Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

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:
daftpunk · 22/07/2010 10:41

I have sympathy for De Menezes..I never once said I am "happy" he was killed...what I have said is that I understand why it happened...

2shoes · 22/07/2010 10:41

now I have read it all

Kewcumber · 22/07/2010 11:01

Daftpunk - I know an officer involved in the Menenezes shooting and they will admit privately that it was a complete cock-up. Police teams were spread very thin that day with the more experienced teams surveiling the higher risk possible terrorists - they thought (mistakenly) that they were tracking a relatively unimportant person. There was a series of cock-ups including one officer going for a piss and losing sight of the subject and not admitting that (until later); there was in the fear of the moment a misunderstanding of what one of the officers reported; there was no police challenge except perhaps one shout of "police" the instant before he was shot (giving him no time to respond); there was a lack of clear co-ordination and failure to carry out the initial instructions which were to stop the subject and question them about possible links to terrorism; the commander computer note to let the subject onto the tube as he "was not carrying anything" was ignored and deleted (though subsequently recovered).

None of this was Menenzes fault and he was without doubt completely innocent of everything. Except it seems in your eyes being foreign and here and daring to travel on the underground.

tokyonambu · 22/07/2010 11:21

"they will admit privately that it was a complete cock-up"

It was a cock-up from the moment that the police decided that they had justification for Operation Kratos, in which SO19 firearms officers were permitted to make what are euphemistically called critical shots, ie shots to the head. They're not trained to do it, nor are they really equipped to do it. The justification was to stop the detonation of explosives carried by the suspects, but the atmosphere must have become progressively more heated. Hollow Point ammunition was issued, because there was more concern about what might happen to people stood behind the target. Officers were regularly told that explosives might detonate at any time, so they had to be fast with their first shot.

The end result was a man being shot repeatedly in the head at point blank range by officers who essentially kept firing until their guns were empty. They cannot rationally have believed he was carrying viable explosives: the 7/7 and 21/7 bombings and bombing attempts had needed large rucksacks because the explosives the terrorists had manufactured were bulky and inefficient; JCdM was by contrast wearing summer clothes and carrying nothing.

But the whole febrile air meant that the police, who were not trained nor given appropriate doctrine and rules of engagement, believed that they had to stop him by any means necessary. In which case, you have to ask, why the hell did they let him enter the station? Even with JHP ammunition, the risks to bystanders were considerable, and the effect of a detonation on a train, had he been actually carrying a bomb, would have been orders of magnitude worse than a detonation in the ticket hall or the street. So even had he been a terrorist carrying a viable device, it would still have been a total cock-up.

The atmosphere amongst the police that day was that they were the last line of defence against a well-resourced, competent opponent. In fact, had the threat been as serious as was made out, the police weren't suitable people. But given the police were being used, the tactics used were entirely inappropriate for the skills available. The individual officers are guilty of nothing but carrying out orders they must have known were inadequate. Collectively, however, the police failed, and the buck should have stopped at the Gold Commander.

daftpunk · 22/07/2010 11:25

Kewcumber;

I've read the report, I know mistakes were made, but weighing it all up I still think the police acted in the best interests of the public.... it's an emotive subject, & public opinion has always been 50/50 .

confuddledDOTcom · 22/07/2010 11:31

"I think that possibly YANBU, but I'm a bit uneasy about the everyday use of tasers on the general population."

Am I the only one who sees a difference between dangerous criminals and "me" a member of the "general population"?

ProfessorLaytonIsMyLoveSlave · 22/07/2010 11:35

That's presumably while that quote says "YANBU, but" -- YANBU [in this particular case] but [I wouldn't want it to be the start of a slippery slope].

hollyoaks · 22/07/2010 12:19

YANBU

However, I fail to see how anyone can make a judgement on how the police acted until all of the enquiry details are made public. I have info from someone who was at the stand-off in Rothbury which will eventually come out which imho made it reasonable for the police to have tazered him.

This is an example of how the media twist things to create a story when they should be proud of the police and how they acted in this instance.

StealthPolarBear · 22/07/2010 13:11

Who is defending Moat on this thread?

EnglandAllenPoe · 22/07/2010 13:20

UANBU. couldn't care less. murderous twat.

although i don't think police in general should carry tasers.

Fibilou · 22/07/2010 13:30

"although i don't think police in general should carry tasers"

They don't - see my previous post, in the UK tasers are only licensed to be carried by Authorised Firearms Officers - who are trained in to shoot-to-kill with their normal firearms. The majority of us are armed only with our batons and captor/CS spray.

I don't think we will ever see the day when taser is a routine issue and certainly I do not think it would be welcomed by the police federation.

paisleyleaf · 22/07/2010 13:33

yanbu
What a chance he had. In many other countries he'd have been shot on sight.

Fibilou · 22/07/2010 13:38

"It doesn't matter what the man/criminal/hate figure did, it is incumbent upon our law enforcers to ensure that they act within the law and don't act with more force than the situation requires ... "

I would be very interested to see how you would attempt to arrest a man armed with a shutgun who has already shot various members of the public and threatened to shoot more police officers. Take hold of him by the wrist ?

And I don't want to bore you with the law but even on the bare bones of the information available there is plenty of justification for their use of force

onagar · 22/07/2010 13:52

I don't care that Moat is dead. I'd have got a sniper to shoot him long before that point. From a safe distance so he didn't get to hurt anyone else.

If there is any doubt who did what then yes do another post mortem or whatever it takes to establish the facts. All sides should welcome facts.

I do want to know exactly who gets tazered anyway because there has already been talk about it being misused and I think that needs watching closely.

As far as I can see the police did nothing wrong here.

As for the De Menezes thing that was different. That was murder by an armed gang of criminals. I don't think it works to say "oh it was an accident. I thought you meant us to chase after him and shoot him over and over"

Fibilou · 22/07/2010 13:53

DrNortherner, I totally agree with your sentiments but there has to be an inquest - it's a legal requirement unless you have seen your doctor within, I think, the last 7 days and they are prepared to sign your death certificate. He's not getting any special treatmen there. A fit, healthy 70 year old that dropped dead would also get an inquest.

An IPCC investigation is also a legal requirement for any death in custody - because I am assuming someone probably said the words "you're under arrest" which then means that legally, you are in police custody (even if you aren't physically)

Onestonetogo · 22/07/2010 13:55

OP, YANBU, good riddance to Moat.

And what onagar said.

Blu · 22/07/2010 14:07

Fio - I think Gazza was intending to distract him with the lager and chicken drumsticks, and then whisk his gun out of his hand with the fishing rod.
Which would then have saved the police tasering him.

I assumed from all the eye witness reports and what the police said that they had used a taser as an attempt to stop him killing himself - and if this is the case, that is the right thing to have done. Any suggestion that he should have been shot anyway, or allowed to shoot himself without an attempt to stop him is to say we don't care if the police basically act as a vigilante force (like the police in Afghanistan, for example).

However I am amazed that the family have the gall to make such a public fuss, with no apparant evidence to support thier complaints. I guess they are doin it out of guilt - the brother was interviewed in the Observer last week and seemed to feel v guiltythat he had refused / lost contact over the years.

Easywriter · 22/07/2010 14:36

So , he gets an inquest and an IPCC investigation because evryone does in such circumstances.

Fine!
I have no issue with that and hopefully that murderers family will be satisfied with the results.

But, the police have done nothing wrong. I cannot believe that after killing an innocent person and injuring two others and claiming to want to kill more policemen and memebers of the public that anyone is shocked by his death.

I can't even be bothered to be ashamed to say that were I in charge I'd have told the police officers to shoot him and cancel the negotiation.

Unless there has been some MASSIVE lies put about by the media at the time, he was really dangerous and the Police are to be commended on this occasion for putting themselves in the line of fire to save him.

Sometimes, the POlice screw up, this time they didn't. Can we just take a minute to pat them on the back for a job well done.

And as for the muppet who set up that FAcebook page, claiming he was a legend simply for evading the police. (I'd not heard this before reading it in this thread) if that's true I'm all astonishment. If someone mugged/beat up/burgaled this idiot would she/he be seeting up a facebook page to them to congratulate them on getting away with commiting a crime against him/her?

Ludicrous!

hifi · 22/07/2010 14:42

they will be after compensation if a taser did kill him.

Easywriter · 22/07/2010 14:44

Noooo!

DetectivePotato · 22/07/2010 16:12

Daft punk.

I don't remember saying I was happy he was dead so don't put words in my mouth. What I said was I didn't care and I am glad that taxpayers don't have to pay for him to stay in prison. That is not the same as happy.

OP posts:
NetworkGuy · 22/07/2010 16:57

tokyonambu "allegation is that the taser caused, by some mechanism that is not quite clear, the illegally held sawn-off shotgun he had pressed to his head to go off."

Seems highly likely that the electric shock caused a twitch, but "immobilising him" as an explanation for the police action seems equally justified as using a tazer, knowing there was a 50:50 chance it might cause him to pull the trigger.

It may be wrong to speculate (since I have no knowledge of the individuals with the unapproved tazers) but some might dream up a conspiracy theory to suggest it was a deliberate act to cause him to fire, esp if some spotted could confirm he was aiming at his head (have not followed this at all on TV, don't buy newspapers, and have not seen any articles online). Aiming at his head would give them an opportunity where no-one else might be hurt.

Two questions -

  1. why were they using some as yet unapproved tazer (what's the difference ? multiple shocks ? higher voltage ? anyone know ?)

  2. if there were no marks on his body, did the tazers only hit his clothing, but with rain (probably not ideal conductor, but that aside) on his clothing, would this have meant a wider area of him being affected by a shock (and do two tazers interact in dangerous ways) ?

cestlavie · 22/07/2010 17:26

Oh my god, of course this is unreasonable...

The use of force by the police is very clearly (by statute and case law) designed to be proportionate to the crime which they are trying to prevent and that crime is imminent (broadly comparable to the notion of self defence in some respects).

Specifically, the police officers must reasonably believe that a crime is about to be committed and that an appropriate amount of force should be used to prevent this - so it has both objective and subjective criteria.

To use lethal force (i.e. force which will kill or cause GBH), broadly the police officer must believe that:

  • a crime is about to be committed;
  • that crime is likely to result in serious harm to a person; and
  • there is no other way of preventing this happening

If someone is, for example, on the run from the police for multiple murders, the police are absolutely not justified in shooting him dead in case he murders someone else at some random point in the future.

In this case, unless I'm missing something, at no point was there any suggestion that he was about to shoot a police officer. In fact, it seems pretty clear from the evidence that the only person he was about to harm was himself. Why on earth would you be tasering him then?

tokyonambu · 22/07/2010 17:40

"Seems highly likely that the electric shock caused a twitch"

Does it? It's possible, I suppose, that while they were sawing off the barrel of his illegal shotgun, his confederates (now arrested and charged) also had a top-notch gunsmith lighten the trigger to match their brace of Purdeys, but in the real world shotguns have a trigger pull of about 25N (2.5kg, 6lb). Badly maintained ones, the sort that ex-cons acquire from their mates as sawn-offs, may be heavier.

A taser causes all of the muscles in your body to spasm. You've got two sets of muscles in your hand: the ones that close your fist, and the ones that open your fist. The former are probably a bit stronger than the latter (I happen to have had mine measured at Biobank last week, and I can grip about 350N; I doubt I could push that by opening my hand) but to make a shotgun go off, it would require the muscles that flex your index finger to be spasming 25N more than muscles that straighten your index finger, with your hand bent into whatever position it necessary to maintain the gun pointed at your head.

I presume they tasered him to try to stop him from shooting himself, and at some point either the gun went off by accident (I'm not saying the twitch theory is impossible, just that it requires more than a twitch to fire a shotgun and a taser will not necessarily produce an suitable pull) or he decided to play "you won't take me alive, copper".

Let's face it, whatever happened, he wasn't going to be arrested peacefully.

Blu · 22/07/2010 17:43

The people nearby said he was shouting and becoming agitated - the police have said v v little - how do we know that they didn't think he was about to start shooting?