I did say that unless Mr. Robin Williams could cite the Title, Chapter and Section of the law or Police Regulation which says that ranks are trained to shoot to kill instead of to disable, I would have no further contribution to make in the discourse on ‘whether or not they should shoot to kill.
However, because of some of the statements which Mr. Williams has made in his letter in the SN of 14-10-2009, I feel compelled to seek your tolerance and indulgence to allow me to amend my position and respond to some of them.
First of all, Mr. Williams has accepted that I have asked him to cite the relevant laws, which speak about the use of deadly force by the police. That is a pure and simple request, which he has unskillfully avoided.
Secondly, I wish to posit that he clearly misunderstood the reason why I asked the following question. “If it is that the police are trained to shoot to kill why do they seek frantically to save the life of someone who they would have shot by rushing them to a hospital’s department?” The point I wished to make there was that the real intention of shooting the person was not to kill him but to disable him. For that simple misunderstanding, Mr. Williams must be pitied.
With respect to saving the life of a death row inmate who attempts suicide, I am perfectly aware of that scenario. Some years ago, when two death row inmates (Thomas and Yassin) were about to be hanged one of them fell ill and the then Attorney General Mr. Bernard De Santos appeared on television and explained that for an inmate to be hanged he must be healthy. Of these apparent contradictions I am, fully aware.
Thirdly, in support of his contention, he calls forth the speech of Sir Ian Blair, the Met Commissioner of the UK who is on record as saying, “We can’t shoot to wound”. Unfortunately Mr. Williams deliberately or selectively failed to tell us of the circumstances in which Sir Ian made that statement, and the huge controversy, which surrounded the particular shooting incident under focus at the time.
Sir Ian Blair was speaking in direct reference to what I would call the Mark Saunders shooting. The substance of that incident is as follows.
Mr. Saunders who was a Barrister in London was fatally shot by members of Scotland Yard’s elite C019 specialist firearms unit”, after a five-hour stand- off. It is reported that nine marksmen had opened fire on their target and the circumstances under which he was killed generated an enormous controversy.
Mr. Williams quoted extensively what Sir Ian Blair said in the London Evening Standard newspapers, but permit me to quote from the same source, which revealed that there was a video recording of the shooting. It said:
“But the video, recorded by a police helicopter and leaked to the Sun shows Mr. Saunders “staggering drunkenly as he talks to negotiators before a hail of bullets hit him”.
The fact of the matter is that at the time when the fatal shots were fired Mr. Saunders posed no danger or threat to the police, and the question was asked why he was not wounded.
Obviously, the police Chief Sir Ian Blair needed to defend the reckless action of his men so he said that “We can’t shoot to wound”. Such a statement by Sir Ian must be dispatched with undue haste because it represents a gross insult to the intelligence of right thinking people, especially those who saw the video.
Those who opened fire on Mr. Saunders were described as marksmen who usually perform the duties as snipers whose unwritten philosophy because of the accuracy and precision with which they are required to shoot, is “one shot, one kill”.
I am not surprised that Sir Ian could have adopted such a defensive position for he is not unknown to be embroiled in controversy of this nature. It was under his watch that the young Brazilian was mistakenly shot for a terrorist on the London subway in 2005. Sir Ian and others were accused of covering up or at least trying to cover up the matter.
When Sir Ian Blair was eventually fired for other unrelated matters, the following statement was made in the press. “History will record Sir Ian Blair as the first Met Commissioner to suffer the indignity of being ousted for professional reasons in more than 100 years.” Well that is the kind of man who Mr. Williams is relying on for guidance.
In concluding, I must say that I get the distinct impression that Mr. Williams thinks a lot of himself and very little of others when he said:
“Those who are murky in their understanding of things like these, as Carryl certainly seems to be, cannot be enlightened by the likes of me.” Well, for Mr. William’s information I can be taught by anyone, even a child, as long as they demonstrate a nimbleness of intellect, wisdom and clarity of thought. But who Mr. Williams really think he is? What or who are the likes of him? Perhaps he is an Emperor, but even an Emperor should be humble. I would advise him to humble himself and treat others with respect.
Mr. Editor, Mr. Williams has not answered my question and he has not proved, even in a murky fashion, that police are trained to shoot to kill. He has not, because he cannot, so I think that I must now truly say obesa cantavit, which means that for me, in this matter the fat lady has finally sung.
Yours faithfully,
Francis Carryl
