License To Kill

[Sean Lynn]

As we all know, in the '97 movie 1st Officer Murdoch shoots and kills two passengers who try to rush a lifeboat, then kills himself. Whether or not this actually happened will be fiercely debated until the end of time. But one thing that is not in dispute is that the senior officers did have sidearms during the sinking.

Doubtless, since they were armed, a situation such as the one portrayed by the movie had to have been contemplated before hand. My question is:

What circumstances, if any, would authorize an officer to draw his gun on passengers with the very real possibility of opening fire on unruly ones? And could that officer face charges (ie. manslaughter) if a passenger had been killed or left for dead after being shot?

 

[Bob Godfrey]

It was the policy on White Star vessels to keep firearms in a locked cabinet under control (usually) of the Master-at-Arms and issued on authority of the Captain. The intention was that such orders would be issued only to counter threats of piracy, mutiny or any kind of unreasonable conduct which endangered the ship or the people on board and could not otherwise be controlled.

In 1912 (and even today) this would be a wise precaution in many parts of the world, but Lightoller (in the context at least of the North Atlantic routes) considered guns to be 'ornamental rather than useful' on merchant ships. Their use, especially against passengers, would certainly have been a last resort and would lead to serious legal consequences if not fully justified.

 

[Jeremy Lee]

Then were the guns released to the officers during the sinking?

 

[Bob Godfrey]

The four Webley revolvers kept in a locker in the First Officer's cabin and reserved for the use of the Captain and his three senior officers (Wilde, Murdoch and Lightoller) certainly were issued and probably at least three of them were fired, if only into the air.

We know that Lowe fired warning shots, using a pistol which was his own private property. It's quite possible that some other members of the crew had their own hardware for protection when in foreign ports - handguns were cheap and easily available in New York, and there were cases (on other ships) of crew members being charged with the offence of being in possession of an unauthorised firearm.

And we know for sure that some of the passengers were armed.

 

[Jeremy Lee]

Then wouldn't it be dangerous in such a situation if a person decides to use his gun like Cal, to threaten or shoot the officer guarding the boat?

 

[Bob Godfrey]

Dangerous? Certainly, but would the situation be more dangerous, or less dangerous, if the only guns available were in the hands of passengers? The same debate has long been argued within the famously unarmed British police force, and most recently in connection with the role and equipping of 'air marshals'. Lightoller's opinion was that the Webleys were not needed, and that whatever was achieved with them could have been achieved just as well without them. I don't think Lowe would have agreed with that.

 

[Sean Lynn]

If a passenger threatened an officer with his life then that might fall under the 'justifiable circumstances' where the officer can shoot.

Police officers I think fall under the same jurisdiction. Fire only when the suspect directly threatens your life.

 

[Jeremy Lee]

Then in my opinion, guns should be surrendered when the passengers board the ship and returned to them when they reach their destination.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>Then in my opinion, guns should be surrendered when the passengers board the ship and returned to them when they reach their destination.<<

Jeremy, I think you'll find that these days, passengers are not permitted to bring weapons of any kind, firearms or otherwise aboard ship. However, we aren't discussing "These days." We're discussing 1912 and some very different attitudes as opposed to those held today. The sort of stigma and (Not always unjustified) paranoia assocciated with firearms posession today wasn't widespread or simply didn't exist.

Sean, I don't think you're going to find that officers on the Titanic or any other ship had a "license to kill," though they certainly would have had every right to drop the hammer on somebody if they reasonably believed that their lives or the lives of those whom they had a responsibility to safegaurd were in danger. However, there were some good reasons (And still are to this day) for a ship to keep firearms available for the officers and certain memebers of the crew...particularly the Master-at-Arms, should they be needed. A ship at sea is far removed from any source of real help if they get into trouble. If there's a mutiny, pirate trouble (Yes...it happens! See the CargoLaw Website for weekly incident reports), a riot, or Mr. Loon E. Tick going off the deep end and hunting people with an axe, they are very much on their own. Dialing 9-11 is not an option. Not when the closest help could well be a thousand miles away.

 

[Randy Bryan Bigham]

Re: passengers with guns

Of course, there were several alleged instances of passengers with guns on Titanic, not all of which can be confirmed now.

But one passenger was almost surely armed - Maj. Archie Butt. Several contemporary accounts bear this out, including some in material currently being researched by Doug Willingham and Shelley Dziedzic.

As a military officer and one representing the highest station in the US, it's believed the state of emergency aboard Titanic would essentially have deputized Butt into action. At any rate, he was seen with a revolver that night, according to several accounts, but as I'm not privy to those I can only mention the one account I have come across in my own research. It is the only one I know of in which the claim is made that Butt actually fired his gun, but then I have not explored this area.

In a little known 1953 published story, survivor Edith Russell wrote:

"...I was unprepared for the frenzy of activity which was taking place. Rows of men, both crew and passengers, were crowded against the cabin housing. Mr. Bruce Ismay, managing director of the International Mercantile Marine, wearing trousers and a white nightshirt, was shouting orders. Another passenger, Major Archibald Butt, military aide to President Taft, was talking just as firmly, if a little more quietly. I was amazed to see he was waving a revolver in his fist. Four stokers, brandishing iron bars and shovels, burst from an open companionway. I heard a shot and Major Butt took a step forward, his smoking gun ready in his hand..."

I am gathering that if this took place as she describes it, then it happened on the aft half of either the boat deck or promenade deck in the vicinity of lifeboat 11, in which Russell escaped.

Are there any other accounts known which can corroborate the firing of a gun at this stage of the sinking and at this location?

Randy

 

[Bill Wormstedt]

Michel Navratil also had a loaded revolver on his body when it was picked up by the Mackay-Bennett. Unfortunately, the record does not say whether any of the bullets were missing. Since he put his sons into Collapsible D, we at least know he was on board when 11 was launched, but no idea as to whether he was anywhere in the area.

 

[Inger Sheil]

There are various reports of gunfire in the aft area of the boatdeck - wasn't Ethel Beane reported to have made some sort of claim about shootings carried out by armed crewmen? There were a few Irish passengers who also spoke about gunfire and even fatalities...from my recollection these might have been in the aft-port quarter, but I'd need to dredge up the accounts again (and they're somewhere in the cases being unpacked). The accounts are not necessarily of unimpeachable accuracy, and I don't recall the circumstances being overly similar to that described by Russell.

Collyer did make the claim that an officer she identified as Murdoch posted guards to prevent crew from coming up from below decks.

How does the rest of the story read in terms of accuracy, Randy? Could Russell was influenced at a later date by the early rather colourful accounts of Butt being armed? I'll be very interested to see what Doug and Shelley come up with, as the idea of Butt taking an active part in crowd control is an intriguing one. Wasn't he also said to have been standing by calmly? I do recall coming across a piece in a newspaper account that suggested that armed passengers were assisting the officers, but either I copied it and it's buried in the masses of papers, or else it didn't seem worth the cost of copying.

There are a number of photos of Lowe with various guns in his family's collection - mainly rifles, for which he seems to have had a preference (and which lead to his invitation to compete at Bisley). He seems to have given up his firearms at the outbreak of WWII - none remain with the family today.

 

[Randy Bryan Bigham]

Thanks Inger:

Yes, what Shelley and Doug have to work with is pretty formidable as far as sheer size of the archive so it will be interesting what Titanic tidbits may be revealed there.

Like you, I'm aware of the reports stating that Archie Butt took no active part in the evacuation but there are so many others (some admittedly unreliable) which claim the opposite that it seems the truth is, as it so often is, somewhere in between. It seems reasonable to assume that he was involved to some extent in maintaining order but just didn't take a leading or consistently active role.

I know it's been suggested that the uniformed Archie may have been mistaken for a ship's officer that night by those who did not know him so I find that intriguing.

As to Edith Russell's unusual claim, it does stand out to me as the only part of this particular story that is surprising or otherwise unfamiliar to me. I have examined almost all of her articles and interviews from the 1920s until the year of her death, with the exception of some notably elusive sources (as you know!), and this 1953 magazine story fits in very well with her other accounts.

The difference is the amount of detail dealing with passengers whom she identifies by name - the Astors, Bruce Ismay, Archie Butt, Frank Millet and W.T. Stead being some of the well-known ones.

These people are sometimes mentioned in passing in her other stories but in this article she cites specific situations which are fascinating but hardly sensational or unbelievable. It is this reason that makes me think that her otherwise extraordinary reference to Butt may be accurate.

You are of course right to question the overall validity of her story because in her later years Russell did veer seriously from the truth in her interviews, both published and broadcast.

That's interesting about Lowe's affinity for firearms and too bad the family hasn't any of his guns! But what they DO have compensates rather well, wouldn't you say?

Randy

 

[Inger Sheil]

Yes, it will be interesting to see what all the accounts distill down into!

quote:

I know it's been suggested that the uniformed Archie may have been mistaken for a ship's officer that night by those who did not know him so I find that intriguing.

This was something I was thinking of, but wasn't sure whether to raise or not as it has been recently tied into the question of a possible suicide. I know so little about Butt that I don't really feel I can fairly comment on the matter, but I know that the possibility that he might be a candidate for the 'suicidal officer' has been raised before.

There are certainly more than enough objects connected with Lowe to make up for the lack of firearms!​

 

[Randy Bryan Bigham]

"...This was something I was thinking of, but wasn't sure whether to raise or not as it has been recently tied into the question of a possible suicide..."

Yes, it's a trifle delicate for me to want to delve into myself. I'm of course aware that Archie's state of mind in 1912 has been questioned, this owing to the unenviable position in which he found himself politically and personally at that time - being quite literally between two presidents who were also his close friends. His emotional predicament has been called a "nervous break down" and I don't recall Doug disputing that when we discussed it but from what he has told me, Archie was feeling much better after his rest abroad and was in a happy mood as he set sail for home, accompanied by his good pal Frank Millet.

Doug could address this matter much better and I've just jotted him a note to let him know about the thread. So we may hear from him soon.