Snazy

This time a man spotted at Gatwick airport carrying a handgun.

Right, wrong?

Personally in an airport it seems a perfect example of where tasers shine.

Snazy

BBC NEWS | UK | England | Sussex | Taser stops armed man at Gatwick

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

So the man had a gun, in a place where Planes take off and many people move around prior to getting on said planes, he had a gun in a country that prohibits (apart from the allowed excepions) gun ownership and usage, was it a live hand gun, was it loaded, sorry but someone getting a temporarily disabling jolt from a tazer compared to killing some passengers or shooting at a plane is worth the risk.

Timwinner

iTrader: (3)

The police there are routinely armed and for them to chose taser was the absolute right choice. Having said that if he had got shot then I think I would be inclined to think "dont walk through an airport with a gun"

Split second to make the call and it sounds like it was the right one in every aspect, Only the liberal "treat criminals with the same respect you treat nurses" people to please now and I think we can all agree it was a top job.
Well done that man.

G00ner

I would prefer him to get a bullet to the head (assuming he was carrying a loaded gun in the airport), as the CPS or a soft judge will probably take pity on him and give him a slapped wrist.

+Doc+

Could have been a simpleton with a toy gun though, tazer first ask questions later, unless he fires then unleash the gloch.

skid11

iTrader: (1)

The problem with that is if he fires first and the gun is real its game over!

s70rjw

iTrader: (2)

Thats what a large portion of the public fail to understand. There is no way to disable a person other than challenging them to hopefully drop the weapon. If that fails or is not an available option, then it is a brave person who makes that decision to shoot or potentially be shot. If the weapon of choice happens to be a Tazer, then everyone gets to go home, hopefully.

Danse Macabre

What is conspicuous in its absence in that article is whether or not the person in question really had a gun, a replica gun or anything that remotely looked like a gun.

If he did, fair play. But you'd think they'd mention the fact?

I really hope this isn't a case of "some hysterical person reported that someone might have a gun so we challenged the nearest person whose face didn't fit. He didn't 'comply' (aka told us to go away and stop being ridiculous) so we fired barbs into his flesh and pumped 50,000 volts through him, just in case. He could have had a gun, better safe than sorry. "

More details please BBC.

Snazy

Just out of interest, I support it fully.
Would much rather a taser discharged in public, than a proper firearm.

Good job done !

Danse Macabre

Another article:

Man 'carrying handgun' shot with Taser at Gatwick Airport - Telegraph

Allegedly? He was incapacitated and arrested and yet we not know whether or not he had a gun?

Bonehead

He would've been asked to co-operate on a number of occaisions, when that was ignored he would've been told to co-operate, then when that was ignored he would've been warned about the tazer then when he ignored that he would've been told unless he co-operated he'd be tazered, he get a final warning then get tazered.

Hardly some hysterical person reported that someone might have a gun so we challenged the nearest person whose face didn't fit. He didn't 'comply' (aka told us to go away and stop being ridiculous) so we fired barbs into his flesh and pumped 50,000 volts through him, just in case. He could have had a gun, better safe than sorry.

Lisawrx

iTrader: (1)

I think better be safe than sorry, especially if the police even had a glimpse of a gun (toy or not).

I think the point made by DM, was more about how few details have been released in the article, and what possible conclusions can be drawn from that. As a person just reading that, we don't know if the person in fact had a gun at all, and if not, he may have been taken a back by a load of police possibly shouting out at him to comply, not knowing what was going on. People can react in strange ways if taken off guard.

But this is the media, and so many issues like this would be solved, if a fuller story was actually reported. Or possibly, for that matter, if the police spoke out, and said what happened.

Too often, we as the public can draw (sometimes the wrong) conclusions, based on the story we hear/read.

s70rjw

iTrader: (2)

You're spot on Lisa. Unfortunately many believe what they read in the papers and BBC etc websites. Unbiased reporting of facts would not sell papers or increase 'hits' on websites. Sowing some seeds of possible excessive use of force etc by the police does. As all icidents involving the use of firearms are referred to the IPCC, police comment will more than likely only be to confirm that a man was arrested after an incident. That way the press have little or nothing to potentially misquote.
A fine example is Danse Macabre speculating by using terms such as "conspicuous in their absence".
I've always got by relying on facts as oposed to media hype / hysteria and opinion.

Snazy

No harm done he, not like he caught light or anything ! lol

cster

It doesn't say any where in the article that the guy was armed.
In fact I would go so far as to say that it is implied he was not.
What a rubbish thread this is.
At least they didn't shoot him in the head ten times

Snazy

...
Possibly why the Telegraph went with "carrying gun" to say it is not them suggesting he was.


Same old situation though, if he was challenged and complied it all would have been over with pretty smoothly. Why refuse to comply? Other than "I know my rights" and "standing up against police brutality and a nanny state"

MikeCardiff

iTrader: (2)

What sort of nobber would actually walk through an airport, where there are armed police, with a gun anyway ? the sort who deserves a good tasering as far as I'm concerned.

If you didn't have a gun, and 3 policemen with guns told you to stop, why would you not just stop, tell them you don't have a gun and let them search you ? Ranting about your civil liberties is all well and good until one of them shoots you in the leg for your principals.

Personally I think the person was very lucky that he was just tasered, and wasn't shot.

Leslie

So far we don't know whether he had a gun in fact, or whether he was verbally challenged by the police, or whether he went for the gun if challenged, or whether the police just shot him with the taser in the first place in order to ask him questions afterwards.

Until we know what actually happened, its not really possible to comment.

Les

stilover

Criminal carrying loaded gun gets shot with Taser. Police ok, criminal arrested.

Criminal carrying loaded gun see's police officer reaching for his Taser rather than his firearm, and open fire shooting the Police officer. Criminal maybe gets shot by another officer. Maybe gets arrested.

Criminal carrying loaded handgun gets shot by Police firearm. Dead or not, Police oficer gets suspended maybe sacked.

Personally, being in an airport carrying a handgun should get you shot dead. Police officer gets a pat on the back.

We should be more like America. The police there would have just shot him, no questions asked.

Same as in America, it's your right to protect yourself, your family, and your property. Criminal enters your home. You have a right to shoot the ****** dead. That bloke who stabbed a youth for protecting himself, his wife, and step kid who'd already recieved a beating should be allowed to use any means neccesary. Yet "Great" Britain is on the side of Mr. Criminal.

Leslie

Would it have been right to shoot him dead if the report was wrong and he was not carrying a gun at all?

Les

Snazy

That line sells the whole point of tasers.
Side of caution.

As Mike said, faced with armed officers (and they dont carry tiny water pistols at Gatwick) anyone in their right mind would comply. The stop would have been carried out, if there was no gun he would have been apologised to and let go. (bitter pill I realise)

Also, im not sure if this is an update to the story but it now carries this line....

Which suggests YES he did have a firearm, so any doubt there is quashed.

Lets move onto the next part now...
You are at the airport with 10,000 other people, a man is identified as carrying a gun, the area is cleared the best is can be. He refuses to comply. Shots ring out..... if ANY are off target, they can hit someone, especially if the situation escalates rapidly without time to clear the area...

YES they should all be on target, but no one is perfect.

Personally I would rather see him tasered in a public place.

PS, Les the whole reply is not aimed at you mate Just started off with your point lol

Well done to the police in Gatwick I say

bob r

iTrader: (46)

No requirement to shoot him dead wether it was a loaded firearm/immitation/toy or whatever. The guy must have complied to some degree.

Armed police would have pointed loaded weapons at him, gave him ample warnings and when he did not comply with their requests then the Tazer gets used in the correct manner.

Had the guy 'reached' for an object that resembled a weapon then he needs shooting dead.

Snazy

Good point.
Sad he didnt comply to the point where no weapons were needed at all.
His loss lol.
Who knows, maybe his hand WAS heading towards the place the weapon was believed to be, hence taser use.

We will never know lol. Unless an SN member was there ?

bob r

iTrader: (46)

Given this or any other similar scenario, if live ammo is needed to be used in any environment of this nature the 'backstop' has to be considered prior to taking a shot. Imagine that........mad ****** infront of you waving a pistol around and you are peering at the sexy blonde stood at the perfume counter in the duty free thinking...........

. Well if I miss, I may hit Blondie
. If I hit him, the bullets are likely to pass straight through him and hit Blondie.
. If I hit him, I am either a hero [for a couple of weeks] or a villain and face a Crown court trial and lose my job etc.......etc
. If I think about this any longer I am dead along with others inc Blondie

I am glad I don't have to make those decisions anymore.

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

Was he wearing a dirty white vest and carrying an ancient Motorola phone ? if so, congratulations you just tazer'd John McClane and the terrorists will now take over the airport

Generally it is very hard as a holidaymaker or a business traveller to carry something to easily be mistaken for a gun, it isnt like a Staw Donkey or a BlackBerry is going to get mistaken for a firearm is it ?

bob r

iTrader: (46)

When a member of the public reports they have seen someone carrying what they think is a gun, then it has to be taken completely serious.

'The gun' often turns out to be, a lighter, mobile, toy, glasses case, cig case, the list goes on.

Snazy

My exact point mate Thank you for making more sense of it than I did lol.
Taser+ cop did good

True in some respects, although Walmart do some cracking BB guns!
That said, the report says he was "disarmed" and "arrested" which would indicate in this specific case he WAS armed, so action was justified.

If it turned out to be a replica, and they didnt have tasers, they would be answering why they shot a man dead for no reason (again as im sure some will choose to add)

Leslie

Yes I realised that Snazy, and now we know a little more I generally agree with what you say. We did not know enough about the incident in the first place.

Someone said he should have been shot without question which would be wrong of course.

Les