bY 
Lola Adesioye
guardian.co.uk, Friday 9 July 2010 16.35 BST
 

People in America always ask me what police officers do in the UK without guns. They find it hard to comprehend how you can enforce the law or get people to comply without the threat of a gun. I tell them I find it weird and disconcerting that police officers in the US carry guns, particularly when I hear about the various accidents that happen as a result.

One of these "accidents" is currently the source of intense upset and was the reason for several large protests in Oakland, California. Last year, millions of people watched cellphone videos captured at the scene of the shooting and killing of 22-year-old Oscar Grant by police officer Johannes Mehserle on a train station platform in Oakland. We watched in horror as we saw an unarmed Grant, lying face down with a police officer's foot in his neck, shot in the back by Mehserle, a transport officer.

Mehserle, who was yesterday found guilty of involuntary manslaughter – a charge that carries a maximum, laughable four-year sentence – claims that he did not mean to shoot Grant, mistaking his Taser for a gun. That is one of the reasons why I am deeply thankful that police officers in the UK do not carry guns.

"Oops, I didn't know" has become a refrain that I have unfortunately heard too often while living in the US. Each year has brought another major incident, usually featuring a police officer who has shot and killed a young black person by accident. Just recently, it was seven-year-old Aiyana Jones. Last year it was Oscar Grant. In 2006 it was Sean Bell, who was riddled with bullets on the day before his wedding. All accidents. And these are just the ones that reach national attention.

People all across America are upset, disappointed and angry about the Oscar Grant verdict, which many see as symptomatic of a much deeper issue. They want to know why this type of accident only seems to happen to black kids. It's hard to remember the last time a police officer accidentally killed a young white person. Why do unarmed black people statistically overrepresented when it comes to police shootings?

When discussing this online, some people said that it is because black people commit more crime and so are perceived as armed and dangerous. Yet even if that is the case, that is still so troubling. This means that in theory any black person is a potential target to be shot and killed, just because there are a small minority of us who commit crime. We are all a potential Oscar Grant.

We need police officers to react to what is happening in the moment, not to what they think they know about people based on prior experience. On occasions it is great that in situations of intense stress, conscious thought takes a back seat and allows for quick, subconsciously driven, gut-instinct level responses. But it can also be fatal when the subconscious thoughts do not line up with reality. Police officer training must entail encouraging officers to examine, uncover and unpack their subconscious notions and ideas about people to ensure that these are not what they are reacting to in the heat of the moment.

In fact, I would go a step further. I would simply take the guns away. It may be time to really rethink the point of police officers routinely carrying guns. At least then this type of incident would not happen. Tasers, which are becoming increasingly sophisticated and employing multi-shot capabilities, are already lethal weapons which can kill as well as stun. Should those not be enough?

* * * * *

And that's how it works in "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", where strong-arm thugs beat and rob their victims on the public streets in broad daylight. Gangs kick down doors day or night, loot the home of valuables and leave the residents with broken bones and hideous, disfiguring knife slashes. The formerly great Britain, once arguably the most civilized country in the world has, under successive socialist governments become a savage jungle ruled by the strong and mean. The honest citizen is forbidden to own a firearm for self-defense. The police, who arrive after the crime as in every country, are also without firearms, a quaint old British custom.

I believe I read a news item in the last year about an English resident who defended himself against an attacker in his home with an ornamental sword and was facing murder or manslaughter charges. Sorry I don't recall the details.

I do remember a news item about a British Army veteran, 27 - 28 years old, who found a cloth sack that someone had thrown over the wall that separated his backyard from a public road. In the sack was a sawed-off shotgun and some shells for it. He took it in his house and called the local police station to let them know that he'd be coming by in the morning to turn over something he'd just found that they'd be interested in.

He took the sack to the police station in the morning, told the chief constable the whole story, and set the sack and shotgun on the chief's desk. At that point the chief arrested him for violation of the strict British laws against possession of a firearm.

That's what trying to be an honest citizen in an Orwellian socialist state gets you. The guy would have been much better off hiding the shotgun somewhere handy in his home. Then, when the thugs kicked in his door to take his property he could have ended their careers and re-hidden the gun before the unarmed Gestapo arrived to write down his fairytale about the argument between the gang members and the big guy who got away.

There's a lot of things I like and respect about England, I'm what you might call an Anglophile; but just knock off this crap about our guns. You do remember what happened the last time you tried to take guns and ammunition away from Americans, right? 

 
Captain Parker at Lexington Green

"The Shot Heard 'Round The World"

19 April 1775

First armed encounter between "Minutemen"
and British troops sent from Boston to seize
Revolutionaries' arms and powder caches at
Lexington and Concord.

UPDATE 07/11/10

Paul Clarke's Story

I Looked Up the Information About the Brit Who Found the Shotgun
 

A former soldier who handed a discarded shotgun in to police faces at least five years imprisonment for "doing his duty".

Paul Clarke, 27, was found guilty of possessing a firearm at Guildford Crown Court on Tuesday – after finding the gun and handing it personally to police officers on March 20 this year.

The jury took 20 minutes to make its conviction, and Mr Clarke now faces a minimum of five year's imprisonment for handing in the weapon.

In a statement read out in court, Mr Clarke said: "I didn't think for one moment I would be arrested.

"I thought it was my duty to hand it in and get it off the streets."

The court heard how Mr Clarke was on the balcony of his home in Nailsworth Crescent, Merstham, when he spotted a black bin liner at the bottom of his garden.

In his statement, he said: "I took it indoors and inside found a shorn-off shotgun and two cartridges.

"I didn't know what to do, so the next morning I rang the Chief Superintendent, Adrian Harper, and asked if I could pop in and see him.

"At the police station, I took the gun out of the bag and placed it on the table so it was pointing towards the wall."

Mr Clarke was then arrested immediately for possession of a firearm at Reigate police station, and taken to the cells.

Defending, Lionel Blackman told the jury Mr Clarke's garden backs onto a public green field, and his garden wall is significantly lower than his neighbours.

He also showed jurors a leaflet printed by Surrey Police explaining to citizens what they can do at a police station, which included "reporting found firearms".

Quizzing officer Garnett, who arrested Mr Clarke, he asked: "Are you aware of any notice issued by Surrey Police, or any publicity given to, telling citizens that if they find a firearm the only thing they should do is not touch it, report it by telephone, and not take it into a police station?"

To which, Mr Garnett replied: "No, I don't believe so."

Prosecuting, Brian Stalk, explained to the jury that possession of a firearm was a "strict liability" charge – therefore Mr Clarke's allegedly honest intent was irrelevant.

Just by having the gun in his possession he was guilty of the charge, and has no defence in law against it, he added.

But despite this, Mr Blackman urged members of the jury to consider how they would respond if they found a gun.

He said: "This is a very small case with a very big principle.

"You could be walking to a railway station on the way to work and find a firearm in a bin in the park.

"Is it unreasonable to take it to the police station?"

Paul Clarke will be sentenced on December 11.

Judge Christopher Critchlow said: "This is an unusual case, but in law there is no dispute that Mr Clarke has no defence to this charge.

"The intention of anybody possessing a firearm is irrelevant."

But, just like in the movies, This is Surrey Today reveals the Surprise Ending:

A former soldier who faced five years in jail after finding a shotgun and handing it in to police will be spending Christmas at home.

Paul Clarke, 27, was given a 12-month suspended sentence for possession of a firearm at Reading Crown Court today.

Clarke took the stand and sensationally claimed he had been having a sexual relationship with a female Surrey Police detective – and another police officer had grown jealous.

The 27-year-old was given the chance to give evidence in open court before his sentencing.

He said: "I didn't call the police [to tell them I had found the gun] because I was sleeping with the detective.

"Another officer has got a bit jealous and I have had a lot of harassment from the police since then.

"I also didn't want to call 999, I didn't want trigger happy police on my doorstep so I tried to call superintendent Harper instead."

Clarke told the stand he repeatedly called superintendent Andrian Harper to make an appointment with him to hand over the weapon – found at the bottom of his back garden.

Clarke told the court Mr Harper was not available for four days after he had found it.

Clarke said: "I just said I had something to give him, I didn't want to say I'd found a gun because then he would have sent lots of police around.

"It could have been a duplicate or an antique and to be honest I was more concerned I would be done for wasting police time, it never even crossed my mind I would be arrested."

Clarke said it only occurred to him he would be in danger of arrest once he handed the gun in at Reigate police station.

Clarke said: "Adrian said I might have to caution you, he said I'd put him in an awkward position because he might have to arrest me.

"And I said to him 'what do you mean, I'm handing it in?'. He said 'it's illegal even to possess it' and I can't said 'can't it be an amnesty, surely I can't be arrested for handing it in?', he then had an officer come in, arrest me, and take me down to the cells'."

Clarke told the court, whilst he was in police custody, three officers made him sign a statement which stated the discussion he had had with Adrian Harper prior to handing in the gun lasted 20 minutes.

Clarke admitted the statement he signed did not address the fact he had found the gun in his garden. But signed it because he felt he was not in any serious trouble.

Clarke said: "At the time I didn't know anything about these strict liability laws, I didn't realise I was committing any crime."

During cross-examination, prosecutor Mr Stalk queried whether Clarke had truly revealed he had found the gun during the meeting with Mr Harper.

Clarke replied: "I can't remember my exact words but I did tell him, and the police officers all asked me to sign that piece of paper and I thought it would be easier to cooperate.

He added: "At the time they I didn't think they were going to stitch me up."

Summing up, Judge Christopher Critchlow said: "It was a highly unusual case and one in which there are exceptional circumstances that means it would be unjust to impose the minimum sentence.

"It is an exceptional case because you took this weapon to the police station to hand it in."

He said the fact Clarke had kept the gun for four days was "odd behaviour" and it was a "very serious matter" that he did not hand it in immediately.

Judge Critchlow continued: "I therefore consider a term of imprisonment must be imposed to mark the gravity of keeping such a weapon and not immediately surrendering it to the police.

"I understand you were once a soldier and you in particular ought to have appreciated the danger posed by such a weapon.

"You should have asked the police to come and collect it right away.

"I find this was a strange matter, it may have been something to do with your previous involvement with the police, but that does not justify not giving immediate notice that you had such a weapon, and wanted them to have it."

Clarke was sentenced to a 12-month prison term, suspended for one year. He is also under curfew for one night from 8pm until 7am tomorrow morning (Saturday).

- Surrey Police responded to the sentencing at 4pm today (Friday), standing by their decision to pursue the case to court.

A Surrey Police spokesman said: "Clarke was given the opportunity to explain the full circumstances of how this lethal and prohibited weapon came to be in his possession.

"This explanation lacked credibility and a report was submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).

"Surrey Police stands by its decision to investigate and make its case to the CPS which decided that it was in the public interest to prosecute the case in court, and Paul Clarke was charged with possession of a prohibited weapon.

"This case clearly illustrates the serious view which is taken of the possession of any prohibited weapon such as a sawn-off shotgun or shortened shotgun.

"Such weapons are frequently prepared specifically to be used in the commission of serious violent crime."

In the statement released to the media, the spokesman wrote: "Surrey Police is pleased that, having heard all of the evidence today, Clarke has been sentenced appropriately."

* * * * *

I still think Mister Clarke got a raw deal from his local police and the justice system. I would say "I'm glad something like that can't happen here", but it can and will, there are too many fools who think it makes perfect sense.

On a lighter note, I hope Mister Clarke's interaction with the local police department doesn't sour his romance with his detective sweetie. From personal experience, I rate police women very highly. I have been happily married to a former U.S. Army Military Police Captain for 16 wonderful years.  HOOAH!!!