Liverpool police shoot man with sword dead

Victor

Is this fair game?

---

Police marksman in Liverpool have shot dead a man who was reported running amok in a street armed with a sword.

Mr Andrew Kernan (37) was seen in an "extremely agitated and violent state" in Wellington Grove, Wavertree, Merseyside police said.

...

Assistant Chief Constable Mike Tonge said: "Officers attended the scene in Wellington Grove and tried to defuse the situation and build up a rapport with 37-year-old Andrew Kernan. Efforts to do this failed and he left the premises armed with a sword.

"Further attempts were made to defuse the situation, with the use of CS incapacitant spray, which again proved unsuccessful.

"Mr Kernan continued to cause serious risk to the public and police officer safety, which ultimately led to the discharge of a firearm to ensure public safety.

...

Full story at: http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2001/0713/breaking8.htm

---

Kill, kill, kill the laser mice.

.ak

Here's a tip:

When armed police tell you to "THROW DOWN YOUR WEAPON, OR YOU WILL BE SHOT." Then you do as they say, they're not there to have a tea party, and they're not there to negotiate, they're trained to put two bullets in the chest, and one to the head. So keep this in mind next time you're caught robbing a bank. :P

-Dark-Angel-

Victor

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Dark-Angel:
they're trained to put two bullets in the chest, and one to the head. </font>

Well actually the idea is to do a "tap, tap" (2 shots, likely to hit with at least one, minimises collateral damage) to the body (largest target) - its the special forces guys add the one to the head

---

Kill, kill, kill the laser mice.

.ak

Yeah well, I'm going by the Armed Gardia. I have several 'friends' (Once one of your friends goes into the gardia, they're no longer a 'friend' :P) that are in the armed gardia, and they're trained to - as you said - 'tap two' to the chest, then one to the head.

-Dark-Angel-

Blitzkrieger

Put it this way - if you were a police man would you want to tackle a man with a sword?

Hobbes

That sword could of been loaded.

Victor

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Dark-Angel:
Yeah well, I'm going by the Armed Gardia. I have several 'friends' (Once one of your friends goes into the gardia, they're no longer a 'friend' :P) that are in the armed gardia, and they're trained to - as you said - 'tap two' to the chest, then one to the head. </font>

I think thats a bit of BS. The idea is a debilitating attack (sobeit if it is a fatal attack). The idea is not to finish off the wounded, strictly for the special ops types (mercy killing in battle aside).

---

Kill, kill, kill the laser mice.

Red Moose

I dunno, it's not like it was a frickin' gunblade like from Final Fantasy 8 or something (would have been cool though).

Still it seemed a little excessive, given that he had known psychiatric problems. I would have though it would have been better to "disable" him then actually kill him, although I am aware that they are trained that if a gunshot is required that it is to kill, no bull****. I read something about this last year that if it would be too difficult to train police to say shoot him in the arm or something (hehe, it's not like Lethal Weapon), so it's a total shoot to kill situation if anything at all.

Reminds of the incident last year with the pysciatric patient shot somewhere up the country by a garda sniper. However, in this instance the guy actually had a shotgun on him so I guess it was more warranted.

.ak

Exactly, Red Moose. These people aren't trained to think, or be mercifull. They're trained to kill. This is why I said in my earlier post that the person should've done what they said. They shoot to kill, not shoot to disarm.

CT: "Hey Terrorist! BUT DOWN THAT AK BEFORE I'M FORCED TO DISARM YOU!"

This is real life, not heroics. Heh, even the Military isn't as strict as the E.R.U.


On another note...

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally Posted by: Red Moose
Reminds of the incident last year with the pysciatric patient shot somewhere up the country by a garda sniper. However, in this instance the guy actually had a shotgun on him so I guess it was more warranted.

</font>

Yeah, there was a big fued over that. Allot of people said they didn't need to shoot the man, because he wouldn't harm a fly... Bull, if a man's armed, and he's told to drop the weapon... THEN HE SHOULD DROP IT. They only give one warning, it isn't the Movies. And also, it wasn't a sniper, it was one of the E.R.U with just an uzi.

-Dark-Angel-

Paladin

Maybe they should invest in police tazers?
Or are they illegal for police?

Paladin

So do police these days actually have access to these new high technology disabiling devices I see on discovery every now and then.
Things like the Tazer, glue guns, ultra frequency things, even tranquilisers, or are they not allowed use half those things?


[apologies to the author for the edit -- DeV]


[This message has been edited by DeVore (edited 15-07-2001).]

bugler

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Tranquilliser guns similar to those used to bring down wild animals are to be issued to police in an attempt to halt the number of fatal shootings by armed officers.
David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, has told associates he was horrified by the case of Andrew Kernan, a 37-year-old schizophrenic, who was shot dead by police marksmen in Liverpool last Thursday.

Kernan, who was waving a samurai sword and wearing pyjamas, was hit twice in the chest after police failed to subdue him with CS gas.

Blunkett has told officials to bring forward plans to issue the tranquilliser guns, which would be used instead of firearms where the individual involved did not appear to have a real gun. </font>

Full article here: http://www.observer.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,522035,00.html

Karl Hungus

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Paladin:

So do police these days actually have access to these new high technology disabiling devices I see on discovery every now and then.
Things like the Tazer, glue guns, ultra frequency things, even tranquilisers, or are they not allowed use half those things?</font>

What about those rays that implode people's brains...

Victor

London police shoot dead 'armed' man
Last updated: 16-07-01, 18:49

A man, believed to be armed, has been shot dead by police in south London this evening.

Armed officers rushed to the scene after a man allegedly armed with a silver handgun was spotted in Loughborough Road, Brixton.

full story at:

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2001/0716/breaking62.htm

---

Kill, kill, kill the laser mice.

[This message has been edited by Victor (edited 16-07-2001).]

Victor

Britain gripped by gun crimewave

BY STEWART TENDLER, CRIME CORRESPONDENT

POLICE forces reported more than 500 gun alerts in the seven days before the shooting dead of Derek Bennett by police in Brixton, a Times survey has found.

Full story

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,2-2001251347,00.html

---

Kill, kill, kill the laser mice.

Magwitch

I do not think the police were excessive. Two leg shots would not take down someone on PCP for instance (Rodney King springs to mind). The police did make an effort to defuse and disarm the man, but failing that the were right to take him down (excuse the gun-ho phrase) in the interests of the publics and their own safety.

entropi

That was not on at-all. They shouldhave shot him in the arm with the sword, but as coppers have no brains they went for the head and chest. The wierd thing about it was that they shot him with the worst gun in counter-strike, the Glock18, and it disabled him immediately. Like the ARU,or the Irish Rangers here, they have no training into the world of coaxinghim to put it down or he will die.They might have tried but they weren't good enough...me thinks they should have an officer who has a degree in this with them at all times for shyte like this. If coppers i.e. (the pigs)had a brain, they would shoot to maim and disable.

---

That island has freedom written all over it" Sir, that's Cuba. [url="HTTP://WWW.thesimpsons.com"]look at that smithers!![/url]

Shinji

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">The wierd thing about it was that they shot him with the worst gun in counter-strike, the Glock18, and it disabled him immediately</font>

That's the best laugh I've had all day, thanks

Xterminator

Just to add my voice to those that are saying, if you threaten an armed police officer witha potentialy deadly weapon, and you are given a warning , which you ignore ... well you cannot complain about being shot.

PS if my life was in danger, I wouldn't shot someone with a trank dart, with the hope the drugs like pcp he might already be on, dont cause the tranq dart to be innefective, or take a while to kick in.
I'd shoot the perp, and sleep soundly that night.

scutchy

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Death Sentence:
That was not on at-all. They shouldhave shot him in the arm with the sword</font>

If I have a knife and I'm 20 feet away from you, I have a reasonable chance of killing you, even if you have a gun. I read a story about a hunter who shot a tiger through the heart - it disembowelled him before it died.

A friend of a friend was stabbed twice in the neck with a scalpel. Before he passed out, he beat the other guy unconscious with a picnic bench, then got 7 pints of blood and microsurgery.

Shooting the guy in the arm (if you can make that shot on a moving target, bearing in mind lives depend on it) won't calm him down, and he isn't going to drop the sword; he's just going to change hands.

If someone's trying to kill me, I have no intention of taking undue risks with my life to protect theirs.

Lump

I think that the cops were right to nail him. I know he may not have caused harm to any one, but in that kind of a situation, who can tell. He wasn't out running around the street for no reason...... Although maybe he was just showing off the new He-man sword his mammy bought him for his birthday...... Anyway, I think that anyone who puts other people at risk by doing something like that deserves what they get. Inthis case a fatal shot to the body.


John

bonkey

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Death Sentence:
That was not on at-all. They shouldhave shot him in the arm with the sword, but as coppers have no brains they went for the head and chest</font>

This is such a crock. Special Forces are always taught to aim for the body, climbing to the head. It is the largest target, and most likely to succeed.

Yes, I agree with the sentiments that the police should be armed with non-lethal weaponry. Tazers in preference to tranqs.

However, they werent issued with them at the time of this event, so the question is whether or not they were right given the sitiuation

Unless you are an expert on swords, you would find it difficult to tell the difference between a tungsten-carbide modern katana, capable of cutting a body in two (or easily severing a limb) and a "mock" sword which would cause blunt trauma. Even with a mock sword, you can kill someone with a blow to the head.

So, you have a guy, waving around a potentially deadly weapon, against which (incidentally) bullet-proof vests are particularly ineffective.

He was given a chance to disarm. He refused. The police are told in circumstances like that to NEVER aim for the extremeties - you are more likely to miss and potentially injure those you are trying to protect through richchets, as well as leaving the target standing and still a danger to you and the public. "Shoot to injure" is most often seen on TV, not in real life.

In this case, as it has been reported, I support the actions taken by the police, but agree that it is a driving argument in favour of equipping the police with non-lethal weaponry.

Please bear in mind that even tasers can kill, and given that they are predominantly one-shot weapons (the ranged ones that is), you may still find good old lead projectiiles being used from time to time...but hopefully less often.

jc