12 year old arrested

[Pixxie7]

Do you think the police acted appropriately given that they had a tip off that a boy was waving a gun around.

1,180 under-16s were arrested for possession of an offensive weapon in 2011 it had gone up 100 from the previous year. The youngest was 11. Can’t see the starts for the following years. This is not a race thing - it’s gun thing. The police will be too aware of the threat and will not take their chances and I do not blame them.

So @Hearhoovesthinkzebras,

if you feel the response was proportionate, and you clearly do, why shouldn't the police have just shot the whole family and secured the scene that way?

The end justifies the means after all, and if a report comes in to the station about a gun then why hold back?

Guns could be used to rob a bank after all and keeping them out of the hands of the public is more important than any other consideration.

And did you see what I did there?

@mathanxiety

So *@Hearhoovesthinkzebras*,

if you feel the response was proportionate, and you clearly do, why shouldn't the police have just shot the whole family and secured the scene that way?

The end justifies the means after all, and if a report comes in to the station about a gun then why hold back?

Guns could be used to rob a bank after all and keeping them out of the hands of the public is more important than any other consideration.

Don't be so ridiculous. They used a proportionate amount of force. No one got hurt, no one got shot. Their safety and the safety of the people in the house was maintained. Why should they shoot everyone?

Use proportionate force - exactly what they did.

[quote mathanxiety]@Fijibikini, are you disagreeing that the police should tell an unarmed person to leave the location immediately if they feel they are in the presence of someone who is armed?[/quote]
Where have I said I am? When your asked a question you reply with another question. How should the police have dealt with it??

The police probably did tell the passerby to go away I don’t think they told him to knock on the door and ask for the serial number did they

It's you whos insisting that the witness provides police with serial number of the gun and inside leg measurement of person with gun, as a minimum.

@Hearhoovesthinkzebras, it's very possible you have misread me. There are other possibilities too of course.

I would be happy to see a general description of height and build, demeanour of the subject, and whether there were any other people in the room/location, all of which would help police to determine the kind of response that would be appropriate and wouldn't bring the force and the law they have sworn to uphold into disrepute.

@mathanxiety

So *@Hearhoovesthinkzebras*,

if you feel the response was proportionate, and you clearly do, why shouldn't the police have just shot the whole family and secured the scene that way?

The end justifies the means after all, and if a report comes in to the station about a gun then why hold back?

Guns could be used to rob a bank after all and keeping them out of the hands of the public is more important than any other consideration.

Oh I didn’t have you down as the hysterical type manx deary me...

I would be happy to see a general description of height and build, demeanour of the subject, and whether there were any other people in the room/location, all of which would help police to determine the kind of response that would be appropriate and wouldn't bring the force and the law they have sworn to uphold into disrepute

Christ they walked past the window not stood there slack jawed gorping through the window.

The police have not been brought in to disrepute

@mathanxiety

It's you whos insisting that the witness provides police with serial number of the gun and inside leg measurement of person with gun, as a minimum.

@Hearhoovesthinkzebras, it's very possible you have misread me. There are other possibilities too of course.

I would be happy to see a general description of height and build, demeanour of the subject, and whether there were any other people in the room/location, all of which would help police to determine the kind of response that would be appropriate and wouldn't bring the force and the law they have sworn to uphold into disrepute.

And what leads you to believe they weren't asked for this? You're basing it only on the fact that this turned out to be a BB gun (made to look as realistic as possible) and then trying to insinuate that the witness concocted some fanciful story. The only way for anyone to determine whether the gun was real or not was by examining it. How could the police examine it without turning up at the house and no way should unarmed officers be sent to do that. So, as you can't give a reasonable alternative course of action I'm going to bed.

Interestingly people watching the video with the boy in it can’t agree on how old he looks and his demeanour and that is with being able to study it for as long as you want, not a quick glimpse as you walk past a window at nighttime

They used a proportionate amount of force.
So you keep on saying, I am not convinced that you understand the word 'proportionate' though.

No one got hurt, no one got shot. Their safety and the safety of the people in the house was maintained.
Are you asserting that 'hurt' and 'shot' are synonyms?
I got the impression from the mother's comments that she would have felt a lot safer with no guns trained on her and that she feared for her daughters' safety.

Why should they shoot everyone?
I asked you to tell me why they shouldn't, since in your view the end justifies the means, and I asked first.

Use proportionate force - exactly what they did.
See my remark about your understanding of that word.

If we are always to accept that the police response is proportionate, what is to stop the police taking liberties, shooting people, brutalising people, etc? Are they always above reproach?

You clearly do not see training loaded weapons on young girls awoken from their sleep as disproportionate so I am not sure if I can make any headway here.

wouldn't bring the force and the law they have sworn to uphold into disrepute

And they didn't bring the force into disrepute.

I did make the "all guns blazing" post and tbh I think that wasn't the right phrase to use - I was only responding to someone saying something about all guns blazing (iirc). What I meant though was I'd much rather the police took the report of guns seriously and handled it like a potential threat but not shoot first and ask questions later.

I still maintain that I think the police did what they had to do with the info given. What my question still is (and will probably always be, since I doubt the reporter would come forward) is what was said to the police to ensure this raid? It wouldn't have been just a 'I see a black male holding what appears to be a gun, he's in the living room alone and I'm looking through a window'.

From my experience, more was said. Some buzzwords were used to cause this heavy reaction. Again, it's not the fault of the police imo. It's the fearful/worried/vengeful/racist/biased/whatever it may be (I don't know) passerby/neighbour(?) who made the report.

I've been sat here thinking of the times I made reports, which ALL turned out to be real, not false alarms and at least 2 of them were very serious where on one occasion, the police had to break down the door (it took a while too and even caused an injury to one of the police there) after talking to the men inside and asking them to come out, to which they refused.

I was looking through my peep hole (I was rightly asked to stay inside and keep my doors locked) and could see it all. Middle of the night, well-lit flats hallway.

Of all those reports including serious threats and weapons, I've never witnessed such incident as the one reported here with this child...even if he wasn't a child. Lots of police officers showing up, sure they did on many occasions as backup (I'm sure they were armed) but carrying firearms with lasers and visors, etc as if raiding a well-known mob? Nope.

So what did this reporter really say was happening is my million pound question.

@mathanxiety

They used a proportionate amount of force. So you keep on saying, I am not convinced that you understand the word 'proportionate' though.

No one got hurt, no one got shot. Their safety and the safety of the people in the house was maintained.
Are you asserting that 'hurt' and 'shot' are synonyms?
I got the impression from the mother's comments that she would have felt a lot safer with no guns trained on her and that she feared for her daughters' safety.

Why should they shoot everyone?
I asked you to tell me why they shouldn't, since in your view the end justifies the means, and I asked first.

Use proportionate force - exactly what they did.
See my remark about your understanding of that word.

If we are always to accept that the police response is proportionate, what is to stop the police taking liberties, shooting people, brutalising people, etc? Are they always above reproach?

You clearly do not see training loaded weapons on young girls awoken from their sleep as disproportionate so I am not sure if I can make any headway here.

Oh my god.

I got the impression from the mother's comments that she would have felt a lot safer with no guns trained on her and that she feared for her daughters' safety

Don't have imitation guns in the house - problem solved. A situation entirely of her own making.

If we are always to accept that the police response is proportionate, what is to stop the police taking liberties, shooting people, brutalising people, etc? Are they always above reproach

We're talking about this situation. Police did a great job. They didn't do anything wrong.

You clearly do not see training loaded weapons on young girls awoken from their sleep as disproportionate so I am not sure if I can make any headway here.

They're not young girls, they're women. Secondly, unfortunately that's what happens when a gun is seen inside a house. Perhaps they should take it up with their brother?

How about you seek to sort out the problems you have in America before worrying about the UK? I'm sure we'll get by in the meantime.

You clearly do not see training loaded weapons on young girls awoken from their sleep as disproportionate so I am not sure if I can make any headway here

They do not know who is under the bed covers could be an armed man. There was reports of a fire arm at the house. You clearly don’t think that’s serious so I don’t think we’re going to make any head way here.

I asked you to tell me why they shouldn't, since in your view the end justifies the means, and I asked first

Because they are not murderers.

Nicola Hughes and Fiona Bone were two police officers who were killed in a gun and grenade ambush. No matter how much you think police are cannon fodder they still have a right to protect their own lives. It’s a shame you have dehumanised them so much.

Andthewinnerislucky@ that’s a fair question but then I don’t know enough about police policy to really comment. They may well work in groups who are all deployed to any given incident, but I don’t think the reporter should be criticised because he or she would have only given the information as they saw it.

@Fijibikini @Hearhoovesthinkzebras , have you never disagreed with her on a thread before?

She will not let it go, she will not be convinced otherwise about anything whatsoever. You'll end up wasting a few hours getting increasingly ludicrous replies to what you post, until the thread eventually limps to a thousand.

No way would I bother to deal with a barrel of stupid like this:

Are you asserting that 'hurt' and 'shot' are synonyms?

No, not actually criticised as I believe you see something off, you report to be safe. So reporter did the right thing by reporting what they thought they saw. Who knows why though or how it actually happened.

However, I'm only trying to figure out what warranted the (what I feel could be...but I'm not 100% sure) OTT response by the police.

It would have been based on the report made. The police in this case wasn't the problem, I don't think.

This isn't the first 'I see what looks like a gun' report the police have had. Otherwise, this level of raid would be common place in the UK now.

By that I mean, if this is their usual response to 'I see a man with what looks like a gun' (and it isn't), then this type of raid would be normal in the UK as reports such as these are "a dime a dozen".

So the sisters have gone from being "small children" to "young girls"

Has someone been on the Sherry ?

'1,180 under-16s were arrested for possession of an offensive weapon in 2011 it had gone up 100 from the previous year. The youngest was 11. Can’t see the starts for the following years. This is not a race thing - it’s gun thing'

No, it's a knife thing.

The daughters were 17 and I think 23 so neither really as one is an adult and one nearly.

According to one report the girls are 16 and 23

FWIW I have rung 999 for a crime in progress (bloke beating the shit out of a teen girl) and they did not come.

I have had other experiences with the met that have led me to have a fundamental distrust of them. I don't like the police. I don't like seeing them.

Remember Ian Tomlinson? Where police took their ID numbers off and covered their faces before attending a protest. Killed a man who was a passer by. Lied and lied and lied until footage was seen.

Met kill black men and twice the rate of white.

You all seem very naive tbh.

This was a boy in his home with a toy.

One call brings so19. That is a massive overreaction.

@Pixxie7

The daughters were 17 and I think 23 so neither really as one is an adult and one nearly.

Doesn't suit the narrative of "traumatised children" though 🤷‍♀️