Man who pointed fake gun in city centre tackled by officer

[nigel_bytes]

A brave police inspector was praised by a judge after tackling a man who had pointed a realistic imitation gun at a shop window.

Pavel Olah, 20, was captured on CCTV walking through Bradford city centre with what appeared to be a large black handgun in his hand.

Bradford Crown Court was yesterday shown footage of him walking with the gun past people in Centenary Square, waving the weapon in the direction of a car as he crossed a busy road, pointing it at a manhole cover as he passed the Alhambra Theatre, and then aiming it towards a shop window as he walked past.

http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/9815145...

[jmb88]

love the look on the face of the policeman who gets out the car, after the first one's started laying into the muppet - it kind of says "I'm going to kick the st out of you".

guess if armed officers had been deployed, they might have taken a shot, when he pointed the gun into what I assume was a shop window?

wonder what made the guy wander around with a replica firearm anyway, presumably trying to look "gangsta"

[S. Gonzales Esq.]

If someone pointed a 'gun' at me as I was passing in a car, would I be legally OK to run them over?

[Scuba_steve]

:O

If an ARV had been the first to turn up to deal with this character he may not have been lucky enough to appear in court in the first place.

I'm fairly sure if they'd have witnessed him pointing that (albeit imitation) firearm at anyone they'd have pulled the trigger and been justified in doing so.

Alarmingly there was very little reaction from most of the MOP's wandering about with exception to a mother who steered herself and her young child away from him as he walked past.

Yikes

[andy_s]

S. Gonzales Esq. said:

If someone pointed a 'gun' at me as I was passing in a car, would I be legally OK to run them over?

You can use reasonable force if you feel your life or others lives are in immediate and real danger. Although if you were passing and saw it, you'd have to stop and turn around and go back to get him, which may not go down quite as well...

[jmb88]

Scuba_steve said:

:O

If an ARV had been the first to turn up to deal with this character he may not have been lucky enough to appear in court in the first place.

I'm fairly sure if they'd have witnessed him pointing that (albeit imitation) firearm at anyone they'd have pulled the trigger and been justified in doing so.

Alarmingly there was very little reaction from most of the MOP's wandering about with exception to a mother who steered herself and her young child away from him as he walked past.

Yikes

most people are completely oblivious to what's going on around them though, and walk about like sheep.

[andy_s]

jmb88 said:

Scuba_steve said:

:O

If an ARV had been the first to turn up to deal with this character he may not have been lucky enough to appear in court in the first place.

I'm fairly sure if they'd have witnessed him pointing that (albeit imitation) firearm at anyone they'd have pulled the trigger and been justified in doing so.

Alarmingly there was very little reaction from most of the MOP's wandering about with exception to a mother who steered herself and her young child away from him as he walked past.

Yikes

most people are completely oblivious to what's going on around them though, and walk about like sheep.

Well, that and it's Bradford.

[shunaphil]

andy_s said:

S. Gonzales Esq. said:

If someone pointed a 'gun' at me as I was passing in a car, would I be legally OK to run them over?

You can use reasonable force if you feel your life or others lives are in immediate and real danger. Although if you were passing and saw it, you'd have to stop and turn around and go back to get him, which may not go down quite as well...

You can actually use reasonable force to protect others - so YES, you could turn your car around and run them over, but it would be up to you to prove the 'immediate danger'. Someone pointing what MAY be a firearm is not really immediate danger - there is some doubt - even Armed Response officers are not 'allowed' to shoot people - when they do so they are subjected to exactly the same legal process as you or I (in theory) - they have to 'prove' immediate danger.

I have no sympathy with such a 'gangsta' and he deserves to be shot, if only to remove him from the gene pool. However, IMHO an armed officer would NOT be justified in shooting him, as there had been no discharge of the weapon, and waving it around (real or imitation) does not necessarily demonstrate immediate danger. I realise this is a very fine judgement.

However, if said scrote had discharged a round (even a blank one) whilst pointing the weapon at someone then YES, I would say an officer would be justified in shooting - but that assumes the officer (even a firearms one) is not trained to a high enough level to be able to tell the difference between a black powder blank round and a live one. That is not a disparaging comment about their level of training - I would just be surprised if it goes to that much detail (but I may of course be wrong now - it certainly never used to be)

If there IS one aspect of the heavily paperwork ridden aspect of modern policing I do approve of it is the massive restrictions on armed officers and the justification they subsequently have to provide if they discharge a weapon. I think this culture of 'think very carefully first' means there are very few mistaken police shootings (yes I know there are some before you keyboard warriors get going, but they are very rare).

O/T I would be very interested to know if Trident (or is it Trojan?) officers in the Met are trained to the same level as provincial armed officers - I ask as whenever I see them on 'watch the cops' TV the Met officers seem MUCH more situationally aware with their weapons, and much more confident in their carrying - they just seem better trained.

[anonymous-user]

Scuba_steve said:

:O

If an ARV had been the first to turn up to deal with this character he may not have been lucky enough to appear in court in the first place.

I'm surprised they didn't tell all officers to stay away until ARV arrived first.

[anonymous-user]

Brave but high-risk. Not sure about baton to the legs first, but I wasn't there.

Kid deserved a hard stop from armed officers.

[Ki3r]

speedyguy said:

I'm surprised they didn't tell all officers to stay away until ARV arrived first.

I was thinking the same. Although maybe as he was walking though the streets with it the Insp thought it wasn't safe to wait for ARV?

Brave man, especially as it could have easily gone wrong.

[Durzel]

shunaphil said:

Someone pointing what MAY be a firearm is not really immediate danger

Are you looking at that from the perspective of not knowing whether it's a black piece of metal, or whether it is an clearly a gun but not necessarily a real one?

Would an ARV gamble that you haven't pulled the trigger yet if you start pointing it at people? If they have a clear shot I think there would be every chance they would proactively shoot.

Interested to hear if that is not the case - but I don't think armed police have to wait for you to fire to make a decision about lethal force.

[YorkshirePudding]

andy_s said:

Well, that and it's Bradford.

Just about to post that,

Shame the old station is no longer there as the police could've just shot him from one their windows.

[Fort Jefferson]

That has got to be a dry run to see how long it took for the authorities to react. I'd expect something more sinister to follow.

[carinaman]

shunaphil said:

You can actually use reasonable force to protect others - so YES, you could turn your car around and run them over, but it would be up to you to prove the 'immediate danger'. Someone pointing what MAY be a firearm is not really immediate danger - there is some doubt - even Armed Response officers are not 'allowed' to shoot people - when they do so they are subjected to exactly the same legal process as you or I (in theory) - they have to 'prove' immediate danger.

XXXX that! Imagine the fun you'd have trying to explain that to your insurers come renewal time.

'Yeah, I was driving into town to do some shopping and there was some chap in a green Adidas trackie top wandering about with a gun and he pointed it at me so I ran him over.'

Or you wouldn't have to declare it as the running over wouldn't have been accidental?

Edited by carinaman on Friday 13th July 19:59

[Elroy Blue]

If he'd been shot, the Daily Wail (and PH) would have had a field day moaning about Police shooting a man with a toy

[carinaman]

Given New Labour's unhealthy addiction to creating lesgislation they could have saved themselves some work with the statute book if they'd just made being a bellend a criminal offence.

[Butter Face]

Can't beleve that hardly a single person noticed, reacted, or even did a double take.

I swear you'd spot someone carrying a gun?? Or wouldn't you?

[carinaman]

Fort Jefferson said:

That has got to be a dry run to see how long it took for the authorities to react. I'd expect something more sinister to follow.

That thought hadn't crossed my mind.

I wonder if he has some developmental or personality issues as he failed to realise that perhaps the reason the good people of Bradford were ignoring him and his big piece was because they thought he was a bit of a plonker?

It was a cheaper, more planet friendly way to get some attention instead of driving around town ad nauseum in some aged hatchback with an offensively loud, window rattling exhaust on it?

[merge]

shunaphil said:

. However, IMHO an armed officer would NOT be justified in shooting him, as there had been no discharge of the weapon, and waving it around (real or imitation) does not necessarily demonstrate immediate danger. I realise this is a very fine judgement.

d.

Are you for real?
I think I speak for most folk when I say, if you wave a gun around, real or fake you must expect for it to be taken seriously. I would not hesitate in taking down such a fool. If you fancy waving around a gun then expect bullets, and some may come your way.