From: Jonathan Spencer, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Have you seen the video footage of the incident? I guess not.
>--
>I've seen the few minutes of tape on the news. The press
>reports say that he was approached at a petrol station for
>an out-of-date tax disc, so I assumed the LR chase was after
>he had sped off from the petrol station and the police had
>caught up with him.
The press are plain wrong, then. Knights was stationary at traffic
lights, with the LR in the lane to his left. The police driver saw his
tax was expired. After they had cleared the lights, with Knights in the
right lane, the LR sirens went on. Knights took off. *Then* the video
camera was switched on. The total video footage as the pursuit hares
round London lasts for around half an hour (and very entertaining it is
too, if it weren't so serious a matter).
>It doesn't look anywhere near 100 yards away from what I recall.
When he stopped having just gone round the corner, and fired his pistol,
it was 10-20 yards. When he stopped the second time, and used the AR15,
it was much further. If you're interested, I'll re-run the tape and see
if I can determine the distance from fixed objects (eg lamp posts).
>What I object to is AFOs with MP5s walking around when it really
>isn't called for, such as outside court houses, outside polling
>stations (at the last election), in airports and so on.
In those situations they are deployed less because they are the weapon
of choice but more because they are intended to be highly visible. A
pistol in a holster would be much less noticeable, that's why a larger
gun is carried in a prominent position - they are *meant* to be seen and
meant to be seen as a threat. It is the same reason that the police
carrying them are uniformed, they are there to be seen.
You need to bear in mind that they are deployed as a deterrent more than
any intention that they would be used. But don't forget that ?Heathrow
was bombed, that a (unarmed) police-escorted prison van in Newcastle was
hijacked at gunpoint and the (seriously violent) prisoners released,
that only a couple of weeks ago a Magistrates' Court was subjected to an
armed attack and prisoners released. The threats are real, and it is
intended that the presence of well armed police sends a clear message to
the miscreants. The choice of arms in those cases is less related to
effectiveness or tactics so much as high visibility.
--Jonathan Spencer, firearms examiner
"Justice is open to everybody in the same way as the Ritz Hotel."
Judge Sturgess, 22 July 1928
--
People don't casually assault police officers on armed duty.
Anyone thinking of doing so would notice the guns in their
holsters. On the other hand, less overt arming causes less
concern to the public. I can't see how MP5s offer a greater
deterrent effect over pistols, myself, and even if they did,
if that is the only reason for carrying them around airports
etc. that is a pretty weak reason.
_Everyone_ I have ever spoken to who visits this country
mentions their alarm at seeing PCs walking around with MP5s
at the airport.
Steve.
Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org
List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___________________________________________________________
T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
