Met police firearms

[Fedster + 1,307]

The attacker's own family came to the PC's rescue.

Garren Underwood

 

A man who in a drunken rage squirted bleach into the face and eye of a policeman has been jailed for three-and-a-half years.

A court heard moments after the bleach struck him, the officer could feel his face getting warm and his eye became irritable and began watering “profusely.”

The police had received reports that Garren Underwood was at his mother’s home in Stevenage, Herts and was threatening to use a bottle of bleach “as a weapon.”

PC Stephen Evans had armed himself with a “short shield” as he approached the front door of the house in Sweyns Mead, Stevenage last September.

Moments later, 51 year old Underwood opened the door and immediately squirted the bleach at the officer.

On Friday St Albans Crown Court was told the officer’s shield managed to deflect most of the liquid away, but some hit the officer on the left side of his face, his left eye and arm.

The fact the officer also wore glasses had also provided him with some protection.

And thanks to Underwood’s family, who rushed to the policeman’s aid with bottles of water, no serious or lasting injury was caused.

Police had to deploy a taser to subdue Underwood, who had been drinking heavily that day, said prosecutor Charles Judge.

Back at Stevenage Police station in the custody area, the court heard that Underwood continued to be abusive towards officers dealing with him.

To an Iranian born officer, Underwood shouted “F.....g Taliban. Where are you going to blow up next?"

And after being taken to the nearby Lister Hospital to be treated for the effects of being tasered, Underwood - who has Hepatatis C - spat at another officer.

Underwood of Bellis House, Welwyn Garden City, Herts pleaded guilty to throwing a corrosive substance with intent, racially aggravated intentional harassment, and common assault.

The court was told the how officers had gone to his mother’s home in Sweyns Mead, Stevenage on September 23 last year.

It followed a phone call to the police by his sister who told them her brother was at the house and threatening to use the bleach “as a weapon.”

Mr Judge said after the bleach struck the officer he could feel the left side of his face getting warm and his eye became irritable.

A statement made by PC Evans was read to the court, in which he said that in his 12 years of service he had been pushed, kicked and spat at “but never assaulted in such a way where there was a serious risk of harm.”

Interviewed later after he had sobered up, the court Underwood told officers “I was just going off my head.”

He said his father and grandfather had recently died and he added: “There was lots going on in my life.”

Philip Sutton defending said his client’s relationship with his mother had been poor at the time and when there was another argument between them that day, he had set out to get himself arrested as a way to “spite her.”

He said “Through me he wants to apologise to the officers involved because he accepts it was appalling behaviour."

Passing sentence Judge Andrew Bright QC told Underwood had the “corrosive” substance hit the officer full in the face that day then the damage to his eyes could have been permanent.

The judge said he had attempted to cause grievous bodily harm to the officer.

He jailed him for a total of three years and six months.

View On Police Oracle

[Member of Public + 206]

Absolute disgrace to humankind. He didn't care if he blinded that officer, or scarred him for life. Sentencing for any offences involving the throwing of corrosive substances of any form should be a lot higher. In the grand scheme of things, considering the potential for life changing damage to the officer, 3.5 years is nothing.

[mike88 + 257]

Disgusting person. Lucky the officer had a short shield and was wearing glasses otherwise it could've been even worse.

[sierragolf95 + 55]

3 years for almost permanently blinding someone. Unbelievable.

Forgive my ignorance, but assuming he was in a PSU carrier with access to a short shield and took that in with him, should he not have had a helmet too? For dealing with known acid attackers it would make sense to make the arrest with visors down, especially as the call said he was going to use bleach as a weapon?

Because of the number of acid attacks now that's why most cash in transit guards have their visors down every time they leave the vehicle now. Granted it should've always been the case but it may have prevented a lot more damage if the officer had one. Possibly a lesson learned and the police should implement a policy that those stating they have bleach as a weapon or going to deal with people known to use corrosive substances as a weapon should warrant a full kit response.

[Inbtsiyp + 347]

3 years for almost permanently blinding someone. Unbelievable.
Forgive my ignorance, but assuming he was in a PSU carrier with access to a short shield and took that in with him, should he not have had a helmet too? For dealing with known acid attackers it would make sense to make the arrest with visors down, especially as the call said he was going to use bleach as a weapon?
Because of the number of acid attacks now that's why most cash in transit guards have their visors down every time they leave the vehicle now. Granted it should've always been the case but it may have prevented a lot more damage if the officer had one. Possibly a lesson learned and the police should implement a policy that those stating they have bleach as a weapon or going to deal with people known to use corrosive substances as a weapon should warrant a full kit response.

It is more likely he wasn’t in a PSU carrier and the short shield was either part of standard vehicle equipment, the officer in question put one in the car at the beginning of the shift out of personal preference or least likely but possible the officer was able to go via a station and pick one up on route to the call.

Had it been a PSU and full of officers with public order kit however then your point I think is valid. A helmet with visor would certainly seem like a logical piece of kit to wear.

Sometimes as I’m sure you understand we just grab what we can and go in quite often forgetting the obvious. I once went to an urgent assistance, as I was running to the car my driver suggested grabbing a shield which I did. On route to the call the transmissions over the radio made my blood run cold. The journey felt like it took a life time. All I wanted to do on arrival was reach my friend and help him. Luckily the situation wasn’t as bad as It had sounded on the radio but still ended in a two and a bit hours fight and restraint with a suspect. On finally leaving the venue I got in the car and saw the shield in the back. How I kicked my self for forgetting I had brought it with me. It would have made a significant difference to the past few hours. Hind sight is great.

[sierragolf95 + 55]

45 minutes ago, Bacon_sandwich said:

 

It is more likely he wasn’t in a PSU carrier and the short shield was either part of standard vehicle equipment, the officer in question put one in the car at the beginning of the shift out of personal preference or least likely but possible the officer was able to go via a station and pick one up on route to the call.

Had it been a PSU and full of officers with public order kit however then your point I think is valid. A helmet with visor would certainly seem like a logical piece of kit to wear.

Sometimes as I’m sure you understand we just grab what we can and go in quite often forgetting the obvious. I once went to an urgent assistance, as I was running to the car my driver suggested grabbing a shield which I did. On route to the call the transmissions over the radio made my blood run cold. The journey felt like it took a life time. All I wanted to do on arrival was reach my friend and help him. Luckily the situation wasn’t as bad as It had sounded on the radio but still ended in a two and a bit hours fight and restraint with a suspect. On finally leaving the venue I got in the car and saw the shield in the back. How I kicked my self for forgetting I had brought it with me. It would have made a significant difference to the past few hours. Hind sight is great.

 

Yeah true, just haven't ever known police to have shields in anything other than a public order van, of course most officers using them will be public order trained with a helmet at their disposal. If it was something involving bleach a shield was a smart idea but then again a visor or face shield or helmet would've also helped. That said it's done now, just hopefully lessons can be learned. To be fair it's my opinion that all officers should have access to a helmet anyway. During the London riots it was obvious that you didn't need to be public order trained or equipped to get dropped in the poo, hopefully now though if it is something like a corrosive substance being used as a weapon they'll consider sending officers armed with helmets and tasers. While you're not always going to know in advance, if you do know and don't wear/don't have access to the proper kit from now on it'll be negligence rather than an accident.

[IrateShrike + 1,847]

8 hours ago, sierragolf95 said:

Yeah true, just haven't ever known police to have shields in anything other than a public order van, of course most officers using them will be public order trained with a helmet at their disposal. If it was something involving bleach a shield was a smart idea but then again a visor or face shield or helmet would've also helped. That said it's done now, just hopefully lessons can be learned. To be fair it's my opinion that all officers should have access to a helmet anyway. During the London riots it was obvious that you didn't need to be public order trained or equipped to get dropped in the poo, hopefully now though if it is something like a corrosive substance being used as a weapon they'll consider sending officers armed with helmets and tasers. While you're not always going to know in advance, if you do know and don't wear/don't have access to the proper kit from now on it'll be negligence rather than an accident.

A little off topic but in some forces at least all PSU vans are used for general purpose patrol duties and carry the shields all the time, so you can see the natural temptation for an officer to grab one.

To a lay person it seems sensible but there's the lesser understood factor that the small increase in protection gives a disproportionately higher increase in confidence which can be dangerous.  Being a PSU officer myself, I would be very concerned being deployed in normal kit with a shield to a threat where I would normally withdraw.

[Indiana Jones + 1,082]

4 hours ago, Lone Wolf said:

To a lay person it seems sensible but there's the lesser understood factor that the small increase in protection gives a disproportionately higher increase in confidence which can be dangerous.  Being a PSU officer myself, I would be very concerned being deployed in normal kit with a shield to a threat where I would normally withdraw.

We have round shields in most of our cars, but ironically, no one who isn't L2 gets any shield training. So I'd agree with you fully about the actual vs perceived protection given.

[PCSD 329]

17 hours ago, sierragolf95 said:

3 years for almost permanently blinding someone. Unbelievable.

Forgive my ignorance, but assuming he was in a PSU carrier with access to a short shield and took that in with him, should he not have had a helmet too? For dealing with known acid attackers it would make sense to make the arrest with visors down, especially as the call said he was going to use bleach as a weapon?

Because of the number of acid attacks now that's why most cash in transit guards have their visors down every time they leave the vehicle now. Granted it should've always been the case but it may have prevented a lot more damage if the officer had one. Possibly a lesson learned and the police should implement a policy that those stating they have bleach as a weapon or going to deal with people known to use corrosive substances as a weapon should warrant a full kit response.

Thing is, I drive carriers on response. I don't load my public order kit into it as on occasion when I actually need to get kitted up I won't be doing it singly or double crewed but will be heading back to the nick to get the rest of the serial and everyone kits up together. 

 

[Growley + 2,436]

In fairness, if you're going to drive about in a carrier on patrol, you should have your kit with you. It's all well and good to say you'll be going back to a nick to meet up with others, but throwing your kit bag in the back takes seconds, and could save you severe injury down the line.

 

 

 

[Sierra Lima + 117]

Due to shortage of vehicles the PSU carriers get used for prisonner transport (unsuitable ) and sometimes for response by a single crewed pc (unsuitable ).

Our pandas also have a single round shield (well they're supposed to but it doesn't  fit in the boot but that's another issue).

Even L3 psu get an input on how to use round shield (at least 5 mins!). There are even talks of putting an Arnold baton in there as well as another "tactical option". To make it look like we are doing something about the lack of equipment/resources/resilience ...

[sierragolf95 + 55]

13 hours ago, Lone Wolf said:

A little off topic but in some forces at least all PSU vans are used for general purpose patrol duties and carry the shields all the time, so you can see the natural temptation for an officer to grab one.

To a lay person it seems sensible but there's the lesser understood factor that the small increase in protection gives a disproportionately higher increase in confidence which can be dangerous.  Being a PSU officer myself, I would be very concerned being deployed in normal kit with a shield to a threat where I would normally withdraw.

Thanks, I assumed that anyone crewing carriers would at least be public order trained with their kit in them, regardless of what they're used for. Then again in this day and age I'm not surprised. I agree that the minor protection increase may cause an increase in confidence. I see it a lot in my industry particularly when people get their first stab vests and think they're Robocop, then get punched in the face and realise it's not as good as they thought. I thought this guy would've been a psu officer since he did have access to the shield, but I can certainly say that the shield, helmet and protective coveralls should've been a minimum for that job as well as a car with an acid attack kit, or at least a few 2l bottles of water just in case. It seems like he was sent in without the correct kit to protect himself.

[Shmook + 532]

Apologies for further off topic, but our carriers have shields in them, and anyone can book a carrier out if trained to drive it. We sometimes use them for events, so they can be packed with specials, who all must undergo L3 public order training after attesting. This training does not include any shield use, or the issuing of or permission to use  any public order kit though...