First Millwall, now Narwahl.

quote:

London Bridge hero used Narwhal tusk to help stop attacker

[Video at link, above you get a glimpse of the tusk-wielding hero]

A hero bystander who was inside a nearby historic hall when the London Bridge stabbing unfolded Friday ripped a five-foot Narwhal tusk from the wall to help neutralize the knife-wielding madman, a witness said.

The unidentified man can be seen on footage of the stabbing Friday in London hovering over the suspect with the massive tusk as others attempt to disarm the assailant.

Witness Amy Coop tweeted that she was with the man at Fishmongers Hall when attack occurred shortly before 2 p.m.

“A guy who was with us at Fishmongers Hall took a 5’ narwhal tusk from the wall and went out to confront the attacker,” she wrote. “You can see him standing over the man (with what looks like a white pole) in the video.”

he hailed the man for his bravery saying, “We were trying to help victims inside but that man’s a hero”.

Other Twitter users also heaped praise on the man for his quick-thinking.

“This is legit the most bad ass thing I’ve ever heard,” tweeted Tom Strachan.

Lawmakers also hailed the group of Londoners who tackled and disarmed the attacker before police shot him dead.

“What’s remarkable about the images we’ve seen is the breath-taking heroism of members of the public who literally ran towards danger not knowing what confronted them,” Mayor Sadiq Khan told reporters.

Officials said the suspect, who has not been identified, killed two people and injured three others.

If Mad Jack Churchill stormed ashore during WWII with a long bow and Scottish broadsword, why not storm London Bridge with a Narwhal tusk?

Unrelated Narwhal Video

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

Originally posted by HayesGreener:
When I was working there in 2008 a good friend in the Constabulary told me he thought they were within a generation of having all officers armed again ....

Did he indicate what officers themselves thought of the move?
I have read that polls there indicate that much of the resistance comes from the police themselves. And I suppose that makes sense. An officer who’s been on the job for years and has had literally no experience with firearms in his/her life probably has no desire to start late in a career.

In a nutshell, No guns is a cultural thing with the UK Police and citizens, and it will take a while to change the culture. Opinions among the rank and file are mixed. Recruitment and selection processes have not traditionally included the criteria that an officer carry and use firearms. An officer hired 20 years ago is probably horrified by the thought. Armed police undergo a rigorous screening process. Senior police officials and the community traditionally do not like the idea that the police would have to be armed. But the perception is changing, especially from the perspective of the officer on the street who has to deal with knife and gun wielding criminals. Their laws are very different from ours-there is no "Stand your ground", you are expected to run away. I think many of our justified officer involved shootings would be prosecuted there. Another dynamic is there is no Posse Comitatus in the UK. They can use the military in circumstances where we could not. In private, line level British officers have told me they should be armed. They seem to be loosening the restrictions due to the violence they encounter, but they have a long way to go.

quote:

Originally posted by HayesGreener:

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

Originally posted by HayesGreener:
When I was working there in 2008 a good friend in the Constabulary told me he thought they were within a generation of having all officers armed again ....

Did he indicate what officers themselves thought of the move?
I have read that polls there indicate that much of the resistance comes from the police themselves. And I suppose that makes sense. An officer who’s been on the job for years and has had literally no experience with firearms in his/her life probably has no desire to start late in a career.

In a nutshell, No guns is a cultural thing with the UK Police and citizens, and it will take a while to change the culture. Opinions among the rank and file are mixed. Recruitment and selection processes have not traditionally included the criteria that an officer carry and use firearms. An officer hired 20 years ago is probably horrified by the thought. Armed police undergo a rigorous screening process. Senior police officials and the community traditionally do not like the idea that the police would have to be armed. But the perception is changing, especially from the perspective of the officer on the street who has to deal with knife and gun wielding criminals. Their laws are very different from ours-there is no "Stand your ground", you are expected to run away. I think many of our justified officer involved shootings would be prosecuted there. Another dynamic is there is no Posse Comitatus in the UK. They can use the military in circumstances where we could not. In private, line level British officers have told me they should be armed. They seem to be loosening the restrictions due to the violence they encounter, but they have a long way to go.

I can tell you this:

In the 15 years I was a cop in the UK, not once, repeat, not once was I ever polled or asked if I wanted to be routinely armed.I would have said (and all my peers) not only 'yes' but 'Hell yes!'

The reason they resist doing so is simple. It is a financial cost they are not willing to pay. In the Met (my parent force) there were over 26000 cops who would need to be trained, equipped and routinely re-qualified. Conservatively, that's got to cost at least 30k when you factor in the time and gear required, not to mention the necessary infrastructure such as ranges, ammunition, instructors etc. etc. That's just in London.There's at least another 50 thousand in the rest of the UK.
Then, what would would they do with the old farts who don't want to carry and those who couldn't qualify? Fire them all? You'd have numbers of very experienced coppers out on their ears in short order.

It will never happen unless and until someone is prepared to shoulder the financial burden.

I have heard that criminals are more respective of the police in the UK. Is this true? In Oakland, D.C., Detroit, etc. The idea of unarmed police would be crazy, they would just get shot or knifed.

quote:

Originally posted by Pyker:When I was working there in 2008 a good friend in the Constabulary told me he thought they were within a generation of having all officers armed again ....

Still highly unlikely, IMO.

A former police officer and close friend of ours volunteered to train as a member of the county police Special Support Unit - a euphemism for SWAT.

He was advised to withdraw his application, on the grounds that he was long-time and active member of our gun club, and actually owned a number of handguns [at that time]. The policy then was NOT to train officers who were already familiar with firearms of one kind or another, as their own training would interfere with the training that they would receive in the police.

quote:

Originally posted by tacfoley:
The policy then was NOT to train officers who were already familiar with firearms of one kind or another, as their own training would interfere with the training that they would receive in the police.

Thanks for that.

As demonstrated by literally countless examples in this country, a proper law enforcement training program will be able to overcome any problems that might arise due to previous familiarity and training with firearms. In fact, one of the recommended criteria for selection as a US Army sniper is individual “familiarity with weapons,” i.e., precision rifles. Although I can only speculate, of course, I suspect that the true reasons were more complex, including the instructors’ not wanting recruits who were possibly more knowledgeable and proficient than they were.

An unarmed police officer is nothing more than an “official civilian?”

How does having a gun change any civilian (i.e., nonmilitary) police officer into anything other than an “official civilian”?

quote:

Originally posted by tacfoley:

quote:

Originally posted by Pyker:When I was working there in 2008 a good friend in the Constabulary told me he thought they were within a generation of having all officers armed again ....

Still highly unlikely, IMO.

A former police officer and close friend of ours volunteered to train as a member of the county police Special Support Unit - a euphemism for SWAT.

He was advised to withdraw his application, on the grounds that he was long-time and active member of our gun club, and actually owned a number of handguns [at that time]. The policy then was NOT to train officers who were already familiar with firearms of one kind or another, as their own training would interfere with the training that they would receive in the police.

That wasn't my post that you are quoting.

I reiterate: There may be a small amount of 'tradition' involved, but the main reason is nothing other than financial. No force (or government for that matter) wants the cost burden of training and equipping thousands of officers in short order.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
How does having a gun change any civilian (i.e., nonmilitary) police officer into anything other than an “official civilian”?

An officer that can only bring another pair of hands and feet to a terrorist attack is just an official who can arrest but add little to stopping the attack. Does that satisfy you?

Okay, if your point is that having a gun when dealing with an armed attacker is better than not having a gun, then we agree.

quote:

Originally posted by HighZonie:
UK police: Suspect in attack had served time for terrorism
AP > https://apnews.com/edbd48353f9b4766abc7ddb34c0300cb


"LONDON (AP) — UK counterterrorism police on Saturday searched for clues into how a man imprisoned for terrorism offenses before his release last year managed to stab several people before being tackled by bystanders and shot dead by officers on London Bridge...

I’m surprised no one has wondered why a terrorist who had been tackled by bystanders ends up being shot by police...

I’m just trying to understand exactly what happened.,

quote:

Originally posted by Sportshooter:
An unarmed police officer is nothing more than an “official civilian?”

Which makes them the same as any feckless civilian.

quote:

Originally posted by smlsig:

quote:

Originally posted by HighZonie:
UK police: Suspect in attack had served time for terrorism
AP > https://apnews.com/edbd48353f9b4766abc7ddb34c0300cb


"LONDON (AP) — UK counterterrorism police on Saturday searched for clues into how a man imprisoned for terrorism offenses before his release last year managed to stab several people before being tackled by bystanders and shot dead by officers on London Bridge...

I’m surprised no one has wondered why a terrorist who had been tackled by bystanders ends up being shot by police...

I’m just trying to understand exactly what happened.,

Because the cops rightly assumed he was about to detonate an explosive vest.

Johnson reveals 74 other criminals were released on similar charges to London Bridge attacker

https://www.washingtonexaminer...ndon-bridge-attacker

Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced that 74 additional criminals with terrorist ties were released from prison under the system that freed the man responsible for the attack on London Bridge.

Usman Khan, the 28-year-old terrorist who killed two people before being thwarted by bystanders with a narwhal tusk and a fire extinguisher, had been in prison prior to the attack for terror-related offenses. He had been released from prison “on license” as part of an early release program. Khan had plotted an attack on the London Stock Exchange in 2012 when he was imprisoned the first time. He was only halfway through his prison sentence and was not referred to a parole board.

Johnson claimed that Khan’s release was the fault of the left-leaning Labour Party because they had overhauled a statute, the Extended Sentence for Public Protection, allowing terrorists to be held for an extended sentence until a parole board reviewed the case and agreed to release the individual. The Labour Party had overturned part of the EPP that required a parole board review, meaning Khan was freed after 8 years without any type of formal review by the board.

Johnson called Khan’s early release “sickening” and noted that he opposed the law when it was drafted in 2008.

“I absolutely deplore that this man was out on the streets. I think it’s absolutely repulsive,” Johnson said, later adding, “His release was necessary under the law because of the automatic early release scheme under which he was sentenced. That was the reality. And that was brought in by Labour with the support of Jeremy Corbyn and the rest of the Labour Party.”

He claimed he would work to overturn the policy to ensure that similar attacks do not occur in the future. It is not yet clear what Johnson intends to do with the 74 similarly released individuals, but he said his administration is working to investigate each person.