Moat No More
After hours of a stand-off with police, fugitive Raoul Moat has killed himself.
The following things are therefore the police's fault:
The following things are therefore the police's fault:
- Raoul Moat was only sentenced for a few weeks for assaulting his daughter. If the police had sentenced him for longer, he would have had an assessment by Probation before being released.
- Raoul Moat mades vague threats to friends/guards on release from prison. If the police had immediately incarcerated him again, for the offence of "Being a Person Possibly Maybe About to Commit Atrocities" then none of this would have happened.
- Moat phoned up threatening to kill a police officer. Police should instantly have passed legislation allowing them all to be armed and been trained in the use of firearms, so that twelve or so minutes later PC Rathband could have taken Moat out.
- Moat was hiding in countryside close to Rothbury, breaking into houses and robbing shops presumeably to subsist. The police should have been in every household and shop to apprehend him. With guns.
- The stand-off with Moat should have occurred in a disused abattoir out of town, it is a disgrace that he was allowed to hold a gun to his head in sight of people's houses.
- Kathleen should have been allowed out of her house, even if it meant pausing the stand-off to let her go by.
- Gazza should have been allowed to run the negotiations.
No doubt the usual police apologists will emerge, moaning that the police don't give out prison sentences, early releases, carry firearms or crystal balls, nor control the minds of Britain's less stable citizens.
But I for one have had enough of this weak attitude.
Still, at least Sue Sim's on the case.
But I for one have had enough of this weak attitude.
Still, at least Sue Sim's on the case.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
'Diary of an On-Call Girl' is available in some bookstores and online.
posted by PC Bloggs at 09:39
41 Comments:
yep, in a nutshell
10 July, 2010 10:40
Couldn't agree more. The more I listen to the public the more I hate their stupid anti everything to do with the police attitudes.
The bottom line question is :
IS THERE ANYTHING THAT IS NOT OUR FAULT?"
What about the policeman lying blinded in a hospital bed? Not much on the news about him huh?
10 July, 2010 12:01
Doesn't Sue Sim look like Alice Tinker/Horton from the vicar of Dibley?
10 July, 2010 12:06
You forget Ellie that we are the guardians of civilisation and as such accountable for everything. It's all our fault and can be charted from the outset, probably from the moment that a young Raoul Moat was ticked off by the local bobby some time in the mid-80s. Since then, we have bullied and victimised him, until now it all plays out to its inevitable conclusion. There will be questions in the House, and the long-retired Beat Bobby will be waiting in fear for the knock on the door when the IPCC send the boys round.
I think it's quite clear whose fault this all was - Raoul Moat and the people who assisted him. Let's hope his helpers get some decent prison time themselves.
Bill - Yes, and she talks about as much sense
10 July, 2010 12:36
Am I alone in wondering if all the massive resources brought to bear on this one individual were actually necessary? Do you have an inside angle on this?
Given how quickly other agencies seem to be able to track people down, like the CSA or the TV Licensing vans, maybe they could help next time... MB
10 July, 2010 12:52
Everything is always our fault, in some ways it stems from the fact that we are far more accountable than other public services, but also the fact that when they screw up it's us that get called and hey ho they can then blame us when it goes wrong.
10 July, 2010 13:09
Hello,
I don't understand why any of you wouldn't want the police to be held up to reasonable scrutiny!
In this case there really hasn't been excessive police-bashing. Legitimate questions have been raised. That is all.
Reading PC Blogg's post and the comments, it does look like some police (i.e. the ones reading this blog) are instinctively criticism-averse. Why is that?
Also, you all want to be perceived as professionals and as a professional organisation but you seem to insist on operating to lower standards of professionalism.
i.e. it appears ok for Bloggs to describe Moat as a "madman" etc... do you really think a mental health practioner, a doc in s psych ward, etc, would use language like that in a public medium. It simply isn't appropriate. It personalises the issue and the police should be at pains not to do that.
10 July, 2010 14:33
"some police are instinctively criticism-averse. Why is that?"
Because we are the ones who place our lives at risk.
Come back and speak to us when you have delivered a death message to a parent of a deceased child, been threatened with a knife or spat at every Saturday night by drunken teenagers, whilst outnumbered 20 - 1.
Bonkers.
10 July, 2010 14:58
Bill: Of course you'll be willing to post a picture of yourself (or link to same) on here won't you? So then we can criticise YOUR looks.
It would be just as relevant.
10 July, 2010 15:03
Oh dear Gadget's off on one. Why is it that s/he thinks the police are the only public servants to put their lives at risk in the line of service? What about the squaddies in Helmand, firefighters here at home or even, dare I say it, drugs and mental health outreach workers who have to visit the homes of some very dodgy people? And they can't carry guns.
10 July, 2010 15:12
Hi Inspector,
As drugsblogger has said... you've not described anything there that an A&E doctor or nurse doesn't routinely face...probation officers encounter similar, prison officers... likewise anyone employed in pretty much any public facing role...
...out of curiosity, why are my comments "bonkers"?
Didn't think I denegrated the police particularly... just made two comments, essentially, i) that the police need to act in a professional fashion, and by that I mean a standard equal to that employed by other professionals, and ii) that the police force should sometimes deal with criticism in a less confrontational way.
You're an inspector (I assume)and you're response to my (pretty tepid) criticisms is that I'm "bonkers".
You've kind of made my point for me.
10 July, 2010 15:53
When any action you do no matter how justified is criticised then I think you may have had enough of being criticised, when trying to do your job people interfere continually telling you are doing it wrong and even try to prevent you from carrying out a lawful duty ,when they have no idea of the law themselves, but may have heard something about the law from a mate down the pub then I think you too may have had enough, when the media continually criticise you and publish incorrect facts about overtime and police policies etc then again you may have had enough.When people put in malicious complaints against you for assault when it is they that have punched you twice in the face for arresting them would you not be peeved off of the criticism and scrutiny. Funny how the CPS Social Services etc aren't subject to the same level of interference and scrutiny. Welcome to the world inhabited by all police officers in the UK today including myself Inspector Gadget and PC Bloggs.
10 July, 2010 16:15
Drugsblogger and DJF there are 2 points that I would like to address.
Gadget has served in N. Ireland in a previous life as a soldier and therefore put his life at risk.
Nurses & doctors work in hospitals that believe it or not is where people go because 1. They have an injury. 2. They have a dreadful illness like cancer or whatever. Believe it or not people die in hospital all the time. Is it not true that hospitals are there to treat people who are injured or have a disease and may die?
Police officers do not go to work expecting death to themselves or anybody else but it happens. Nurses and others who work in hospitals expect death on a daily basis.
For your info I am ex-navy. 2 of my mates were killed in the Falklands. Sad yes. But we all took the Queen's shilling. Did you?
10 July, 2010 18:53
And now it seems that we are going to waste more time, effort and money in a number of enquiries.
Firstly, by the IPPC as to whether the force acted correctly on receipt of the warning from prison
Secondly, about the truth of the rants in the various letters that Moat wrote, and
Thirdly, into how he died and whether it could have been prevented.
What a total and utter waste of time and money.
10 July, 2010 21:53
My comment isn't about being criticism-averse. It is about being averse to being criticised for things that are not only not our fault, but are things over which we have ZERO control. It is about the people who think the police determine sentences or somehow agree with the pathetically small amount of time criminals serve, people who do not understand that blogs like mine exist because WE OURSELVES criticise aspects of the police. But we criticise aspects that the police have control over and SHOULD be blamed for.
10 July, 2010 22:31
@Annonymous - "The more I listen to the public the more I hate their stupid anti everything to do with the police attitudes."
when you say 'the public', you really mean 'the press'. You see where i'm going with this? Calm down and carry on... as they say...
11 July, 2010 01:02
I'm with you, Ellie, and Parkie too. Criticism is fine; endless, ill-informed, speculative 'shudder' type criticism is not. It's interesting, don't you think, that there isn't an equivalent of the IPCC for Court Services, Probation, the NHS, etc. You certainly don't see the GMC sending out a team of investigators to the scene of every death during surgery, do you?
11 July, 2010 10:24
DJF...
The Author of this site, Gadget and others have proven over and over again by their articles that they are anything but 'criticism-averse'
Indeed, the majority of police bloggers out there, created their sites and write frequently for the very reason that they feel the forces they serve are far from perfect, and seek to raise awareness so as to improve matters.
Were they criticism-averse as you suggest, these sites would not exist, and these officers would dispute every criticism levelled at them, which they do not.
The frontline always comes in for criticism, because it is the frontline and they are the convenient target for the media. The huge disparity that exists is that 24/7 these guys perform extremely well under increasingly difficult circumstances. Sadly, police officers performing well or exceptionally, does not have the same representation in the tabloids and other media.
You will rarely find Ellie, Gadget or other genuinely committed coppers shying away from deserved criticism. rather they welcome it and even encourage it, such is their desire to see police performance improved.
The police are only one part of the Criminal Justice System and for all its failings, as a service its performance stands out above that of the other parts. The CPS are woefully inept, sentencing within HMCS is pitifully weak, Probation Officers admit they spend half an hour a week at most supervising their flock, and the prison service is crumbling.
These other elements of so called joined up justice each shoulder a chunk of the blame for the state of our society, of which, the fate of Moat and his victims are a direct consequence.
Yet over the coming weeks, it will once again be the frontline police who will be the media whipping boys, with others' liabilities receiving minimal attention or more likely, being conveniently overlooked.
We would hope that local policing would bring increased positive reporting to balance out the negatives. However, this is expected fair and responsible journalism, so perhaps we shouldn't hold our breath.
11 July, 2010 10:48
Hi again,
Like other posters, I'm no fan of the blame game that seems to follow any event that captures the media's imagination.
That said, I geniunely don't think the police have it rougher than other public sector works.
The fact is, like all professions, mistakes are sometimes made by police forces. That will always be the case. And just as there are some negligent doctors and dishonest social workers there will probably always be negligent and dishonest police officers. I dare say some of the posters here will know officers who sail close to the wind either in terms of competence or integrity.
None of that detracts from the police successes that outweigh the failings.
Yes, it's the media that acts like a petulent child when things like this occur but its frustrating that the police rise to the bait so willingly... It looks a like a shit storm might be brewing about taser usage. I would so love a senior police officer to come on the box over the next few days and say "Well, we actually winged this operation... we made it up as we went along... we used our judgement as best we could with the information and resources we had."
Because that's what happened. And that's not a criticism, either. That's life.
...By and large most people are supportive of the police, I think, but don't take kindly to being told "your opinion is worthless until you've X, Y or Z" where X is tell a distraught mother her son's dead, Y is wrestle with an armed assailant and Z is fill in all the forms that go with X and Y. Not constructive.
Bloggs... I GENUINELY don't know a single person who thinks the police have any control over sentencing or over licence recall.
11 July, 2010 12:10
DJF,
Actually we do have it worse than other public sector workers.
We operate within an adversarial criminal justice system where there are numerous people with a vested interest in point scoring against the police on a daily basis, in the interests of themselves or their clients.
We are the only public sector organisation whose daily job is to tell people that their behaviour is unacceptable, and that there is now going to be a consequence for that. Strangely that tends not to make us popular.
Tang0
11 July, 2010 15:23
Thank you GinnerSinner and yes I agree there are lots of things which I would happily criticise about my force top of the list would be the 5 Ps which has been brought in as the Commissioner's mantra which treats us less as professional adults and more as five year olds who constantly need to be told the basics and single patrol which seems to be an attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of the public in relation to how few officers are actually patrolling on the front line rather than sitting in various useless and unecessary departments.I am not averse to genuine criticism but the continued constant sniping at myself and my colleagues as well as unfounded and totally malicious complaints is beginning to make a number of officers including me wonder why we bother.
I can't see any other professionalism putting up with the constant over investigation of their actions as has been said we are the only ones that have an IPCC type organisation
11 July, 2010 17:19
In reply to painauchocolat: maybe I'm the one on the left coming over a bit all Rik Mayallish? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/10583023.stm
I'm sure a lot of mistakes were made here but when the FCUK aren't they when you're under the pump?
11 July, 2010 19:20
anonymous ...so when a social worker tells a parent their kid is being taken into emergency care because they're unfit to look after them, that isn't likely to be as hostile as anything the police encounter?
...and family court proceedings they're not adversarial?
...and no one has vested interests or engages in point scoring when it comes to child protection cases?
...No, no you're quite right. The police have it so much harder.
And Parkieplod... yes you're quite right, too... the GMC is totally toothless... totally impotent when compared to the rigourous, forensic investigations carried out by the IPCC.
11 July, 2010 20:25
DJF, and who do paramedics, social workers and the rest call when these situations kick off? The police's JOB is to deal with confrontation, the other agencies have to deal with it sometimes but it isn't their raison d'etre. It's like comparing the police to the army and saying the police have it just as dangerous and risk their lives as much: they simply don't and you can't compare. Which is why the army has an even higher level of camaraderie and covering-each-others-backs culture. There are grades of these things and the police are somewhere in the middle, but you can't compare it to an essentially non-confrontational role without powers to use force.
11 July, 2010 21:30
As a Police Officer I have been called to the local Mental Health Secure Unit to help restrain a patient while he was medicated. I have accompanied Social Services to addresses to take children into care.
And MH Workers to other addresses to 'section' adults.
I have even accompanied Council Officers to addresses to carry out direct action under the Planning Acts.
I was injured on the last two being hit on the head with a glass ashtray by the person who did not want to be sectioned and bitten by the woman who took her own form of direct action.
My point is if there is any foreseeable risk, the Police are called and the Probation Officer/Social Worker etc is protected.
11 July, 2010 21:49
DJF,
I take it that you don't regard your efforts to try to demonstrate that police are the same as any other public sector as being a little "criticism averse" ? :-)
I can only asume that you don't actually work in a front line public sector environment. Perhaps you could get a job with the IPCC, or maybe direct entry at Supernintendo rank ;-)
Tang0
12 July, 2010 08:41
After a serious incident like this that resulted in several deaths I think it is perfectly right and proper that there is a full enquiry to determine if any lessons can be learned.
I just hope that the press report the results of the enquiry as widely as they have reported that one is going to take place, even if it shows that the police acted correctly
12 July, 2010 10:12
DFJ - if you seriously think that the police aren't held responsible for all the missed 'opportunities' to intervene you can't get out very much.
Why don't you flick, for example, to the delightful Facebook page created to commemorate the passing of one Raoul Moat? Once there perhaps you could count for us the number of fingers pointed at the myriad other agencies. Probation service, social workers, education boards - just some you might also who could have intervened.
Not many are there? That's because the police have become a cypher for grown-ups. Grown-ups who tell spoilt, ill-educated, badly behaved and indulgent children of every age that no, they cannot have what they want and taking it because they don't want to save up is bad.
That, my friend, is why we're so averse to criticism, because it's spat at us all day every day. Not, helpful criticism, like "How did you arrive at that decision? I think we can make it more efficient", no it's more likely to be "Why can't you just eff off? I ain't done nuffink" or "Why don't you get a proper job?" or "Why aren't you arresting him? I want him done"
Constructive criticism we can take. Childish, boring, whining, gimme-gimme from MOPs we do take. Hand-wringing, beardie-weirdie quarterbacking and wise-after-the-event pontifications? Forgive us if we don't snap your hand off.
12 July, 2010 11:04
Hi Tang0,
No, I don't think I've been unreasonably critical! I genuinely think the police should be held to a very high standard of accountablity because they have powers that other public sector employees don't have and there is scope for those powers to be wrongly used either intentionally or (perhaps more likely) as a result of human fallibility.
As I said before, I do think we live in an unhealthy blame culture fuelled by the media... even so, I still want people to be held properly accountable for their decisions and actions.
I don't work in the public sector at the moment but have in the past. I'll freely admit I made my fair share of mistakes when I did, too. I worked in criminal justice for a number of years and my partner still does... My dad was a copper (i.e. a PC) for 25+ years and has the medal to prove it. My life experiences have probably coloured my views of the police, lawyers, probation, etc, but I don't think I'm all that dogmatic or unreasonable or anything.
I do think the culture of "camaraderie and covering-each-others-backs" that Bloggs refers to can be a bit irksome. At best it tends to engender an "us and them" bravado that I don't think is very helpful. At worst ut can lead to all manner of nastiness.
Also, it's a bit condescending to those of us who aren't police officers to be told we don't know the half of it. I've lived in Moss Side. I have eyes and ears. I know a bit about what goes on, thanks.
Funnily enough I nearly applied for a job with the IPCC! :)
12 July, 2010 11:22
DJF,
I am glad YOU don't find your comments overly critical. It's not clear whether that means you accept that in fact policing is different from every other role, or whether, like most armchair critics including the press, you realise you might gave been mistaken, but decide to criticise on another tack.
I would be the first to admit that it is unpleasant to be on the outside of a group which appears united in its camaraderie and doesn't respond politely to criticism by those who haven't walked in their shoes.
Regrettably the difficult position to accept is that the reality of policing is that it really is completely different from any job. Regardless if where you have grown up or what you may have experienced second hand nothing can prepare you for the lying, the social irresponsibility the aggression,the fear, the back biting and the constant criticism, and thats just the SLT :-)
We might bitch and rant on blogs, and be unpleasant to those we perceive as armchair critics - but they're blogs, not statements from the fed, the force or acpo.
We are extremely accountable, this will be reviewed by IPCC, and the coroner before even considering criminal courts and discipline departments. If you want to jump on a bandwagon of speculative criticism in the basis of disgraceful 24 hour news coverage then go for it, but as you have seen you can expect a backlash from those of us that have dealt with situations similar to this a number of times - but without the media even realising.
Tang0
12 July, 2010 13:09
DJF,
I am glad YOU don't find your comments overly critical. It's not clear whether that means you accept that in fact policing is different from every other role, or whether, like most armchair critics including the press, you realise you might gave been mistaken, but decide to criticise on another tack.
I would be the first to admit that it is unpleasant to be on the outside of a group which appears united in its camaraderie and doesn't respond politely to criticism by those who haven't walked in their shoes.
Regrettably the difficult position to accept is that the reality of policing is that it really is completely different from any job. Regardless if where you have grown up or what you may have experienced second hand nothing can prepare you for the lying, the social irresponsibility the aggression,the fear, the back biting and the constant criticism, and thats just the SLT :-)
We might bitch and rant on blogs, and be unpleasant to those we perceive as armchair critics - but they're blogs, not statements from the fed, the force or acpo.
We are extremely accountable, this will be reviewed by IPCC, and the coroner before even considering criminal courts and discipline departments. If you want to jump on a bandwagon of speculative criticism in the basis of disgraceful 24 hour news coverage then go for it, but as you have seen you can expect a backlash from those of us that have dealt with situations similar to this a number of times - but without the media even realising.
Tang0
12 July, 2010 13:09
Oh, I seem to have hit a nerve. One fairly mild comment and it's a firestorm.
Some pondering:
1. If you (police)blog or comment in/on blogs then you are in the public domain and must expect comment in return.
2. Fair comment means thoughtful consideration, not retreat in to entrenched cliche. Jamie White's book 'Bad thoughts' is very good on why comments such as 'most people thiink..' or 'it's common sense' are not helpful. How do they know? What is common sense? So you shouldn't assume that those of us civilians who make comments have no sympathy for the police or understanding of policing. In my day job I have spent a considerable amount of time helping messed-up police officers deal with their drink or drug problems. Many of which are brought on by the trauma of what they have seen and sometimes have had to do.
3. Police blogs are not clubs, they're open to all and sometimes they reveal perhaps more than bloggers and respondents intend. I have been shocked at the level of hatred displayed in some (thankfully few) police blogs - hate of civilians, casual racism and so on.
4. What's good about being a cop?
Btw. Seen in my street last week; a uniformed, on - duty PCSO at about 2 p.m.. Delivering leaflets about the neighbourhood policing team. Perhaps she whoever tasked her thought she, might meet some of the neighbourhood. But no, they were nearly all out at work or school. Is this a good use of PCSO time? No criticism intended, just honest inquiry.
12 July, 2010 16:03
Drugsblogger: a blog IS in fact a kind of club, because the administrator can decide who can read it and who can comment on it. I try to keep mine as uncensored as possible, though certain repeat offenders are banned for reasons they know why!
I agree with you that "entrenched cliche" is not necessarily constructive, but sometimes a cliched answer might nonetheless be the right answer. So you shouldn't dismiss it JUST because it's a cliche.
As for the PCSO comment: why no criticism intended? Most police officers and PCSOs did not join up to deliver leaflets. That's why we write blogs and complain about this kind of thing.
I'm not going to censor constructive debate in the comments section, but that doesn't mean I agree with everything that's written there - and if you do spot "casual racism" in my blog or comments column, do let me know because it's the first I've heard of it.
12 July, 2010 17:04
A picture tells a thousand words
cliche!
thus the Media love to put the most glamorous pictures on the front page or as a leads in.
Memorable Photos:
The most Glamorous chief constable with her Hollywood hairstyle.
A PC with a beautiful grin welcoming a Paparazzi from hell.
A Handsome man demonstrating a good use of a fire arm in the heat of peaceful negotiations.
Tis why love the Press and fear the saviours of our own muggings.
Dungbeetle
[one that luvs effluent of the affluent]
12 July, 2010 18:13
Thanks for the prompt response Bloggs.
No criticism intended? Because none was, I am genuinely interested about the PCSO leaflet thing. I just wonder if it's a good use of PCSO time? I don't know, it might be.
Good for you for limiting the censoring, I wouldn't tolerate abuse on my blog either. But that also means acknowledging views or attitudes that we might not like or approve of. As for the club thing, well, 'up to a point Lord Copper, up to a point' (quote from Evelyn Waugh's Scoop, a savagely funny critique of newspapers by a journalist). You could make the blog open only to people who register etc, but you haven't and credit to you for not doing so. But the result is that people like me come along and manage to get right up some of your colleagues' noses. Hurrah! for freedom of speech. And, one look at your links and side bar tells me that you wouldn't stand for any sexism, racism etc rubbish. But I have seen it from comments by others on other blogs. Also, isn't it interesting that aside from comments on Sue Sim's abilities as a temporary chief constable some of the comments on police blogs e.g. Gadget put a lot of time in to her appearance. Why is what she looks like important? What she looks like, how she does her hair and makeup have no relation to her ability to do her job whatsoever. That's what I mean about casual sexism. No one was critical of Bob Quick's haircut when he was done for flashing secret documents, now was he?
Also, I think you are a Sarge now,congratulations but does this make you one of the er, management?
12 July, 2010 20:57
Ha, sergeant is equivalent of a non-commissioned officer role. Inspector is the first management rank. So whilst I am a line manager, I'm not a manager, if that makes sense...
Sergeants are generally considered part of the front line, but in my view it depends on how you do your job.
12 July, 2010 23:08
Sergeant is the one squeezed by the top and bottom, she be the coin, not heads nor tails just the edge.'
dungbeetle
13 July, 2010 01:30
Ellie Congrats then Sarge :-D, I guess I'd trust you more than most of the skippers I work with, just make sure don't lose sight of the front line and all will be good :-D
13 July, 2010 09:55
Society is about 85% sheep, 10% wolves and 5% sheepdogs. Sheep find it difficult to tell the difference between wolves and sheepdogs. But sheep want to be protected from wolves. But they don't want sheepdogs around either—unless there's a wolf about. And even then they don't really want the sheepdogs. On top of that, sheep don't want to be herded by sheepdogs, even if it keeps them safer. Sheep want to wander here, there and everywhere, even if it gets them into trouble. And if they do get into trouble, it's the fault of the sheepdog—even if it wasn't there because the sheep didn't want it.
All a sheepdog can do is chase the wolves off, keep the sheep as close to home as possible, give the occasional uncooperative sheep a nip on the ankles, and accept that some sheep will always be lost to the wolves. Oh, and take the occasional whack that comes with pissing off the sheep or seeing one lost to the wolves.
It's not fair, but then nothing is. It's just the way it is.
Alternatively, rewrite Josephus Daniels to read:
"Police: a body of men assembled to rectify the mistakes of society".
14 July, 2010 12:44
If you listen to the Sky News video of the moment that Raoul Moat died, you can clearly hear Moat's voice shouting "I'm unarmed, I'm unarmed!" and then shouting "Get it off of me, get it off of me!" I guess Moat was talking about the taser cartridges? But how could he have been shouting anything if he had supposedly just blown his head off. P.S. I DO NOT agree with what Raoul Moat did, but I do not agree with the version of events as portrayed by the media. We're hearing one thing and being told another.
14 July, 2010 18:38
"you can clearly hear Moat's voice shouting "I'm unarmed, I'm unarmed!" and then shouting "Get it off of me, get it off of me!" I guess Moat was talking about the taser cartridges?"
Have you got some sort of hearing problem? You can't 'clearly' hear anything of the sort! Do you even know what Moat sounds like? Because I don't. I've seen the same footage and the 'voice' you heard sounded like more than one voice and it sounded more like the police shouting as they wrestled with Moat, 'get it off HIM!' is what I can hear. Bear in mind the shouting comes after the sound of the weapon being discharged, not before.
16 July, 2010 18:56
Post a Comment
<< Home