Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

AIBU to not give a toss that Moat was tasered?

162 replies

DetectivePotato · 21/07/2010 20:24

May be a sensitive issue so I appologise if it upsets anyone.

Have looked at the front of todays paper and Moats family are paying for a 2nd inquest because they think he was killed by taser.

I am sorry (actually I'm not) but I don't give a flying fuck if the police tasered him.

He killed someone and seriously wounded 2 others. He went on the run and he could have hurt/killed many more people. What were the police suppose to do? Offer him a cuppa and a sit down to talk about his troubles? He clearly showed that he hated the police, he could have shot many more of them. What choice did they have but to try and disarm him.

FFS!!!!!!!!

OP posts:
Lifegoeson · 21/07/2010 21:09

Duel and Balloon - Absolutely, he was a complete innocent, a bit late for work that's all! How sad Sir you brought him into this, couldn't BE more different... Moat was a psycho scumbag.

I've just read that Ray Mears was drafted in in to help locate Moat in the hunt...

preghead · 21/07/2010 21:12

There is another possibility. He indicated that he had had enough and was going to pull the trigger and shoot himself so they tasered him, twice, to try and stop him from doing so. (This is, in fact, what happened according to someone I know very well who was involved in the incident)

FrozenFlowers · 21/07/2010 21:12

It is most certainly not the "same bloody thing" as Jean Charles De Menezes! I think that's an appalling thing to say. Whatever the rights and wrongs of police tasering actual confirmed criminals, I refuse to believe that we should accept the shooting of innocent people
on the off-chance they turn out to be terrorists. That's a ridiculous position to take.

Easywriter · 21/07/2010 21:14

I think the taser could well have caused him to pull the trigger.

As I understand it voltage makes muscles contract, hence the armed forces test wires (if they have to touch them at all) with the back of their hands otherwise the hand would contract and clutch the wire.

Even if a police person shot to kill, well, I think that they might just have been bricking it since Moat had claimed that he wanted to kill even more people, especially police.

OrmRenewed · 21/07/2010 21:15

What maamruby said.

I'm sad that things conspired to produce such a waste of life - not just his, all the other people he killed. This thread leaves a nasty taste

DetectivePotato · 21/07/2010 21:16

"ensure that they act within the law and don't act with more force than the situation requires ."

They didn't act with more force than the situation required.

The man shot 3 people and went on the run. He had a well known hatred for the police and could have shot more of them. That situation required the police to act as they did. I think they wouldn't have been unreasonable if they had shot him, although I know they wanted to bring him in alive.

OP posts:
daftpunk · 21/07/2010 21:18

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

RunawayWife · 21/07/2010 21:21

YANBU he was a low life and the world is a better place without him

OrmRenewed · 21/07/2010 21:23

detective potato - all that is true no doubt. But you said that you didn't give a toss that he had been tasered. I would worry if we lived in a society that didn't 'give a toss' enough to closely and exhaustively scrutinise actions like this on the part of the police.

BalloonSlayer · 21/07/2010 21:23

daftpunk you have surpassed even yourself. You are now saying that he deserved to die because he was an illegal immigrant? Words fail me...

daftpunk · 21/07/2010 21:25

Where did I say that..?

I said he wasn't completely innocent...have you read the enquiry report?

DetectivePotato · 21/07/2010 21:28

Orm, I see what you are saying. I don't think the police should go out willy nilly and taser people. In this case I don't really care as he was guilty, there was no doubt about that, they had been there for 6 hours, I feel it was a last resort for them. If it wasn't they would have done it a lot earlier.

OP posts:
BalloonSlayer · 21/07/2010 21:29

He was completely innocent of being a terrorist.

When I was ten I stole money out of my Mum's purse. If a group of armed police decide to blow my brains out on the tube tomorrow because they think I look like a terrorist suspect, although they're not sure and the person who could tell them whether I am or not is on their tea break, is that OK because I am "not completely innocent" due to some completely unrelated lapse?

jeez

5inthebed · 21/07/2010 21:31

Ok. I know a few people who knew RM. Both as friends and as others (which I won't say on hre). I've heard about him from both sides and I still can't make up my mind.

If the police did taz him and this caused him to die, then he didn't deserve to die like that. If he took his life, then fair enough.

DH says the police should have shot him on site I don't think they should have.

Who is to say?

5inthebed · 21/07/2010 21:31

taz = taser

SirBoobAlot · 21/07/2010 21:33

The police were hounded for acting to protect the general public; which is what they are supposed to do, isn't it?

They suspected him of terrorist activity. He was asked to stop - he chose to run.

Are you honestly saying that wouldn't have made any of you suspicious?

Out of everyone in both situations, it is the police I feel more sorry for. Endless criticism against people in horrible situations where they can't win regardless of what they go.

Avantia · 21/07/2010 21:38

It is so easy for us ,'joe public', to talk about what armed police should or shouldn't do when they have to make a decision in a split second , and live with the consequences both in the Moat case and Menzie case.

I have no sympathy for Moat , he held his own gun to his own head with ammo that he made himself .

family members were saying today that if he killed himslef with his own gun why were the injuries different to that of the police man he shot ?

I'm no ballistic expert but does it need one to answer that ?

Interesting to see how many weapons Moat had access to whilst he was on the run - had enough people helping him and I'm sure that they didn't swap Match Attax card when they met him on the run !

daftpunk · 21/07/2010 21:41

Absolutely, the police can't win can they....they acted in the best interest of the general public (when the country was on high alert of terrorist attack) they shot an illegal immigrant who failed to stop...and they are criticized...??

Avantia · 21/07/2010 21:47

5inthebed - what exacty can't you make your mind up about ?

Moat killed one man, shot an unarmed policeman at point blank range , seriously injured his ex girlfriend .

Was in prison for assualt on 9 yr old girl ?

SirBoobAlot · 21/07/2010 21:50

Daftpunk, I amazed myself by agreeing with what you were saying until I got to the "illegal immigrant" part; personally I don't think it mattered who he was. He could have been an illegal immigrant, a legal immigrant, or have lived here all his life. The fact that there had been a series of co-ordinated terrorist attacks a fortnight before, however, is very important.

Easywriter · 21/07/2010 21:51

5inthebed -If the police did taz him and this caused him to die, then he didn't deserve to die like that. If he took his life, then fair enough.

I can only refer you to tokyonambu who said
"if you don't want to be shot in the head, don't point a loaded gun at it."

I think holding a loaded gun to your head when you have used it on 3 previous occasions to murder and maim, can be taken of intent to shoot yourself in the head, or was he writing an apology and cheque to support the people he injured and their families.

This entire discussion begars belief.

Yes! Terrible waste of life.
Sympathy for RM, only as much as I have for other cold, calculating murderers.

HowAnnoying · 21/07/2010 21:51

He didn't fail to stop, he didn't know he was being followed. He payed for his farew with his oyster card, and ran to teh train so he didn't miss it.

You're views are disgusting DP.

Easywriter · 21/07/2010 21:56

DaftPunk, I would like to think you mean that at the time the Police "thought" they were acting in the interest of the nation.

For that I don't think there's a problem.

But they got it wrong, horribly wrong.
And the fact that he was an illegal immigrant is not akin to being a terrorist and cannot be used to justify him being killed.

5inthebed · 21/07/2010 21:56

Avantia, whether or not he deserved to die. Who is to say? Sorry not very clear on my post.

I've no sympathy for him, after all, he murered someon in cold blood and blinded a complete stranger just because he was a police man.

tokyonambu · 21/07/2010 22:00

The point about Stockwell is that the police simply aren't trained to a sufficient level to get involved in a situation like that, and no amount of pretending they are will elevate SO19 to the level of elite military units, simply because they are based solely in London and their chain of command also have to deal with ordinary police work. They are not trained or experienced enough to operate what was essentially a military operation. Well, was actually a military operation: several of the spotters and observers, who repeatedly said that they were not in a position to confirm the identity of the subject being pursued and therefore that the police should not assume they were following a bomber, were military. Stockwell turned into a disaster because the police chain of command put inexperienced, minimally trained young men into a situation where they believed, incorrectly, that they had no choice but to shoot to protect civilians. As a simple difference, SAS men routinely shoot tens of thousand of rounds a year on ranges, and are trained to make critical shots until they can do it reflexively; policemen simply aren't trained in that way. That means the Army would not have been panicked into making hideous snap decisions. Had the SAS needed to kill a suspect, they could have done so; they would not, however, have been panicked into a debacle such as Stockwell.

I'd been talking post 7/7 with an acquaintance who was ex-military, with a career lasting thirty-odd years in relatively senior roles before spending the rest of his working life as a civilian advisor. He'd been speculating at the resources that would have been required to stop the 7/7 bombers had they known of prior to the bombings. He was of the opinion that it would require experienced and well-led soldiers, with all the problems of jurisdiction that involves. News of Stockwell arrived mid conversation, and he wrote:

^
I'm sad to have been so prophetic. Eight shots rapid into the head and
shoulder, from a standing position and whilst two of your mates were holding
him down??

The last time I heard of anything like that was in the Radfan some 40 years
ago. Two teenage soldiers brought back to camp the body of a dizzie
(dissident) they had just shot. They were as pleased with themselves as two
kids who have just bagged their first rabbit. Not so much a body but a bag
of raw hamburger, bone splinters and guts, held together by some tattered
rags (they had put some 30 rounds from their SLRs into him). The Company
Commander, stepping out of his tent to inspect the item, said words to the
effect, "Oh for fck's sake! Did you really* have to do that?". To which
the answer was, "Well, every time we hit him he kept moving - so we kept
shooting, Sir". Plus ca change, I guess.

I make no criticism of the policeman who fired the shots but have serious
reservations about the management and training that directly led to
unfortunate termination of the Stockwell incident. Then again and given that
someone needs to do such work, I am basically unhappy at the thought of
employing relatively large numbers of policemen who, in the nature of
things, will have limited training and of practical experience little to
none at all.
^

T

Swipe left for the next trending thread