Police on in-line skates

Pat Norton <[email hidden]> wrote:
: I saw policemen on in-line skates in the middle of Paris. I did not
: speak to them but I was curious as to what they did if somebody they
: were chasing simply stopped running. An uncooperative person could
: simply push them over.

I suspect that's because skating is very big in Paris and it's a way
of doing "friendly" policing of some of the big events. They can always
send in the CRS if people get stroppy...

--
Arthur Clune http://www.clune.org
"Technolibertarians make a philosophy out of a personality defect"
- Paulina Borsook

Pat Norton said:

I saw policemen on in-line skates in the middle of Paris. I did not
speak to them but I was curious as to what they did if somebody they
were chasing simply stopped running. An uncooperative person could
simply push them over.

I think you are significantly overestimating the ease with which you
could push over a skater. If you go down to the Albert Memorial in Hyde
Park in London on a weekend you will see people playing hockey on inline
skates, and they take a lot of abuse before they go down.

My view would be that it is not substantially easier to take out an
experienced in-line skater, than a pedestrian or cyclist, though the key
word is experienced of course.

I saw the police on in-lines in Paris several weeks ago, but then they
were acting as marshals for the Friday Night Skate, which is a mass
skate of up to 20,000 people. In this instance they were supervising
traffic rather than chasing baddies. BTW if you get a chance to take
part in the skate its a wonderful thing to do.

Pat Norton said:

I saw policemen on in-line skates in the middle of Paris. I did not
speak to them but I was curious as to what they did if somebody they
were chasing simply stopped running. An uncooperative person could
simply push them over.

just try it, they carry guns

David Off said:

just try it, they carry guns

Can they hit anything though ? Shooting from skates is strictly for
Hollywood.
--
Smert' spamionam

In message <[email hidden]>, Andy Dingley
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

David Off said:

just try it, they carry guns

Can they hit anything though ? Shooting from skates is strictly for
Hollywood.

Pistol shooting at a distance is difficult enough to make an amusing
competitive sport. What you do with a police pistol is shove the barrel
into your suspect's middle so you can't miss. He's then supposed to
stop struggling.

--
Sue ];(🙂

Quoted message said:

Pistol shooting at a distance is difficult enough to make an amusing
competitive sport. What you do with a police pistol is shove the barrel
into your suspect's middle so you can't miss. He's then supposed to
stop struggling.

I'll second this. The 25 metre range that some of the Manchester police
practice on has a lot of holes in the wall at the end of the range, some of
them a worrying distance from the target areas.

Having said that, when I tried pistol shooting I thankfully had a bank of
earth to catch the errant bullets. My groupings were bigger than most
other peoples, simply 'cos I generally hit the target just four out of five
times compared to their 3 :-( Pistol shooting is much harder than it looks
even without roller skates :-)

"Sue" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In message <[email hidden]>, Andy Dingley
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

David Off said:

just try it, they carry guns

Can they hit anything though ? Shooting from skates is strictly for
Hollywood.

Pistol shooting at a distance is difficult enough to make an amusing
competitive sport. What you do with a police pistol is shove the barrel
into your suspect's middle so you can't miss. He's then supposed to
stop struggling.

Common pistol targets are significantly smaller than humans....

Roger Fretwell said:

My view would be that it is not substantially easier to take out an
experienced in-line skater, than a pedestrian or cyclist, though the
key word is experienced of course.

What he said. Last Wednesday I was outside a pub when a bag snatcher
rushed out hotly pursued by two other people. Three or four skaters
caught her (the thief) and held her until the police arrived. It
would be fair to say (in fact it would be a significant understatement
to say) that she was being about as uncooperative as she could manage.

Of course, it takes a particular kind of poor planning, stupidity
and/or desperation to attempt to steal stuff in a pub then run away
outside when there are several hundred skaters sitting at the front of
the building.

For what it's worth, I don't know about the police in Paris but there
are a couple of forces in the UK that have experimented with skates,
and they use boots with removable wheels so that they can also pursue
people on foot if the terrain is unsuitable for skating.

http://www.skatelog.com/countries/uk/police.htm has a coule of links

-dan

--
"please make sure that the person is your friend before you confirm"

David Off wrote

Quoted message said:

An uncooperative person could simply push them over.

just try it, they carry guns

Armed British police can only shoot to stop an immediate threat to
life. Even pointing a firearm outside those circumstances is assault
and the police must report it. A police officer facing a murder charge
would have come up with a more sophisticated defence than 'I was being
pushed over'. French law might be different.

I am not going to test it though.

Pat Norton [email hidden] opined the following...

Quoted message said:

Armed British police can only shoot to stop an immediate threat to
life.

Such as a bannister rod in a plastic bag?

Jon

Jon Senior <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Such as a bannister rod in a plastic bag?

Was it not a table leg, or have they perceived other bits of turned wood as
life threatening?

Graeme

Quoted message said:

Was it not a table leg, or have they perceived other bits of turned
wood as life threatening?

I think its just bits of wood they get 999 calls about where some idiot
says he can see the trigger mechanism and everything.

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Was it not a table leg, or have they perceived other bits of turned
wood as life threatening?

I think its just bits of wood they get 999 calls about where some idiot
says he can see the trigger mechanism and everything.

What really concerned me was the observational skills of the "marksmen"
involved. Despite having a clear enough shot to hit him in the *back* of
the head, they were unable to identify the contents of a plastic bag
which he was carrying in one hand. On the upside, they had their
licences revoked and were busted to "ordinary" plods. On the downside,
neither is currently serving time for murder!

Grrrrr.

Jon

Quoted message said:

What really concerned me was the observational skills of the
"marksmen" involved. Despite having a clear enough shot to hit him in
the *back* of the head, they were unable to identify the contents of a
plastic bag which he was carrying in one hand. On the upside, they had
their licences revoked and were busted to "ordinary" plods. On the
downside, neither is currently serving time for murder!

[Disclaimer: All IMHO. Feel free to set me straight. Prize for the
first person that gets this back on topic.]

They'd have been aiming for centre of mass, so hitting the head suggests
that his observational skills were roughly level with his marksmanship
skills.

The problems that the police have had when facing firearms is twofold.

1. Their rules of engagement prevent them from being able to shoot
before the suspect starts to shoot them. This means that they have to
shoot for the centre of mass (chest) 'cos if they miss the wife gets the
pension early.

2. Less than lethal alternatives are mostly unsuitable for situations in
which the targets weapon may be ready to fire and 'out'.

I'm guessing that nothing much happened to the officers involved because
where they went wrong was probably in their initial approach to the
bloke. Once they had confronted him it all rested on what he did with
the chair leg. This does assume that they had a reasonable suspicion[1]
that it was a firearm but IIRC they had. Whether it in the end turns
out to be a chair leg or a fire arm is irrelevent AFAIK.

I'd be interested to see a copy of the report into the incident. If the
victim made an apprently threatening wossname then what's interesting
about this case is that it seems to be one of the most talked about, but
appears to be more of a tragedy rather than a case of murder, unlike
several other cases. However, google mostly turns up ill-informed
drivel on the subject[2] which is what I'm staring to do. Apologies.

[1] Or whatever the jargon is.
[2]
<URL:http://www.revolutionarycommunistgroup.com/frfi/162/162_shoo.htm>
stands out from the crowd - it even gives gives BHIT a run for its
money.

Mark Thompson [email hidden] opined the following...

Quoted message said:

[Disclaimer: All IMHO. Feel free to set me straight. Prize for the
first person that gets this back on topic.]

I second the disclaimer but...

Quoted message said:

They'd have been aiming for centre of mass, so hitting the head suggests
that his observational skills were roughly level with his marksmanship
skills.

A possibility.

Quoted message said:

The problems that the police have had when facing firearms is twofold.

1. Their rules of engagement prevent them from being able to shoot
before the suspect starts to shoot them.

"Before the suspect starts to shoot." IIRC. They must protect
bystanders.

Quoted message said:

This means that they have to
shoot for the centre of mass (chest) 'cos if they miss the wife gets the
pension early.

If you are a good shot and have a rifled weapon, the head is more likely
to bring a suspect down. I believe that the police are encouraged to aim
for the chest to reduce the likelihood of missing (And thus endangering
bystanders) and to increase the chance of bringing the suspect in alive.

Quoted message said:

2. Less than lethal alternatives are mostly unsuitable for situations in
which the targets weapon may be ready to fire and 'out'.

There are ones that have been suggested (And tested). The foamy glue
cannon was my favourite. It simply glued the suspect in place. While
this is true, I'm not sure that it applies to any of the cases (That I
remember anyway) from recent history. In the famous chairleg incident,
the "weapon" was in a carrier bag that was held in one hand. Not really
a ready-to-fire situation.

Quoted message said:

I'm guessing that nothing much happened to the officers involved because
where they went wrong was probably in their initial approach to the
bloke.

Initial approach: they shot him!

Quoted message said:

Once they had confronted him it all rested on what he did with
the chair leg. This does assume that they had a reasonable suspicion[1]
that it was a firearm but IIRC they had. Whether it in the end turns
out to be a chair leg or a fire arm is irrelevent AFAIK.

I'd be interested to see a copy of the report into the incident. If the
victim made an apprently threatening wossname then what's interesting
about this case is that it seems to be one of the most talked about, but
appears to be more of a tragedy rather than a case of murder, unlike
several other cases. However, google mostly turns up ill-informed
drivel on the subject[2] which is what I'm staring to do. Apologies.

What I remember of the report stated that after being called to, the
suspect turned around to see what was going on and then moved the bag in
a "threatening" manner. The policeman claimed to have opened fire at
this point. The glaring problem is that the bullet entered the rear of
the skull which sort of suggests that the suspect had his back to them
at the time of the shooting. My major beef is that despite this enormous
hole in the explanation, the officer was not prosecuted. Meeja aside,
this sort of sweeping-under-the-carpet does not do much for the public's
impression of the police force.

Quoted message said:

[1] Or whatever the jargon is.
[2]
<URL:http://www.revolutionarycommunistgroup.com/frfi/162/162_shoo.htm>
stands out from the crowd - it even gives gives BHIT a run for its
money.

That's cracking. It does come from "revolutionarycommunistgroup" however
so was never likely to be objective.

Jon (Who to this date has only seen plods on foot, in cars or on horses.
- OT enough?)