Posts by A S
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Well Matthew, since you've explained why no-one should have an expectation of help or protection, is there a particular reason why I shouldn't be somewhat curious about why the police would advocate reliance on them in the first place.
Actually, before I was somewhat incredulous that it was somehow ok to leave someone to bleed to death. Again, that is a perception thing, you look at it from the perspective of the potential rescuer, I look at if from the perspective of the shot man. I suspect those perspectives will probably conflict regardless of how much we discuss them. I'm happy to park that part of the discussion if you are.
Just to clarify, I'm not angry they didn't stop the shooting to begin with. I'm just a bit saddened that an awful lot of people don't seem to be aware that they are pretty much on their own in a case like this, and that somehow that is ok. Admittedly I find the continued suggestion by police about not taking steps to protect yourself a little hypocritical in the context of the discussion that highlights just how alone you really are if something goes badly wrong. And no, Shep, I'm not advocating some sort of wild west, so you can relax.
I guess I should lower my expectations, and focus more on how to try to take care of myself and making damn sure to stay away from potentially dangerous situations now that my illusions have been dispelled.
Definitely an interesting discussion.
-
Shep, you're putting words in my mouth.
I'm not talking about arming the civilian population.
I'm not talking about a more aggressive role for the police, as far as I can see they are doing a fine job of that themselves (when it suits them), and I'm not talking about a right to use pre-emptive force.
As you are probably quite well aware, there are already quite sufficient laws regarding reasonable force, and in relation to self-defence and the situations in which self-defence is justified.
I simply questioned whether this sort of apparently conflicting position has contributed to an apparent lack of faith in the police
There. Hopefully that has clarified things and you can rest assured I'm not advocating armed insurrection.
-
Shep, what you're talking about doesn't seem to have much to do with the part of my statement you're quoting. You are talking about a different issue. I simply stated how in my experience, most people actually seem to have a genuine expectation that help will be forthcoming. Restating why it wont be, doesn't do much to alter a potentially widely held mis-conception.
I spent some time last night asking myself why this had me so het up.
What got me to post in the first place was the question Russell posed, about whether the police handling of things like this contribute to their having lost the battle of perception.
I thought that they had, I still believe that once all the inquiries are completed, shortcomings will be identifed and changes will take place in terms of policy and practice that will deal with those shortcomings.
As this discussion has gone on, one thing has increasingly puzzled me. Why if the police know, or have reasonable cause to expect that they are unlikely to be able to render timely assistance in a situation like this, why have they been so adamant that shop keepers should not take steps to try to protect themselves?
Isn't it a bit of a cynical position to take on the part of the police?
The concept that people mustn't take the law into their own hands, and protecting people from crime is the role of the police is all well and good, but if in reality that protection has quite a few riders attached to it, and in there is no guarantee of any protection, is that really acceptable?
Does this sort of thing contribute to the scepticism with much a lot of people view the police?
I don't know the answers, but these sorts of thoughts do cause me to question a few previously held beliefs.
-
Personally I can't say that I was ever under the impression that emergency services would come to my rescue immediately, no matter what the situation.
And I've never felt the need for a public service announcement to confirm that, it just seemed like common sense to me.
Does that put you in a minority? Do you think the rest of the populace is aware?
I don't know many who would have assumed they shouldn't expect help, and I'd previously dismissed the few I knew who did think that way as cranks with issues.
-
Matthew, different perspectives.
From the perspective of the poor sod whose been shot (and not to detract from what you've said), leaving him until it is safer to enter could be seen as pretty callous from his perspective, couldn't it?
As I said, different perspectives.
-
Well Matthew, I guess thats where we differed, I thought the callous part was not going to the assistance of someone who got shot.
-
"should the general population actually be quite clear that in an emergency they are on their own". You, not me. How else can that be read than that you don't think the emergency services should be allowed to account for their own safety before venturing in to provide aid?
How else can that be read? Exactly as I asked the question, and without the defensive interpretation by you. That is, should people be clear that in an emergency they are possibly on their own?
You've answered that question, and although I'm somewhat horrified, at least I have a fairly good idea of where I stand if I'm ever unfortunate enough to need help and I will adjust my expectations accordingly.
-
Funnily enough, the message that if we're in danger you're shit outta luck isn't exactly trumpeted to the general populace is it?
Don't you think that maybe this is something that people should be made aware of?
I'm a bit gob-smacked by it, but maybe I'm just naive.
-
Dave Waugh.
I haven't advocated suicide by anyone. I suggest you try to refrain from ascribing your interpretation of something to what someone else has said.
I will restate the question I asked above:
Should the general population be quite clear that in an emergency they are on their own and that they should not expect any help until the risk to the emergency services is deemed acceptable?
I will even reiterate that if the consensus is that the public should not expect help when there is such a risk, fine.
If this is the case, the public have the right to know that they may not receive any help, preferably before anyone else finds they need to rely on help that isn't doesn't come.
Perhaps that could be a useful public service announcement.
-
And the way you're saying it says that you object to the police taking the time to ensure that they could render aid as safely as possible in the circumstances. By saying that they took too long, and should've gone in straight away, you're saying that the fact that someone had been shot should be ignored and they should haved immediately entered the premises.
No, that is your interpretation of what I'm saying.
What I have said is fairly clearly talking about consideration of the same situation through a different lens. What I have also posed is a fairly simple question. That is:
Should the general public have an expectation that the Police will help them in an emergency, or should the general population actually be quite clear that in an emergency they are on their own and that they should not expect any help until the risk is deemed acceptable?
If the public should not expect help, fine. But it is something that would be nice to know before anyone else finds they need to rely on help that isn't likely to come.
Even our peace-keepers have rules-of-engagement that permit them to exercise lethal force if required. It's disingenuous to compare the military to civilians.
I think that if you check up on this, you'll find that the Police are defined as an armed force. They aren't civilians.