Waitrose shopper in threat to use guns

Waitrose shopper in threat to use guns

Waitrose shopper in threat to use guns

First published in News by

ARMED police pursued a disgruntled Waitrose shopper when he threatened to return to the store with two guns after rowing in an aisle with a customer.

The 65-year-old man sparked a police chase after he stormed out of the supermarket, in Fossetts Way, Southend.

The police helicopter was sent up and firearms officers were drafted in to hunt for the man after he made the threats.

He was eventually spotted at Sainsbury's, in London Road, Southend, where police put up a cordon to surround the man.

The man, from Rayleigh, was then arrested and taken to Southend police station, where he was given a caution after admitting disorderly conduct.

Although he did not have guns on him, police discovered he owned two shotguns, which were later seized. Chief Insp Simon Anslow, district commander for Southend, said: “There was a dispute and the customer made threats, saying he would come back with some guns. There are serious consequences for making threats, whether you intend to carry out the full action or not.

“If you mention firearms, Essex Police will take that seriously.

“We had the helicopter out, numerous firearms officers and road closures are often involved.

While that is taking place, officers are being taken away from dealing with other incidents.”

Although Waitrose refused to say what caused the argument, at about 12.45pm on Tuesday, a spokesman said: “There was an exchange of words between two customers which was brought to our attention and we felt it necessary to inform the police.

“We are grateful to the police for their support.”

Comments (25)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:09am Fri 8 Aug 14

Keptquiettillnow says...

Hopefully he has lost the 'Right' to own those guns.
How can you give a liability like that a license again?
Hopefully he has lost the 'Right' to own those guns. How can you give a liability like that a license again? Keptquiettillnow
  • Score: 39

7:17am Fri 8 Aug 14

Friendly Fire says...

Essex police over reacting once again. All of that for a 65 year old man. Two PCSO's could of dealt with it probably (as useless as they are). This is not America. He wouldn't of actually shot up the supermarket.
Essex police over reacting once again. All of that for a 65 year old man. Two PCSO's could of dealt with it probably (as useless as they are). This is not America. He wouldn't of actually shot up the supermarket. Friendly Fire
  • Score: -52

7:39am Fri 8 Aug 14

supermadmax says...

All that for a Caution?

The very least they could have done was taken him to court, even if it was a clear overreaction.

I note that they charge was "disorderly conduct." perhaps suggesting that he made the threat to kill, so they could not charge him with it.
All that for a Caution? The very least they could have done was taken him to court, even if it was a clear overreaction. I note that they charge was "disorderly conduct." perhaps suggesting that he made the threat to kill, so they could not charge him with it. supermadmax
  • Score: 8

7:57am Fri 8 Aug 14

Russ13 says...

Friendly Fire wrote:
Essex police over reacting once again. All of that for a 65 year old man. Two PCSO's could of dealt with it probably (as useless as they are). This is not America. He wouldn't of actually shot up the supermarket.
Of course..... and I'd lay money that it the story read "65 year old returns to supermarket to shoot shopper after making gun threat, police ignored warning" you'd be saying the police should have done something.

Not all 65 years old are decrepid old people, my grandad was 66 when he passed away due to cancer but at the age of 65 he was fit and strong enough to carry out a threat as above (not that he ever would have).

And just to be pedantic... "He wouldn't 'have' actually shot up the supermarket."
[quote][p][bold]Friendly Fire[/bold] wrote: Essex police over reacting once again. All of that for a 65 year old man. Two PCSO's could of dealt with it probably (as useless as they are). This is not America. He wouldn't of actually shot up the supermarket.[/p][/quote]Of course..... and I'd lay money that it the story read "65 year old returns to supermarket to shoot shopper after making gun threat, police ignored warning" you'd be saying the police should have done something. Not all 65 years old are decrepid old people, my grandad was 66 when he passed away due to cancer but at the age of 65 he was fit and strong enough to carry out a threat as above (not that he ever would have). And just to be pedantic... "He wouldn't 'have' actually shot up the supermarket." Russ13
  • Score: 34

8:07am Fri 8 Aug 14

pembury53 says...

the capacity of Essex police to waste public money seems to know no bounds....... I wonder how many of the recent countless violent robberies and assaults remain unsolved, meanwhile that helicopter pilot must have the best job in the country, let alone Essex....
the capacity of Essex police to waste public money seems to know no bounds....... I wonder how many of the recent countless violent robberies and assaults remain unsolved, meanwhile that helicopter pilot must have the best job in the country, let alone Essex.... pembury53
  • Score: -11

8:21am Fri 8 Aug 14

Rickeh says...

Wow! Serious consequences for making threats! A Conditional Discharge??
That IS serious!
Wow! Serious consequences for making threats! A Conditional Discharge?? That IS serious! Rickeh
  • Score: 6

8:39am Fri 8 Aug 14

The King of Southend says...

I can understand people in Morrisons or Tesco needing to carry guns to protect themselves but not Waitrose.

I blame the Waitrose essentials range for attracting low quality people.
I can understand people in Morrisons or Tesco needing to carry guns to protect themselves but not Waitrose. I blame the Waitrose essentials range for attracting low quality people. The King of Southend
  • Score: 39

9:13am Fri 8 Aug 14

ddf35 says...

perhaps the coffee machine wasnt working......

65 doesn't mean anything - 65 doesn't mean doddering old man, still capable of breaking the law, causing damage, causing injury etc, especially if guns are involved.
perhaps the coffee machine wasnt working...... 65 doesn't mean anything - 65 doesn't mean doddering old man, still capable of breaking the law, causing damage, causing injury etc, especially if guns are involved. ddf35
  • Score: 12

9:13am Fri 8 Aug 14

SLord90 says...

Friendly Fire wrote:
Essex police over reacting once again. All of that for a 65 year old man. Two PCSO's could of dealt with it probably (as useless as they are). This is not America. He wouldn't of actually shot up the supermarket.
Wow, you're an idiot.
[quote][p][bold]Friendly Fire[/bold] wrote: Essex police over reacting once again. All of that for a 65 year old man. Two PCSO's could of dealt with it probably (as useless as they are). This is not America. He wouldn't of actually shot up the supermarket.[/p][/quote]Wow, you're an idiot. SLord90
  • Score: 16

9:21am Fri 8 Aug 14

pembury53 says...

SLord90 wrote:
Friendly Fire wrote:
Essex police over reacting once again. All of that for a 65 year old man. Two PCSO's could of dealt with it probably (as useless as they are). This is not America. He wouldn't of actually shot up the supermarket.
Wow, you're an idiot.
why ? so you think the old duffer would have returned, all guns blazing, just because someone beat him to the 'reduced' mackerel fillets ?
[quote][p][bold]SLord90[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Friendly Fire[/bold] wrote: Essex police over reacting once again. All of that for a 65 year old man. Two PCSO's could of dealt with it probably (as useless as they are). This is not America. He wouldn't of actually shot up the supermarket.[/p][/quote]Wow, you're an idiot.[/p][/quote]why ? so you think the old duffer would have returned, all guns blazing, just because someone beat him to the 'reduced' mackerel fillets ? pembury53
  • Score: -6

9:51am Fri 8 Aug 14

scrounger‎ says...

Friendly Fire wrote:
Essex police over reacting once again. All of that for a 65 year old man. Two PCSO's could of dealt with it probably (as useless as they are). This is not America. He wouldn't of actually shot up the supermarket.
I have my doubts that PCSO's could have handled this as last week I watched one twice move out of the way to let a pavement cyclist pass. Waste of oxygen, PCSO and the cyclists.
[quote][p][bold]Friendly Fire[/bold] wrote: Essex police over reacting once again. All of that for a 65 year old man. Two PCSO's could of dealt with it probably (as useless as they are). This is not America. He wouldn't of actually shot up the supermarket.[/p][/quote]I have my doubts that PCSO's could have handled this as last week I watched one twice move out of the way to let a pavement cyclist pass. Waste of oxygen, PCSO and the cyclists. scrounger‎
  • Score: 16

10:20am Fri 8 Aug 14

Friendly Fire says...

SLord90 wrote:
Friendly Fire wrote:
Essex police over reacting once again. All of that for a 65 year old man. Two PCSO's could of dealt with it probably (as useless as they are). This is not America. He wouldn't of actually shot up the supermarket.
Wow, you're an idiot.
Its right though. He wouldn't of killed anyone.
[quote][p][bold]SLord90[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Friendly Fire[/bold] wrote: Essex police over reacting once again. All of that for a 65 year old man. Two PCSO's could of dealt with it probably (as useless as they are). This is not America. He wouldn't of actually shot up the supermarket.[/p][/quote]Wow, you're an idiot.[/p][/quote]Its right though. He wouldn't of killed anyone. Friendly Fire
  • Score: -16

10:48am Fri 8 Aug 14

sesibollox says...

Friendly Fire wrote:
SLord90 wrote:
Friendly Fire wrote:
Essex police over reacting once again. All of that for a 65 year old man. Two PCSO's could of dealt with it probably (as useless as they are). This is not America. He wouldn't of actually shot up the supermarket.
Wow, you're an idiot.
Its right though. He wouldn't of killed anyone.
Glad there are two less shotguns in the hands of an idiot..
[quote][p][bold]Friendly Fire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SLord90[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Friendly Fire[/bold] wrote: Essex police over reacting once again. All of that for a 65 year old man. Two PCSO's could of dealt with it probably (as useless as they are). This is not America. He wouldn't of actually shot up the supermarket.[/p][/quote]Wow, you're an idiot.[/p][/quote]Its right though. He wouldn't of killed anyone.[/p][/quote]Glad there are two less shotguns in the hands of an idiot.. sesibollox
  • Score: 18

11:48am Fri 8 Aug 14

opalina says...

Friendly Fire wrote:
Essex police over reacting once again. All of that for a 65 year old man. Two PCSO's could of dealt with it probably (as useless as they are). This is not America. He wouldn't of actually shot up the supermarket.
So if in that same situation it had been a 20 year old man, 30 year old man or 40 year old man the police would have been right to react in this way? so tell me what is the age cut of criteria you suggest? 45? 46? 50? 64?

I admit t would be so much easier for police to make decisions of public safety based on the age of the potential perpetrator. Perhaps gender and ethnic background too? I can see it now police get a call from a member of the public saying a white 50 year old man has threatened to use a firearm...cue police debating whether they should be bothered to act or just send a PCSO to deal with it. But hey if he's 49 we'll send the whole team and an armed response unit.

Threats must always be dealt with seriously. Look at the hoax bomb threat on the plane. if he was a 65 year old man should the pilot have thought 'ah he's only a old man probably nothing to it'.

Yes, they were probably only words said in anger but if you actually do own a gun and you make these threats you have to accept there will be consequences. And as someone else said, if he had have carried out his threat and the police did nothing you would be saying something very different now!

The problem with prevention is you will never know how may potential incidents have been thwarted. how may people have been arrested before they have actually carried out their threats, or may be its better to ask how many people WOULD have carried out their threats if they have not been arrested. Chances are most incidents like this are just words with no intention behind them, but I'm also sure that in a very small number of then serious crimes have been prevented and lives even saved. If you want to make judgement on that based on your own stereotypes of who's good and who's evil then go ahead I'm sure Essex police would save hundreds of thousand of pounds using your logical and precise predictions.
[quote][p][bold]Friendly Fire[/bold] wrote: Essex police over reacting once again. All of that for a 65 year old man. Two PCSO's could of dealt with it probably (as useless as they are). This is not America. He wouldn't of actually shot up the supermarket.[/p][/quote]So if in that same situation it had been a 20 year old man, 30 year old man or 40 year old man the police would have been right to react in this way? so tell me what is the age cut of criteria you suggest? 45? 46? 50? 64? I admit t would be so much easier for police to make decisions of public safety based on the age of the potential perpetrator. Perhaps gender and ethnic background too? I can see it now police get a call from a member of the public saying a white 50 year old man has threatened to use a firearm...cue police debating whether they should be bothered to act or just send a PCSO to deal with it. But hey if he's 49 we'll send the whole team and an armed response unit. Threats must always be dealt with seriously. Look at the hoax bomb threat on the plane. if he was a 65 year old man should the pilot have thought 'ah he's only a old man probably nothing to it'. Yes, they were probably only words said in anger but if you actually do own a gun and you make these threats you have to accept there will be consequences. And as someone else said, if he had have carried out his threat and the police did nothing you would be saying something very different now! The problem with prevention is you will never know how may potential incidents have been thwarted. how may people have been arrested before they have actually carried out their threats, or may be its better to ask how many people WOULD have carried out their threats if they have not been arrested. Chances are most incidents like this are just words with no intention behind them, but I'm also sure that in a very small number of then serious crimes have been prevented and lives even saved. If you want to make judgement on that based on your own stereotypes of who's good and who's evil then go ahead I'm sure Essex police would save hundreds of thousand of pounds using your logical and precise predictions. opalina
  • Score: 16

12:56pm Fri 8 Aug 14

opalina says...

pembury53 wrote:
SLord90 wrote:
Friendly Fire wrote:
Essex police over reacting once again. All of that for a 65 year old man. Two PCSO's could of dealt with it probably (as useless as they are). This is not America. He wouldn't of actually shot up the supermarket.
Wow, you're an idiot.
why ? so you think the old duffer would have returned, all guns blazing, just because someone beat him to the 'reduced' mackerel fillets ?
Worse things have happened for less
[quote][p][bold]pembury53[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SLord90[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Friendly Fire[/bold] wrote: Essex police over reacting once again. All of that for a 65 year old man. Two PCSO's could of dealt with it probably (as useless as they are). This is not America. He wouldn't of actually shot up the supermarket.[/p][/quote]Wow, you're an idiot.[/p][/quote]why ? so you think the old duffer would have returned, all guns blazing, just because someone beat him to the 'reduced' mackerel fillets ?[/p][/quote]Worse things have happened for less opalina
  • Score: 6

12:57pm Fri 8 Aug 14

opalina says...

pembury53 wrote:
SLord90 wrote:
Friendly Fire wrote:
Essex police over reacting once again. All of that for a 65 year old man. Two PCSO's could of dealt with it probably (as useless as they are). This is not America. He wouldn't of actually shot up the supermarket.
Wow, you're an idiot.
why ? so you think the old duffer would have returned, all guns blazing, just because someone beat him to the 'reduced' mackerel fillets ?
Worse things have happened for less! And unless you are psychic you really can't second guess any situation.
[quote][p][bold]pembury53[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SLord90[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Friendly Fire[/bold] wrote: Essex police over reacting once again. All of that for a 65 year old man. Two PCSO's could of dealt with it probably (as useless as they are). This is not America. He wouldn't of actually shot up the supermarket.[/p][/quote]Wow, you're an idiot.[/p][/quote]why ? so you think the old duffer would have returned, all guns blazing, just because someone beat him to the 'reduced' mackerel fillets ?[/p][/quote]Worse things have happened for less! And unless you are psychic you really can't second guess any situation. opalina
  • Score: 9

2:00pm Fri 8 Aug 14

ddf35 says...

pembury53 wrote:
SLord90 wrote:
Friendly Fire wrote:
Essex police over reacting once again. All of that for a 65 year old man. Two PCSO's could of dealt with it probably (as useless as they are). This is not America. He wouldn't of actually shot up the supermarket.
Wow, you're an idiot.
why ? so you think the old duffer would have returned, all guns blazing, just because someone beat him to the 'reduced' mackerel fillets ?
If, like many of the gun tragedies in America, the person has mental health issues , then they wouldn't be thinking rationally regarding the mackerel or whatever was the reason for the threat.
[quote][p][bold]pembury53[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SLord90[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Friendly Fire[/bold] wrote: Essex police over reacting once again. All of that for a 65 year old man. Two PCSO's could of dealt with it probably (as useless as they are). This is not America. He wouldn't of actually shot up the supermarket.[/p][/quote]Wow, you're an idiot.[/p][/quote]why ? so you think the old duffer would have returned, all guns blazing, just because someone beat him to the 'reduced' mackerel fillets ?[/p][/quote]If, like many of the gun tragedies in America, the person has mental health issues , then they wouldn't be thinking rationally regarding the mackerel or whatever was the reason for the threat. ddf35
  • Score: 5

3:37pm Fri 8 Aug 14

stopmoaning1 says...

Rickeh wrote:
Wow! Serious consequences for making threats! A Conditional Discharge??
That IS serious!
Almost as serious as making a comment having not actually reading the item properly.
'Caution' not conditional discharge. 'Caution'
[quote][p][bold]Rickeh[/bold] wrote: Wow! Serious consequences for making threats! A Conditional Discharge?? That IS serious![/p][/quote]Almost as serious as making a comment having not actually reading the item properly. 'Caution' not conditional discharge. 'Caution' stopmoaning1
  • Score: 10

3:41pm Fri 8 Aug 14

stopmoaning1 says...

supermadmax wrote:
All that for a Caution?

The very least they could have done was taken him to court, even if it was a clear overreaction.

I note that they charge was "disorderly conduct." perhaps suggesting that he made the threat to kill, so they could not charge him with it.
I don't see anywhere in the story that says he made a threat to kill.
It says he threatened to return to the store with two guns.
The law is very clear on criteria for cautioning and charging people. As he was cautioned, I gues he didn't fit any of the charge criteria.
[quote][p][bold]supermadmax[/bold] wrote: All that for a Caution? The very least they could have done was taken him to court, even if it was a clear overreaction. I note that they charge was "disorderly conduct." perhaps suggesting that he made the threat to kill, so they could not charge him with it.[/p][/quote]I don't see anywhere in the story that says he made a threat to kill. It says he threatened to return to the store with two guns. The law is very clear on criteria for cautioning and charging people. As he was cautioned, I gues he didn't fit any of the charge criteria. stopmoaning1
  • Score: 6

5:43pm Fri 8 Aug 14

pembury53 says...

ddf35 wrote:
pembury53 wrote:
SLord90 wrote:
Friendly Fire wrote:
Essex police over reacting once again. All of that for a 65 year old man. Two PCSO's could of dealt with it probably (as useless as they are). This is not America. He wouldn't of actually shot up the supermarket.
Wow, you're an idiot.
why ? so you think the old duffer would have returned, all guns blazing, just because someone beat him to the 'reduced' mackerel fillets ?
If, like many of the gun tragedies in America, the person has mental health issues , then they wouldn't be thinking rationally regarding the mackerel or whatever was the reason for the threat.
yes, there are plenty of gun tragedies in the US, however most do not involve advertising their intentions to a store full of people..... the problem in this country nowadays is the ridiculous over reaction to anything, other than any REAL CRIME ! the case of the hoax bomb threat mentioned above is yet another example.... anyone with an ounce of intelligence knows it's a joke, and all that was required was for a couple of ordinary police to take him off the aircraft and arrest him when it landed without any inconvenience, but we get 7 police vehicles, armed support, the works, and for what ? did they think this bloke was going to suddenly magic up a sub machine gun from somewhere and go down fighting ? Sadly, this visual spectacle is intentional, and contrived, designed to 'make you feel safe' and justify yet more government snooping into your personal lives instead of getting on with the real job of ensuring that the average person can actually walk the streets in safety, without fear of losing their possessions to some knife wielding scum bag....
[quote][p][bold]ddf35[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pembury53[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SLord90[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Friendly Fire[/bold] wrote: Essex police over reacting once again. All of that for a 65 year old man. Two PCSO's could of dealt with it probably (as useless as they are). This is not America. He wouldn't of actually shot up the supermarket.[/p][/quote]Wow, you're an idiot.[/p][/quote]why ? so you think the old duffer would have returned, all guns blazing, just because someone beat him to the 'reduced' mackerel fillets ?[/p][/quote]If, like many of the gun tragedies in America, the person has mental health issues , then they wouldn't be thinking rationally regarding the mackerel or whatever was the reason for the threat.[/p][/quote]yes, there are plenty of gun tragedies in the US, however most do not involve advertising their intentions to a store full of people..... the problem in this country nowadays is the ridiculous over reaction to anything, other than any REAL CRIME ! the case of the hoax bomb threat mentioned above is yet another example.... anyone with an ounce of intelligence knows it's a joke, and all that was required was for a couple of ordinary police to take him off the aircraft and arrest him when it landed without any inconvenience, but we get 7 police vehicles, armed support, the works, and for what ? did they think this bloke was going to suddenly magic up a sub machine gun from somewhere and go down fighting ? Sadly, this visual spectacle is intentional, and contrived, designed to 'make you feel safe' and justify yet more government snooping into your personal lives instead of getting on with the real job of ensuring that the average person can actually walk the streets in safety, without fear of losing their possessions to some knife wielding scum bag.... pembury53
  • Score: -4

6:32pm Fri 8 Aug 14

supermadmax says...

stopmoaning1 wrote:
supermadmax wrote:
All that for a Caution?

The very least they could have done was taken him to court, even if it was a clear overreaction.

I note that they charge was "disorderly conduct." perhaps suggesting that he made the threat to kill, so they could not charge him with it.
I don't see anywhere in the story that says he made a threat to kill.
It says he threatened to return to the store with two guns.
The law is very clear on criteria for cautioning and charging people. As he was cautioned, I gues he didn't fit any of the charge criteria.
"threatened to return to the store with two guns" amounts to the same thing as a gun only as one use, unlike a hammer for example which can be use to bang nails aswell as people.

I suspect, he simply denied saying he would come back with guns & because it was his word against one other persons (or he simply didnt say it) The cps would not go with the case, so the police had a quick word with his brief and said if he accepts a caution for the lesser charge we will go with that.
[quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]supermadmax[/bold] wrote: All that for a Caution? The very least they could have done was taken him to court, even if it was a clear overreaction. I note that they charge was "disorderly conduct." perhaps suggesting that he made the threat to kill, so they could not charge him with it.[/p][/quote]I don't see anywhere in the story that says he made a threat to kill. It says he threatened to return to the store with two guns. The law is very clear on criteria for cautioning and charging people. As he was cautioned, I gues he didn't fit any of the charge criteria.[/p][/quote]"threatened to return to the store with two guns" amounts to the same thing as a gun only as one use, unlike a hammer for example which can be use to bang nails aswell as people. I suspect, he simply denied saying he would come back with guns & because it was his word against one other persons (or he simply didnt say it) The cps would not go with the case, so the police had a quick word with his brief and said if he accepts a caution for the lesser charge we will go with that. supermadmax
  • Score: 0

1:39pm Sat 9 Aug 14

_Lotus_ says...

Friendly Fire wrote:
Essex police over reacting once again. All of that for a 65 year old man. Two PCSO's could of dealt with it probably (as useless as they are). This is not America. He wouldn't of actually shot up the supermarket.
How do you know he wouldn't have "shot up the supermarket"?

A gun is a gun, whether it be in the hands of a 20 year old or 65 year old.
[quote][p][bold]Friendly Fire[/bold] wrote: Essex police over reacting once again. All of that for a 65 year old man. Two PCSO's could of dealt with it probably (as useless as they are). This is not America. He wouldn't of actually shot up the supermarket.[/p][/quote]How do you know he wouldn't have "shot up the supermarket"? A gun is a gun, whether it be in the hands of a 20 year old or 65 year old. _Lotus_
  • Score: 4

4:22pm Sat 9 Aug 14

TrevorO says...

Friendly Fire wrote:
Essex police over reacting once again. All of that for a 65 year old man. Two PCSO's could of dealt with it probably (as useless as they are). This is not America. He wouldn't of actually shot up the supermarket.
I tend to agree with this comment. Two people had a row and the police mobilize armed units, an air unit, and surround a supermarket. That just highlights the inexperience of the Essex Police in handling firearm incidents and the poor accountability in policing.
[quote][p][bold]Friendly Fire[/bold] wrote: Essex police over reacting once again. All of that for a 65 year old man. Two PCSO's could of dealt with it probably (as useless as they are). This is not America. He wouldn't of actually shot up the supermarket.[/p][/quote]I tend to agree with this comment. Two people had a row and the police mobilize armed units, an air unit, and surround a supermarket. That just highlights the inexperience of the Essex Police in handling firearm incidents and the poor accountability in policing. TrevorO
  • Score: -7

7:32pm Sat 9 Aug 14

opalina says...

TrevorO wrote:
Friendly Fire wrote:
Essex police over reacting once again. All of that for a 65 year old man. Two PCSO's could of dealt with it probably (as useless as they are). This is not America. He wouldn't of actually shot up the supermarket.
I tend to agree with this comment. Two people had a row and the police mobilize armed units, an air unit, and surround a supermarket. That just highlights the inexperience of the Essex Police in handling firearm incidents and the poor accountability in policing.
When the police get a call they don't have all the facts. All they have is someone has threatened to take guns into a store. And even if they did have the facts I'm sure any police service in the country would rather ere on the side of caution than risk it quickly dissolving into a full scale seige. As I said above the chances are in 99% of cases these incidents are purely just an exchange of words. But I wouldn't want to be responsible for misjudging that 1% nobody can tell which incidents will escalate. A threat is a threat and angry words or not I'd rather an over kill on resources than reading about how the police failed to take a threat seriously and allowed a gunman to open fire on a crowded supermarket.

Not only that but it sends a clear message to people that they cannot just go around threatening people with guns. Even verbally without intent. If it wasn't taken seriously then anyone wouldn't worry about the repercussions of making threats. Then where would we be? The police would have to make those judgments on far more occasions and would lead to the inevitability of situations being misjudged and lives potentially lost.

The cost as someone mentioned may be high and resources taken away from other issues but I'm sure the cost and resources taken up by a murder enquiries would be far far more costly. And as I also said above we have no way of knowing which if these incidents have been prevented from escalating.
[quote][p][bold]TrevorO[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Friendly Fire[/bold] wrote: Essex police over reacting once again. All of that for a 65 year old man. Two PCSO's could of dealt with it probably (as useless as they are). This is not America. He wouldn't of actually shot up the supermarket.[/p][/quote]I tend to agree with this comment. Two people had a row and the police mobilize armed units, an air unit, and surround a supermarket. That just highlights the inexperience of the Essex Police in handling firearm incidents and the poor accountability in policing.[/p][/quote]When the police get a call they don't have all the facts. All they have is someone has threatened to take guns into a store. And even if they did have the facts I'm sure any police service in the country would rather ere on the side of caution than risk it quickly dissolving into a full scale seige. As I said above the chances are in 99% of cases these incidents are purely just an exchange of words. But I wouldn't want to be responsible for misjudging that 1% nobody can tell which incidents will escalate. A threat is a threat and angry words or not I'd rather an over kill on resources than reading about how the police failed to take a threat seriously and allowed a gunman to open fire on a crowded supermarket. Not only that but it sends a clear message to people that they cannot just go around threatening people with guns. Even verbally without intent. If it wasn't taken seriously then anyone wouldn't worry about the repercussions of making threats. Then where would we be? The police would have to make those judgments on far more occasions and would lead to the inevitability of situations being misjudged and lives potentially lost. The cost as someone mentioned may be high and resources taken away from other issues but I'm sure the cost and resources taken up by a murder enquiries would be far far more costly. And as I also said above we have no way of knowing which if these incidents have been prevented from escalating. opalina
  • Score: 7

12:44pm Thu 14 Aug 14

anon anon says...

Friendly Fire wrote:
Essex police over reacting once again. All of that for a 65 year old man. Two PCSO's could of dealt with it probably (as useless as they are). This is not America. He wouldn't of actually shot up the supermarket.
how do you know he wouldn't carry out his warning, ?
seems you are just anti police. maybe you have a history or something to hide..........
[quote][p][bold]Friendly Fire[/bold] wrote: Essex police over reacting once again. All of that for a 65 year old man. Two PCSO's could of dealt with it probably (as useless as they are). This is not America. He wouldn't of actually shot up the supermarket.[/p][/quote]how do you know he wouldn't carry out his warning, ? seems you are just anti police. maybe you have a history or something to hide.......... anon anon
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree