Cops

Michelle Malkin rounds up the news concerning the dead terrorist in London.  While not all the details are known as of this writing, the London authorities are saying clearly that the corpse was, indeed, a terrorist and the shooting was justified.

Here is my comment:

The London cops fired five times, and the terrorist was killed instantly as five bullets entered his head.  That's damn good shooting under stress.  Why can't American cops, especially the L.A.P.D., come even close to this level?  When the L.A. cops (or Miami, or any other big city with too much crime, especially drug crime) open fire, we tend to hear stories like hundreds of rounds fired, bystanders hit, suspects succeeding to hit cops or innocent victims, etc.  Why, oh why, do we never hear headlines of American police in action like "L.A.P.D. opens fire on armed criminal; five shots fired; five bullets enter armed criminal's head"?

Good job, Brits.  You are making the proper response to the terror threat on your nation.  Dead terrorists stop terrorizing.

Comments

[Karl]

Like I always say: "Gun control is being able to hit your target - Twice.

[Brass]

The several reports I have read mention the the British cops are "specialists". Knowing that the average beat cop over there either still does not carry or is new to carry leads me to believe this cop was maybe their equivalent of SWAT.

[BobG]

Whatever the reason 5 out of 5 to the head is pretty impressive.

[Noel]

Having lived in and around London for 10 years this one is pretty easy to peg.

It's illegal for Brits to carry firearms, period. Cops there are traditionally not armed with firearms, only their specialist forces which is, as mentioned above, their equivalent of SWAT.

So what you have is a half dozen specialist trained cops, taking down an (at least visibly) unarmed terrorist, whom they shoot at point blank range. Kinda hard to fuck that up.

Compared to LAPD, carrying a 9mm Glock, up against a half dozen gang bangers with Uzi's, MAC 10's and assorted pocket cannons that are firing on the cops from 40 yards. (makes it a bit difficult to get that "take down head shot")

Regardless, BRAVO to the Brits. Dead terrorists don't terrorize.

The liberal tree hugging bed wetters in America that would rather turn all the murderers loose could take a lesson from this.

Arm them, let them kill, leave them alone, live a nice life.

[jeff]

Why do so many conservative blogs bash cops these days? I was enjoying your blog, but am hesitant to patronize it anymore because of your post. It is ignorant. (Not meaning stupid, just uninformed.) From several reports I've read the London cops were tackling the terrorist, and had the opportunity to deliver five contact head shots. Placing the gun on his head. Kinda hard to miss those. American police day in and day out face more armed criminals, engage in more shootouts, and kill more bad people successfully per capita than British police could ever dream of. How insulting you seem to a group of people who would be the front line defenders of you and yours should some terrorist show up at your neighborhood school. Not to mention the dozens that were killed on September 11, 2001. They go to work every day knowing this, as well as cleaning the streets of the worst people you could ever imagine. Quit Monday morning quarterbacking. For every police screw-up you see in the media, there are literally THOUSANDS of incidents EVERY DAY that cops handle with bravery and skill in this country. Ever been in a shootout with an armed criminal... Those that do can, those that can't criticize.

[Sailor Republica]

Jeff...I don't think he's hating on cops, just pointing out the ineptitude that has been put forth in some departments, especially L.A. and, now, Portland.

And it's understandable. Our cops are in better need of gun handling and training, but they aren't able to because of the Ted Kulongoskis and Ginny Burdicks of the world who want to take their money and training away.

On a different note, I think they should reinstate Mark Kroeker in Portland and fire Derrick Foxworth within an instant.

[Gullyborg]

"Ever been in a shootout with an armed criminal... Those that do can, those that can't criticize."

You had me all ready to say something apologetic, ready to stand up for the average beat cop just out doing his job and doing it well.

But then you blew it with that last line. You are raising the chickenhawk defense, and that irks me more than just about anything. It's like saying "you can't be a politician and send people to war because you never served in the military."

Hogwash.

Our military is a force governed by civilians, for the protection of civilians. Most of our Presidents, most of our Congressmen, from the Revolution on, have been civilians.

Were Adams and Jefferson unfit to be commander in chief because they didn't take up arms during the Revolutionary War?

So to make a blanket statement that I am unfit to speak out about police shootings because I have never claimed to have been involved in one is just about the dumbest thing I ever heard.

I never drank poison. Should I be barred from criticizing people who accidentally downed a bottle of rat poison, or worse, fed a bottle to a victim?

I've never stolen food to eat. Should I be prevented from stating that such an act is wrong, even if it is necessary? Would it be ignorant of me to suggest that, should you be forced to steal food to survive, that you repay your victim and apologize when you are able?

Most big city mayors have never been in a police shootout. Most haven't been cops at all. But big city mayors bear the responsibility for the actions of the police under their charge: should they be unable to criticize their own employees? Should they be unable to respond when one of those few tragic mistakes during a shootout happen?

Yes, Jeff, I respect people who join the police department to protect and to serve. I'm sure most of them do the best job they can. I'm sure most of them are ready to put their life on the line to protect people like you and me from dangerous criminals.

But that doesn't mean that the police SYSTEM in America works well. It doesn't mean that the department heads and police chiefs, who sell out beat cops to get ahead in politics (because at that level, they are no longer police but politicians), are above reproach. Most of our police departments are undermanned and undertrained. Most of our police, as heroic as they might be, would be incapable of handling the types of terror situations they are more and more likely to face in our future.

We need better armed police. But more importantly, we need better TRAINED police. Every beat cop should be spending several hours every week doing nothing but training with firearms, non-lethal weapons, and other urban combat technologies. And they should be PAID for it. If that means hiring more cops to have the same amount of man-hours on the beat, so be it. We should stop spending money on other frivolous social programs, and instead spend more on protecting the peace. The only real goal of government should be ensuring justice and order, so that we can be safe in our possessions, and remain free to prosper without government interference.

[Jeff]

Gully,

You missed the point of that last statement. Partially because I failed to put part of my argument into my post while editing it. (That comes from about 40 hours of overtime this week, and lack of sleep.)

I had originally intended to post a statement regarding your question;

" Why, oh why, do we never hear headlines of American police in action like "L.A.P.D. opens fire on armed criminal; five shots fired; five bullets enter armed criminal's head"?"

It is more of a media bias that I think you incorrectly help further with your post. Perhaps that is why there is a problem. You never hear those stories because they are not published.

My statement that "those that can't, criticize" was not meant directly for you. It was meant for the underlying media/special interest group bias that exists in publicizing every flaw of our system of policing, giving a warped view of the type of police officer we have here in this country.

Your first post SAYS NOTHING about how you believe American cops are undertrained, or need more funding for proficiency. It implies a blanket statement about how cops in America are not good at what they do (based on media reports?!!). Wrong. Most are, especially given (what you say so correctly), is a lack of training and funding so stupid social programs can waste tax-payer money.

My point was more of a liberal/media/special interest pet peeve I have that I think you helped forward. If your point was exactly what you posted in your response, I agree 100 percent. But you did not say that at all. Give me and mine more training any day. Just don't imply we are incompetent with your statements based on what you do or do not see in media reports. Criticize constructively, you have the right to do that. Just don't make a statement implying we are all incompetent;

"Why can't American cops, especially the L.A.P.D., come even close to this level?"

When you say that, the chicken hawk defense, as you put it, seems like a reasonable response.

No hard feelings here, now that you replied with your rebuttal. I would say that is a perfect point, but if that was the point of your first post, you should have said that. You didn't, you just complained.

Thanks,

Jeff

[Mark]

I'd like to point out something, and it'll piss off some people: a lot of cops are lousy shots, and have no interest in getting better.

Every time a local PD has qualifications coming up, you'll see some of them at the range, practicing just enough so they'll qualify. It's the first time they've fired since last qualification, and the last time till the next. Part of it is that they're not paid for practice- they have to buy their own ammo- but the basice problem for momst is they don't like shooting, and do as little as possible to get by. I think it was Jeff Cooper who commented once that the only law enforcement people he saw who were really good shots were those who enjoyed shooting; they were the only ones who practiced more than required.

From what I've read the officers who shot the guy are a special response unit much like our SWAT or tactical teams; since the ability to carry was taken away from the average cop over there, only those who get special certifications are allowed to carry, and this is a special unit of those guys.

As far as conservatives being cop-bashers, not the case here. That doesn't mean I cannot point out a problem.