Comments on: Rush to Judgement

By: Dom

Dom — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 01:06:20 +0000

“If you are not free to risk your life your life is not free.”

+1 to that. Of course you’re always welcome to risk your life in service to your government…but to your community? No, stay back ol’ chap, we know what’s best here.

I wonder if this is to some extent a symptom of the increasing divide between police and community. Not sure about the UK, but in the US I know some municipalities have brought back the nostalgic “foot patrol” to try to fix this problem. Unfortunately, if the cop on foot is still bent on being a dick, or a taser-happy 20-year-old, it doesn’t help much. And if he’s not representative of the mainstream force, it’s nothing but PR. I don’t think it’s possible to solve the problem through glad-handing residents anyway. Alienation is a feeling, based in perception. Ultimately, I think police have got to take a serious look at their mindset and reconsider exactly who they are tasked to protect and serve.

By: ThomasD

ThomasD — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 15:58:24 +0000

Michelle was at the bedroom window yelling, ‘Please save my kids’ and we wanted to help but the police were pushing us back and not allowing us near.

It was a second story window. If nothing else those people could have tried to talk the woman into jumping. Assuming she had access to anyone else in the house she could have thrown them out.

People wanted to help but were prevented from doing so. Even the police have acknowledged that. If you are not free to risk your life your life is not free.

Next they’ll ban guns and knives. Oh, wait…

By: Helen

Helen — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 16:10:28 +0000

I do wonder whether it is a question of language. Had the police said as they would have done in days of yore: “Keep away you bloody (or worse) fool. Do you want to ******* kill yourself?”, all would have been well. There would have been no articles in the press and on Samizdata and Mark Steyn would not be hyperventilating. Using the dreaded “elfnsafety” as an excuse did it for the bobbies. OK, I don’t know what happened, unlike the case of the drowned child, but that article does not exactly tell me.

By: HughMackie

HughMackie — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 14:14:40 +0000

“Oh, there might be one or two here or there who would not care to make an attempt if it might mean their job. But five???”

It may be counter-intuitive, but I think this has it exactly wrong. On his own, and knowing that the blame for inaction would be placed on his shoulders alone, a single policeman would be likely to try a rescue. It’s the passivity of the group that reinforces the impulse to do nothing.

By: lordsomber

lordsomber — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 13:57:17 +0000

“I find it very difficult to believe that five British police officers would stand by and let young children burn if they thought there was a chance for unequipped and untrained hands to help…”

I would also, but I do recall a similar case a few years ago:

http://www.policeone.com/international/articles/1357043/

By: Helen

Helen — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 13:39:39 +0000

I cannot comment on the actual case. Like you, James, I think the newspaper account is a little muddled. But there was a fairly clear case not so long ago of a British Community Police Officer standig by and letting a child drown because he did not have whatever permission he needed to go in and save him. The other child was saved by someone else. “I cannot believe” is not a good way of approaching any aspect of a country’s life.