiding citizens, and at the end there’s no civilian commitment to a culture of law and order. So they’re relying on surveillance cameras and stop-and-search powers and special teams and task forces, and I wish them much joy of it for all the good it will do them.
*I agree that if citizens can’t have guns cops shouldn’t either, but as a practical matter it makes dealing with mobs and determined attackers much more difficult.
July 19th, 2008 at 12:48 am@14 Karat, Sorry, that was a poor choice of words on my part… I should have said “…in the line of duty…”
The term “fired in anger” is figure of speech meaning he fired in response to a threat not fired in rage.
Again, I’m sorry for the confusion, I never meant to imply that you meant a cop would fire in rage/anger.
July 19th, 2008 at 8:25 amAre we so ignorant and illiterate? Trash can’t f**k. I surprise myself responding to such infancy. Regarding the Brits, ability is better than luck, but good luck! Before you can return your balls to their place, you need to pull your head out of your arse, so you can put a sling on it!
July 19th, 2008 at 9:54 amBut he’ll still be fired, sued, and almost certainly prosecuted by some shit-eating liberal grievance-monger. And if the jury is sufficiently biased against the cops, he may be convicted or go for a plea bargain as well.
He may have a legal and moral right to defend himself with lethal force if his life is in genuine danger, but that doesn’t mean it’s the best solution.
July 19th, 2008 at 10:28 ami think the moral of this story is the necessity for and the application of deadly force always sucks
July 19th, 2008 at 10:45 amYou know the world is going to hell when RCHL takes the name of “pete” in vain … ; )
July 19th, 2008 at 11:44 amFor all its other faults, this is one of the reasons why I love Kentucky. In an incident like that, we’d look at the casualties, shake our heads, and say, “Damn, y’all are stupid.” Then take the cops out for a beer.
July 19th, 2008 at 9:05 pmFor what it’s worth, Croydon where this took place, is a multi-culti hell hole. It is where the Home Office responsible for Immigration and the Police have their headquarters. It is also where hundreds of bogus asylum seeking cretins turn up every day. The police in this incident would have been “armed” in as much as they would carry pepper spray. Tasers are not routinely issued. As for shooting unarmed civilians. Whilst I appreciate this is something that should be avoided where possible if they felt their lives were at risk then I feel it would have been justified. The main problem is they officers would then like as not end up with a manslaughter charge.
A poster above mentioned the case of Tony Martin the farmer who was prosecuted for shooting a group of thieves that broke into his farm. I would like to point out that all to often Americans seize on this story and invariably get the facts completely wrong. Yes Tony Martin had been persecuted for a long time by scumbag thieving gypsies. However he lay in wait for them and shot one of them in the back. I am all in favour of defending ones home but he also used a shotgun which was unlicensed. Had he shot the perp in the front and had he used a licensed shotgun he would most likely not have spent time in jail.
In contrast a chap I used to shoot with once shot someone who had entered his home with the intent to kill him. Not sure what gun the perp used but the guy I know was armed with a 9mm (when handguns were still legal)unfortunately he was using target rounds and the perp was not killed. The bastard even tried to sue him, though fortunately the case went nowhere. The police did not prosecute.
July 20th, 2008 at 1:16 pmLT- what is this “licensed” of which you speak? Why can not a free man use any weapon he likes, to defend himself and avenge himself, without having to ask permission from the (spit!) state?
Having just read Rachel’s comment policy, I decided not to send my remark about cop smegma, though I am sure that we have entirely too many people who love the taste of it , and vote in a way to make sure they’ll get as much as they can.
July 20th, 2008 at 9:55 pmIf the British cops were armed and shot some of the human debris that was attaching them, the cops would have been put away for life and the government would have paid the wounded hooligans.
I prefer the American solution. Dead cop attackers and medals for the defending policemen.
Note to 14 Carat: referring to your comment about whether the British ever had any balls. Read your history. The British were once some of the toughest ass kickers in the world. They didn’t get an empire that was across the globe by offering the natives tea and biscuits. No they kicked ass and took over.
July 21st, 2008 at 7:06 amYa’ll think “Limey land” is a bastion of liberalism. Check out this story from the Iriah Times. The Irish aare so liberal thay’d make the average Brit look like Joseph Stalin!!
In Ireland “Garda or Gardai” means police
This is not an unusual story. It’s typical that’s what’s so scary.
READ ON
July 21st, 2008 at 7:32 amI had a nice long post about this, then I thought, what the F. Until the Brits reestablish respect of authority of law and law enforcement they’re screwed. NYC was able to do it. It just takes leadership and will power. Detroit is at the other end. Detroit cops used to tell homeowners to shoot intruders dead and put them in the dumpster. I think that’s still SOP.
July 21st, 2008 at 8:32 amAm I misinterpreting, or are you expressing severe anti-cop sentiment?
July 21st, 2008 at 8:37 amI believe you are referring to this comment:
I didn’t say they never had balls.
Jeez, guys! It was a joke about the famous ass-kicker Maggie! Take a chill pill — I’m not a complete idiot : )
July 21st, 2008 at 9:41 amPerhaps now is the time to move in and conquer them.
No one does enough of that anymore.
July 21st, 2008 at 12:24 pmIn reading through these comments it seems forgotten that in the US or officers are not limited to:
1. Saying “Please, stop attacking me” or
2. Unloading a clip into the mob…
Also, from the way the article reads the police were not instantly swarmed. There seemed to be more of a build-up to the aggressions and should things have been handled differently, I doubt the mob would have formed. To my thinking (and there are many Youtube clips to back me up), in the US it would have gone down more like this:
Police tell girl to pickup litter…
July 21st, 2008 at 3:04 pmGirl drops more…
2nd girl begins yelling and getting the the cops face…
Mighty, no mistake, I was expressing severe anti-cop sentiment. I am, of course, always happy to co-operate with a legitimate peace officer, of the Peelish, or genuine, variety.
July 23rd, 2008 at 6:24 amI just watched Steven Segall in “Hard to Kill”. He is hiding behind a car as about 6 mobsters are spraying it with automatic fire. When it quiets down he pops up and tells the guys to put down their weapons. One unarmed doofus advances on him saying: “You can’t kill all of us”. He shoots him through the heart while saying: “But I’ll get an “A” for effort”.
My kind of cop.
July 24th, 2008 at 12:48 pmI just came back from England last night after a family trip. We asked our B&B hostess in the very rural Cotswolds why on earth everyone had electronic alarms on their houses. She explained that it was on account of so much home burglary. I then asked what good it would do to summon unarmed police if your home was invaded. How would they defend against an armed criminal - harsh language? She shrugged and made a disgusted comment about “politics”. Possibly they don’t feel the same level of ownership about their government as many of us do. They’re also conditioned into complacency by their nanny state, which is happening to far too many people here as well. We did note that the palaces and houses of Parliament were protected by guards toting automatic weapons. Apparently the no-guns rule the populace must live with isn’t good enough for the overlords.
July 27th, 2008 at 9:08 pmThe last time the Brit Police had guns they shot an innocent Brazilian…
October 5th, 2008 at 4:57 pm