Gary Souter likes a drink. And when he drinks, he can get a bit violent. In February, he was banned from every pub in Cardigan, South Wales, after getting in a brawl in a wine bar in which two people were injured. He himself was accused of assaulting a bouncer.
Would you give Gary Souter a gun?
For Dyfed-Powys Police, the answer is a resounding 'yes'. Because, not long after being banned from thirty pubs, Police Constable Gary Souter was transferred to the force's armed response team.
Now, personally, I support the right of all law-abiding citizens to possess a gun. And, since Souter has not actually been convicted of a crime, this could include him, at least in his private capacity. But, in a society in which it is illegal for most people to have a gun, is Gary Souter really the kind of person who should be singled out for the privilege, and responsibilities, of carrying one? And is he, in any event, the kind of person who should be part of a police armed response unit? After all, it is of the very nature of such units that they will often be involved in tense and potentially dangerous situations - situations calling for the exercise of a considerable degree of self-control and restraint, neither of which Souter appears to possess in any degree whatsoever.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
But there again, given that armed police shooting innocent citizens dead never seem to get convicted of any wrong-doing, perhaps this chap is perfect for the task. I mean, who better for a 'shoot first, fail to answer questions later' approach than a habitual violent drunk?
But then again, I would rather a 'habitual, violent drunk' be policing my town to a obviously jumped up old Joe who in preference to being 'out on the beat' would prefer sitting in their office,writing pointless dribble about someone they have no clue whatsoever about.Apart from what the media has placed upon their shoulders.
Have you ever been to the town in which this particular incident took place? A 'shoot first, fail to answer questions later' approach is the best action took in this area. Violence being a regular occurence.
The majority of pub owners in this area have withdrawn themselves from the pub watch scheme as they back Gary Souter. A police officer, who just can't switch off from his job. Blamed for being the local police officer, anything to get him off the local scums backs. Leave him alone.
There's something about the logic there that just... somehow escapes me. Because the town is very violent, a person of questionable self-control should be put in the armed police section?
No, I must have missed something there, surely...?
Questionable self control? Thats all very well and good when you haven't had something to drink, and your friends are being pounced upon by the local yobs.
I have never seen a police officer work as well and always put the law first than with this man.
From the way you speak its as if this man went out on a usual Monday afternoon and decided he did not like the said 'victims' and decided to give them a once over.
He was off duty, having a night out with his friends and sticking up for his friends who had been approached and threatened by the local riff raff. Say all you want but what would you do in that situation?
Stand there and take as many smacks in the mouth as you could handle as you were a local bobby? Wouldn't you feel you had to do more to resolve the situation to help innocent bystanders as you were infact the local bobby. Think about it. You wouldn't just stand back and watch.
Stand there and take as many smacks in the mouth as you could handle
Well, if a memeber of the public did anything other than that, or run away to call (the cops) for help, they'd be arrested and face a good chance of going to prison.
No sympathy for cops while they see nought wrong with shitting on ordinary people who have responded to criminal assault.
Post a Comment