I don't think so, and I don't think it would have helped in the Manchester case. They were apparently ambushed, and probably wouldn't have got a shot off even if they'd been armed.
The fact is it's unbelievably rare for a police officer to get shot in the UK. Because they're not armed, criminals by and large don't feel they need to be either. If the police were routinely armed, it would just lead to escalation where anyone planning to commit a crime would want to be carrying a firearm in case they ran into the police.
When surveyed, front-line British police overwhelmingly say they don't want to be routinely armed. I'm inclined to take their word for it.
I think armed response units are the best option for the UK right now. If shootings were more of a commodity then there would be little choice in the matter, as it stands I'm not sure that it's wise, let alone worth the cost of arming and training the entire force to use pistols etc.
Does anybody know if bulletproof vest are standard for beat officers or not?
Unlike Kronk I do have an opinion.
No.
Here in the US there are more guns in private hands than anywhere else in the world. You are something like 11 times more likely to be shot by the police than a police officer is to be shot by a member of the public. In your society it is simply imprudent to indroduce deadly force on a wide scale.
Arm them and then what? They approach even the most benign situations in a heavy handed response on the off chance it's a trick?
I can't see why a knee jerk reaction like this even crosses peoples minds, he tricked the Police and they were caught off guard. It's a tragic story perpetrated by a disgusting individual.
I thought the argument I would have seen here would be for the Death Penalty in this guys case. There is no doubt that this man committed these crimes, in this case it would be cheaper to kill him rather than keep him in jail for another 40/50 years.
RossDas wrote: I think armed response units are the best option for the UK right now. If shootings were more of a commodity then there would be little choice in the matter...
No, I don't think the general beat officers should be armed. We already have armed response units, and armed police at airports etc. There aren't as many firearms in the country as there are in the US (Not by a long shot ) and they are (mostly) owned by law abiding individuals. Certainly not enough to justify the arming of all police, as it would require a hell of a lot more training, and for every single officer rather than a select few. Knee jerk reactions like this (albeit in the opposite direction) after the Dunblane shootings got a blanket ban on pistols, which makes them harder to get hold of. Legally owned firearms are much harder to conceal. (I think the definition of pistol in this case is "any firearm under 2ft long" - Correct me if I'm wrong on that) So I see less reasons to worry in that case.
This is a terrible incident don't get me wrong, but apparently they were ambushed, and them having their own firearms is unlikely to have made too much difference.
Frazz - We do have police with Tazers - but I'm pretty sure they aren't issued to to general officers for normal duties.
What the UK does should be with the support of their citizens. If the citizens do not believe their bobbies should have guns, then their society is making that decision and will work with the positive benefits or negative consequences.
Now my Texan opinion about Stateside firearms:
There are laws that men make to help civilization work properly and then there are simple rules of survival. When civilized rules go out the window, he who has the gun makes the rules. Criminals break the laws and therefore don't follow rules, especially in the paradox of "gun control." Criminals, dictators and politicians prefer unarmed law-abiding citizens.
Now mind you, Texas has very clear rules about what is legal and isn't. So as a good citizen and productive member of society and trained in firearms, I can and have shown that I'm responsible enough to carry a firearm to defend myself. I have a license to do so. That and the laws are very clear about what self-defense is. Your rights to firearms are revoked if you show you can't play well with others in society and have to visit our fine rehabilitative facilities in Huntsville or other unsavory places in Texas.
This can turn into a "well if cops have guns we gangs need them too" "well criminals have them so cops need them" cycle of argument. Unfortunately, the problem isn't the guns, its the criminals and human nature. A viable solution is needed. Regulation of guns has shown over and over again that criminals will still be the only ones having them if regular citizens can't. Just look at Australia and Canada and the millions of dollars they've spent on getting weapons out of the hands of their citizens. Now they have unarmed citizens and still-armed criminals.
I feel bad for the police who ended up being victims of this act of violence.
Tibbsy wrote: No, I don't think the general beat officers should be armed. We already have armed response units, and armed police at airports etc. There aren't as many firearms in the country as there are in the US (Not by a long shot ) and they are (mostly) owned by law abiding individuals. Certainly not enough to justify the arming of all police, as it would require a hell of a lot more training, and for every single officer rather than a select few. Knee jerk reactions like this (albeit in the opposite direction) after the Dunblane shootings got a blanket ban on pistols, which makes them harder to get hold of. Legally owned firearms are much harder to conceal. (I think the definition of pistol in this case is "any firearm under 2ft long" - Correct me if I'm wrong on that) So I see less reasons to worry in that case.
This is a terrible incident don't get me wrong, but apparently they were ambushed, and them having their own firearms is unlikely to have made too much difference.
Frazz - We do have police with Tazers - but I'm pretty sure they aren't issued to to general officers for normal duties.
EDIT - Ninja'd - Thanks for the link Medium
I'm surprised about the no tasers thing. Its a much better alternate than a stick and doesn't have the potential for permanent injury like a large object upside the head (which I happen to have).
Tibbsy wrote: No, I don't think the general beat officers should be armed. We already have armed response units, and armed police at airports etc. There aren't as many firearms in the country as there are in the US (Not by a long shot ) and they are (mostly) owned by law abiding individuals. Certainly not enough to justify the arming of all police, as it would require a hell of a lot more training, and for every single officer rather than a select few. Knee jerk reactions like this (albeit in the opposite direction) after the Dunblane shootings got a blanket ban on pistols, which makes them harder to get hold of. Legally owned firearms are much harder to conceal. (I think the definition of pistol in this case is "any firearm under 2ft long" - Correct me if I'm wrong on that) So I see less reasons to worry in that case.
This is a terrible incident don't get me wrong, but apparently they were ambushed, and them having their own firearms is unlikely to have made too much difference.
Frazz - We do have police with Tazers - but I'm pretty sure they aren't issued to to general officers for normal duties.
EDIT - Ninja'd - Thanks for the link Medium
I'm surprised about the no tasers thing. Its a much better alternate than a stick and doesn't have the potential for permanent injury like a large object upside the head (which I happen to have).
Well the voltage is lethal to some people at least with nightsticks you can kind of control how much force you use with it.
First and foremost, the deaths of these two policewomen was a tragedy, and the killer should be locked away for the rest of his life.
On with the main issue: should your average joe policeman in the UK be armed? Hell no. I don't like the police that much. I don't hate them, but I don't like them. It's a difficult and thankless task, but I remember growing up in the 1980s and the hassle I got just for being black and in the wrong place.
Too many times have I seen the police use excessive force when common sense would have prevailed and calmed a situation down. This week, British news was reporting on the Hillsborough tragedy and how the police tried to launch a mass cover up operation. This year, we have seen elements of the police engage in corruption and collusion with various UK media outlets. In short, the police have had a bad year with various reports painting them in a bad light. They have a lot of work to do to earn people's trust again in the UK.
This article lists British police officers killed in the line of duty since 1900.
Thousands of police officers in Britain are believed to have died during the course of their duties, but this article includes only those who were killed as a direct result of a crime or while attempting to prevent, stop or solve a specific criminal act. The list omits those who died in more common or regular circumstances, such as in road traffic accidents or air raids during the Second World War.[1]
The list also omits the more than 300 officers of the former Royal Ulster Constabulary[2] and current Police Service of Northern Ireland who were killed during The Troubles in Northern Ireland.
You shouldn't be surprised about Tasers. Tasers simply make it easier to reach for a push button response instead of actually accessing and resolving a majority of situations. Thier use has drawn a lot of criticism from older cops, not the back to the revolver types; just guys who think policing is more than force.
People also remember a bone crushing beating as a deterrent a hell of a lot longer than being tased or maced. Trust me.
I'm surprised about the no tasers thing. Its a much better alternate than a stick and doesn't have the potential for permanent injury like a large object upside the head (which I happen to have).
I believe the police are trained to strike at the legs, behind the knees and not the face. You bring the suspect to the ground with minimum potential of severely harming them.
I'm surprised about the no tasers thing. Its a much better alternate than a stick and doesn't have the potential for permanent injury like a large object upside the head (which I happen to have).
I believe the police are trained to strike at the legs, behind the knees and not the face. You bring the suspect to the ground with minimum potential of severely harming them.
AustonT wrote: You shouldn't be surprised about Tasers. Tasers simply make it easier to reach for a push button response instead of actually accessing and resolving a majority of situations. Thier use has drawn a lot of criticism from older cops, not the back to the revolver types; just guys who think policing is more than force.
People also remember a bone crushing beating as a deterrent a hell of a lot longer than being tased or maced. Trust me.
Getting OC sprayed fething sucks. I'd call it a decent deterrent. No idea how it compares to getting tased, but I'm not signing up for the test.
RossDas wrote: I think armed response units are the best option for the UK right now. If shootings were more of a commodity then there would be little choice in the matter...
Commodity?
Common place is what I meant to say; rushed my post a bit while making a curry!
I believe that older and more experienced policemen pretty quickly learn how to put someone down fast with a baton, regardless of training.
The british police are interesting. They've got, like most of the civil service in the UK it would seem, a mountain of pointless paperwork weighing them down at every turn. People are generally unhappy with them and they seem generally unhappy, themselves. They would never go into the area I lived in without at least five officers. But all of that aside, every single police officer I dealt with was approachable, reassuring and helpful. When I was the victim of crime they did their jobs and I had no complaints.
I reckon they don't need guns. Gun crime isn't common enough and the UK isn't (yet) lawless enough on a wide scale to warrant it. From my experience, of course. I do think they need to be cut loose from some of the mountains of paperwork to actually patrol- I barely ever saw a copper on the beat anywhere except the main streets on saturday night.
My dad is a retired Irish policeman, and they're even less armed than the british. He's had firearms training, and carried a gun at certain times, such as when he was guarding explosives during the Troubles. But he reckons the best way to police is to get the community on side, and that's harder to do when you or someone you work with has shot people in the community.
Unfortunately, policing is a dangerous job. Policemen know that when they sign up and they get paid to compensate for it, the same as soldiers. They are inevitably going to get hurt in the line of duty. The number of fights my father has been in has left him fairly physically damaged. He sleeps with a machine on his face, darth vader style, because his nose has been broken so frequently it partially blocks his airways. His feet are a constant source of pain. He's had fractures to most parts of his face and he's broken a good few ribs, taken a few knife wounds and so on. But the respect he commands in the locality, even in retirement, is tremendous. The same is true of all our local police. They are not looked on with a large degree of animosity, even by dodgy types. And the public outcry when one dies is enormous. It's terrible that these officers died, but it doesn't mean policy has to change.
I'm biased, but I've always been happy that if you kill a police officer, the gak hits the fan and they drop everything to find you and put you away. We had the death penalty for killing police officers until recently, it was the only crime we had it for, and I will admit, lefty softy that I am, I was ambivalent about it being taken away.
I'm surprised about the no tasers thing. Its a much better alternate than a stick and doesn't have the potential for permanent injury like a large object upside the head (which I happen to have).
I believe the police are trained to strike at the legs, behind the knees and not the face. You bring the suspect to the ground with minimum potential of severely harming them.
AustonT wrote: You shouldn't be surprised about Tasers. Tasers simply make it easier to reach for a push button response instead of actually accessing and resolving a majority of situations. Thier use has drawn a lot of criticism from older cops, not the back to the revolver types; just guys who think policing is more than force.
People also remember a bone crushing beating as a deterrent a hell of a lot longer than being tased or maced. Trust me.
Getting OC sprayed fething sucks. I'd call it a decent deterrent. No idea how it compares to getting tased, but I'm not signing up for the test.
I've been on the receiving end of both, neither is particularly pleasant but I'd still charge a guy with mace, especially if he was within 6M. I'd give it a go with a Taser too if I thought he would miss. It's more cost/benefit. If I thought I could deliver a come to Jesus beating on the person attempting to mace or tase me its a no brainer. YMMV and it's not like I try to put myself in a position where it would matter but I'm saying broken bones and hemmoraging> OC and tasing.
Seaward wrote:
Getting OC sprayed fething sucks. I'd call it a decent deterrent. No idea how it compares to getting tased, but I'm not signing up for the test.
I'm all for non or less-lethal police equipment. I'm immune to CS gas so it's all gravy to me
In all seriousness though, I think arming the police with guns here in the UK would end up with more dead people and ultimately, more dead police. To a certain extent, we have seen what has happened in the US when the Pandora's Box of weapon ownership is opened and while it is still just about shut here in the UK, I think we should try to keep it that way.
One of Britain's top police officers today warned against a rush to routinely arm officers following the killing of two constables in Greater Manchester.
Fiona Bone, 32, and Nicola Hughes, 23, were sent to investigate a reported burglary yesterday when they were attacked with a gun and a grenade.
Suspect Dale Cregan, 29, was arrested in June in connection with the murder of Mark Short but was released on bail pending further inquiries.
The president of the Association of Chief Police Officers, Sir Hugh Orde, said today: "Guns don't necessarily solve the problem.
"You only have to look at the American experience. Many colleagues in America are lost without even drawing their gun at close ranges."
Mr Orde said it was the "clear view of the British police service from top to bottom" that officers prefer to be unarmed because the public dislike approaching constables bearing weapons.
He said minimum use of force and intervention was the "bedrock" of Britain's policing model.
He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme policing is "a risk business", adding: "As we speak, officers will be responding to calls not knowing what they will get to and not knowing exactly what they will be dealing with when they arrive.
"It's just a harsh fact of policing and, tragically on occasions, things go horribly wrong."
They are armed with tazers, more than enough in most cases.
One of them even drew their tazer but no shot was fired.
Probably because it was a ambush. The guy is evidently derranged but the real people I have beef with are the ones who support him as a hero on facebook and the ones that harboured him before he gave himself up.
AustonT wrote: I've been on the receiving end of both, neither is particularly pleasant but I'd still charge a guy with mace, especially if he was within 6M. I'd give it a go with a Taser too if I thought he would miss. It's more cost/benefit. If I thought I could deliver a come to Jesus beating on the person attempting to mace or tase me its a no brainer. YMMV and it's not like I try to put myself in a position where it would matter but I'm saying broken bones and hemmoraging> OC and tasing.
Yeah, I dunno. It's entirely possible you're tougher than me - and I handled OC spray about as well as an eight year-old girl, so I'm betting you are - but I'd take getting punched in the face a few times over reliving that experience.
In a word no, even the police themselves don't want to carry firearms. At the end of the day there is no need for it given the very low number of firearms in this country anyway.
On a more practical point I work were the Hampshire police do a lot of their firearms training and I would feel a lot safer if they weren't armed.
Maxstreel wrote: Regulation of guns has shown over and over again that criminals will still be the only ones having them if regular citizens can't. Just look at Australia and Canada and the millions of dollars they've spent on getting weapons out of the hands of their citizens. Now they have unarmed citizens and still-armed criminals.
But that's kind of the point. Unarmed = citizen. Armed = criminal. It creates a nice distinction between the criminals and the innocent.
Seaward wrote:
Getting OC sprayed fething sucks. I'd call it a decent deterrent. No idea how it compares to getting tased, but I'm not signing up for the test.
I'm all for non or less-lethal police equipment. I'm immune to CS gas so it's all gravy to me
In all seriousness though, I think arming the police with guns here in the UK would end up with more dead people and ultimately, more dead police. To a certain extent, we have seen what has happened in the US when the Pandora's Box of weapon ownership is opened and while it is still just about shut here in the UK, I think we should try to keep it that way.
Except the US has never been unarmed. The british public hasn't really ever been armed.
You can't say we would have less crime if the public didn't have guns because our criminals already have weapons.
The situation is stable as it will ever be with the population having access to firearms. Nobody is going to need .50cals, but semi-automatic and limited automatics are perfectly fine.
If bobbies need to have guns or not is a fair question, but it isn't one to be answered by a single high profile incident like this. You need to look at hundreds of incidents over a decade or more to come up with a decent answer.
To me, the better question to ask in this case is why a guy suspected in two murders was allowed out on bail?
I don't think all of our coppers should have guns but I DO think that our armed response should be expanded to include armed patrols of problem areas, such parts of inner-city London and certain Manchester estates. I believe that this idea was piloted for a while - not sure what happened with it.
Arming coppers could potentially encite those members of society who believe that 'da man' is the cause of all their ills to even greater extremes of anti police action.
I could imagine individuals or gangs seeing armed coppers as a proper target of their ill conceived philosophies. There are segments of society who see the police as fair game and rights of passage include antagonising the police or getting involved with criminal activity.
The police need our respect and they have to earn it.
No need for more armed police say I, the stats don't really support it and personally any Rozzers that pulled thee gun out will almost certainly be on a hiding to nothing as they will almost certainly be crushed to death by paperwork and he ensuing media gak storm that would follow.
Some figures from the BBC site for 2010-2011;
Firearms have been authorised in 17,209 operations in England and Wales, down 7%
There are 6653 authorised firearms trained officers.
There were 3 incidents where police discharged their firearms.
They also have a little bit on the US perspective. Ma colonel from Baton Rogue states;
The criminal element here is better armed than the police departments most of the time.....the general public because of television believe we're better armed than we really are. We respond to a call and they say "where's you machinegun?"
I'll stick to the established way the peelers here already do things. Freak incidents aside we clearly dont need more guns here.
A 2006 survey of 47,328 Police Federation members found 82% did not want officers to be routinely armed on duty, despite almost half saying their lives had been "in serious jeopardy" during the previous three years.
It is a position shared by the Police Superintendents' Association and the Association of Chief Police Officers.
The British public are not nearly so unanimous.
An ICM poll in April 2004 found 47% supported arming all police, compared with 48% against.
Seaward wrote:
Getting OC sprayed fething sucks. I'd call it a decent deterrent. No idea how it compares to getting tased, but I'm not signing up for the test.
I'm all for non or less-lethal police equipment. I'm immune to CS gas so it's all gravy to me
In all seriousness though, I think arming the police with guns here in the UK would end up with more dead people and ultimately, more dead police. To a certain extent, we have seen what has happened in the US when the Pandora's Box of weapon ownership is opened and while it is still just about shut here in the UK, I think we should try to keep it that way.
Except the US has never been unarmed. The british public hasn't really ever been armed.
.
That's not a fact, actually.
The UK used to have weapon laws no more restrictive than the USA. Guns used to be a lot less common in the US than they are now, because they used to be a lot more expensive.
The rate of weapon ownership was probably fairly similar until the early 20th century, then it went up a lot in the UK because of soldiers bringing "souvenirs" back from the war.
Britain is a democracy. If the British wanted to be tooled up they would campaign and vote for it.
The key difference is that the US constitution forbids laws against weapons.
The rate of weapon ownership was probably fairly similar until the early 20th century, then it went up a lot in the UK because of soldiers bringing "souvenirs" back from the war.
Britain is a democracy. If the British wanted to be tooled up they would campaign and vote for it.
The key difference is that the US constitution forbids laws against weapons.
To be fair, when they banned handguns after the Dumblane massacre, pretty much no one had one.
Seaward wrote:
Getting OC sprayed fething sucks. I'd call it a decent deterrent. No idea how it compares to getting tased, but I'm not signing up for the test.
I'm all for non or less-lethal police equipment. I'm immune to CS gas so it's all gravy to me
In all seriousness though, I think arming the police with guns here in the UK would end up with more dead people and ultimately, more dead police. To a certain extent, we have seen what has happened in the US when the Pandora's Box of weapon ownership is opened and while it is still just about shut here in the UK, I think we should try to keep it that way.
Except the US has never been unarmed. The british public hasn't really ever been armed.
.
That's not a fact, actually.
The UK used to have weapon laws no more restrictive than the USA. Guns used to be a lot less common in the US than they are now, because they used to be a lot more expensive.
The rate of weapon ownership was probably fairly similar until the early 20th century, then it went up a lot in the UK because of soldiers bringing "souvenirs" back from the war.
Britain is a democracy. If the British wanted to be tooled up they would campaign and vote for it.
The key difference is that the US constitution forbids laws against weapons.
Just because they weren't restricted doesn't mean they had the guns.
The population of england hasn't needed to hunt for survival for a long time, contrasted with a large portion of the american population up until a 150ish years ago.
"Guns used to be a lot less common in the US than they are now"
Yeah, so did people. Less people around means less guns. people may have had only 1 gun because of the expense but they did have one.
I would like to see a per capita comparison between the UK and the US. I think it would clearly show that America has always had a high ratio of guns to people and the UK would be substantially lower.
Albatross wrote: I don't think all of our coppers should have guns but I DO think that our armed response should be expanded to include armed patrols of problem areas, such parts of inner-city London and certain Manchester estates. I believe that this idea was piloted for a while - not sure what happened with it.
kronk wrote: I have no comment/opinion on what your country does with regards to fire arms control for its citizens or police force.
In this same vein, I have no patience for any non-American's opinions on my country's fire arms controls.
I'm very sorry for the loss of your policemen, though.
I'm with Kronk on this one. Sorry for the loss of your officers.
On a slightly more personal note, perhaps you could temporarily re-open the Tower of London's "business" side to give this fethhead a proper haircut instead of life in prison? Frakker sounds like a complete lunatic..
It does surprise me how many British people are really negative about the police. But then, I found a strong undercurrent of bitterness towards pretty much every aspect of the public service when I lived in the UK. Must be all the right wing tabloid filth.
It does surprise me how many British people are really negative about the police. But then, I found a strong undercurrent of bitterness towards pretty much every aspect of the public service when I lived in the UK. Must be all the right wing tabloid filth.
I think most people who aren't police have a negative view of the police. It isn't as if they didn't earn it.
I generally have a good opinion of the Po-Po. That opinion plummets the second I get a speeding ticket, but then comes back up to positive as time passes.
Also, I like to watch Cops. Some of the jerk-wads they have to deal with need a thump-un!
Funnily enough I think a lot of negagtivity comes from heresay from criminals and their friends and families, especially those who are convicted more than once.
I think it's just that the British complain about everything, it a proud national tradition. Also historically the british police have operated on a policy of enforcement through consent of the people rather than enforcement by strength.
Police should be armed. Period. There is no debate to be had here. You cannot put an officer on the street without a weapon unless you want a big painted bullseye on em too.
Surtur wrote: Police should be armed. Period. There is no debate to be had here. You cannot put an officer on the street without a weapon unless you want a big painted bullseye on em too.
Or you could realize that different cultures have different social contracts and arming bobbies would violate the trust of the people they are there to serve
Arming police does not necessarily lead to an armed criminal element. If those criminals were able to easily get guns, they would already have them regardless of the armed nature of the police. The exception is large organised groups of criminals who are planning a special event that they feel requires some extra 'punch' like the North Hollywood shoutout, but again the types and volumes of firearms those people have will not be dictated by the street copper. The street copper will only be a token presence at an event like that, as the force response unit will be present.
Also, a gun is an appropriate response to any situation that presents a reasonable immediate danger to life, or a reasonable and immediate threat of serious injury. Obviously not something like a car accident or falling off a cliff. Don't be stupid. But if someone comes at you with a knife, a gun is an appropriate response. If they come at you with a lump of wood, similarly a gun is an appropriate response.
Let me give you a real life example: Two crooks are on a bus. They do something wrong and the local police are called. This is a small one-man station, so the lone police officer responds and puts the two crooks in the back seat of his sedan. This is a no-no, as police sedans in Australia are not suitable for prisoner transport. We use vans for that. But this copper has been in the job for a while and thinks himself a good judge of character. He doesn't think these two crooks are going to give him a hard time.
He is wrong.
Half-way back to the station, one of the crooks produces a small pocket knife, reaches forward from the back seat, and stabs the cop in the neck. The cop manages to stop the car and get out, drawing his gun. But he's bleeding heavily. He's miles from no where, and there's no traffic on the road. He's about to lose consciousness, and there's two criminals still sitting in the back seat who have already demonstrated they're happy to kill him.
They currently present no threat. They know they can't get out of the car without him shooting them.
Luckily a civilian happened along the road and the copper was able to get a lift into town with them, leaving the crooks in the car. But had that car not happened along, that copper would have been justified in shooting and killing those crooks because even though they were just sitting in the back seat at the time, he had a reasonable belief that were he to pass out, they would finish the job.
IMO, Police need firearms to protect themselves in certain situations. An armed response unit simply isn't sufficient. And while being armed may not have saved the two women recently murdered in Britain, if they'd been armed perhaps this crook would not have even attempted to ambush them. We'll never know.
Why did the officer in you scenario not frisk the suspects, why were they not cuffed, why did the officer not wait for a van. You can't use an officer who didn't do his job properly as an example of why every officer needs a gun. In addition, in your scenario the officer would not be in the right to shoot the suspects just because they might present a danger in the future, he could shoot them if they attempted to exit the vehicle and attack him but if they were already detained in the back of the car and did';t present an immediate danger to himself or others then that's murder pure and simple
youbedead wrote: Why did the officer in you scenario not frisk the suspects, why were they not cuffed, why did the officer not wait for a van. You can't use an officer who didn't do his job properly as an example of why every officer needs a gun.
Because he was too long in the job, over-confident and set in his ways. It happens. My point with the story wasn't to support the theory that every copper needs a gun, but that the situations when using a gun is reasonable are wide and varied. He'd probably done the same thing a hundred times with local crooks.
In addition, in your scenario the officer would not be in the right to shoot the suspects just because they might present a danger in the future, he could shoot them if they attempted to exit the vehicle and attack him but if they were already detained in the back of the car and did';t present an immediate danger to himself or others then that's murder pure and simple
They'd displayed their intent through overt actions. It was perfectly reasonable to assume that, had the officer lost consciousness, that they would murder him. Given that reasonable belief, he would have been shooting them to protect his own life.
Surtur wrote: Police should be armed. Period. There is no debate to be had here. You cannot put an officer on the street without a weapon unless you want a big painted bullseye on em too.
Or you could realize that different cultures have different social contracts and arming bobbies would violate the trust of the people they are there to serve
The trust is that the people are going to be protected and officers who abuse that are disciplined. Taking away tools from an officer isn't helping.
Police over zealousness is often greatly over exaggerated by the media. Yes they do screw up. But more often than not, the 15 seconds of video or the picture you see is not enough to judge what is going on in a situation or what led up to it.
And in the cases where police are abusing their power, its usually not with a gun. usually its with their batons, pepper spray, and good ol' fisticuffs.
Grey Templar wrote: And in the cases where police are abusing their power, its usually not with a gun. usually its with their batons, pepper spray, and good ol' fisticuffs.
From the video it was clearly not an effective deterrent.
I say that policemen that respond to riots and protests should switch to bear spray. pepper spray is ok for beatwork, but people that are wipped up with Mob Mentality can resist it fairly consistantly.
It is quite difficult to explain the British mentality of policing to Americans, but as I said before the british mentality of policing through consent were police serve the public rather than the state is different to the US.
Im sure this was posted previosly but just read this
I don't see how its any different to us. We have given consent for an armed police force, not only that we have decided its a requirement they be armed.
Grey Templar wrote: I don't see how its any different to us. We have given consent for an armed police force, not only that we have decided its a requirement they be armed.
Because in the US the police are viewed as working for the state and not the public. When the met first started they made great efforts to distance themselves as much as possible from the army and the government, it's actually a pretty american concept if you think about it.
Grey Templar wrote: I don't see how its any different to us. We have given consent for an armed police force, not only that we have decided its a requirement they be armed.
Because in the US the police are viewed as working for the state and not the public. When the met first started they made great efforts to distance themselves as much as possible from the army and the government, it's actually a pretty american concept if you think about it.
Really?
I consider them working for the public... like Fire Depts...
Grey Templar wrote: State and Federal police maybe, but local police are definitly viewed as public servants. I view all police as public servants personally.
Me too...
Maybe because I friends with one of them?? When he talks about his job, always phrase it in a way that his job serves the public...
How about this scenario? They stab him in the neck and then take his gun and car. Now you've armed the criminals.
This was the argument for arming police? To give them some protection if they become lax about procedure? Yeah, that's exactly the responsible individual we want to give a gun.
I think that a gun would clash considerably with the downright adorable appearance that bobbies are clearly going for. The checkered hat band, the Mini Cooper or similar Euro economy car, the British accent...
Palindrome wrote: British police cars are BMWs. They don't tend to look very cute either.
The police use a whole range of different cars and colour schemes in the UK. Different regional forces will buy different cars. A lot of the cars up here are Ford Focuses. If you go to the more rural forces, there will be lots more 4x4's, etc...
It does surprise me how many British people are really negative about the police. But then, I found a strong undercurrent of bitterness towards pretty much every aspect of the public service when I lived in the UK. Must be all the right wing tabloid filth.
Or the poor management and overspending!
Da Boss wrote: Nah, I think that's not the case everywhere.
I don't see how keeping the peace earns the displeasure of the public, either. But maybe I count as police
Massive cases of incompetence, corruption, making up the rules as they go along, generally not knowing the law etc etc etc.
I realise the police have a hard job to do, but saying that you can't understand why the police aren't warmly accepted by the general public is surprising. They need better training and more investment, it's not the average Bobbies fault but they bare the brunt of it, like everybody else in the public sector.
I may sound slightly bitter, but getting stopped and searched in certain parts of the UK just for being black or another minority, is no fun. And when the Metropolitan (London) police admit themselves that they disproportionaly target minorities since 9/11, then you can see why there is a problem.
Also, historically, the police were hated by some sections of society due to their actions in the miners' strikes of the 1980s, various miscarriages of justice, the Brixton riots, the cover up over Hillsborough, the death of Stephen Lawrence, collusion with the Murdoch empire etc etc.
Being a policeman is a difficult and thankless task, but a lot of American posters seem surprised why sections of the British public may not see the police in a good light. The above is a taster of recent scandals and controversies that have affected policing in the UK.
The people that argue TASER's arn't safe are full of bull. People that will have an averse reaction to a jolt will either not be in the situation of needed to be tasered, should immediatly capitulate when threatened with one, or would have issues with any form of restraint.
If you know you have a heart condition you will stop when threatened with a taser. The cop doesn't know if you are bluffing or not and it shouldn't be his job to know, his job is to protect himself and stop you.
Personally, as both a pro-police and pro-gun kinda man, I feel that Tasers should have an increased distribution but shouldn't be Universal - they are a less-lethal rather than a non-lethal option and increased usage will only increase the relative minority of fatalities/serious injuries that occur. In addition I feel currently the Firearms Units are perfectly sufficient. Anything that happens here will be a knee-jerk reaction that is not considered in the long run - our attitude of words first then stick is better than gun first then shoot. In addition, I feel that the media needs to drop the "Damned if they do, damned if they don't" attitude they hold towards the police. Whether it goes 'right' or 'wrong' they only seem to criticise. I also feel that media coverage needs to be more comprehensive - especially if the source is user-generated/amateur footage.
Grey Templar wrote: And in the cases where police are abusing their power, its usually not with a gun. usually its with their batons, pepper spray, and good ol' fisticuffs.
Like this abuse?
Being pepper spray'ed aint no joke...
Um, pepper spray ain't nothin and they were asking for it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Medium of Death wrote: Good thing that nobody has ever had an unknown underlying medical condition then isn't it...
That medical condition is often referred to as OD on narcotics or trippin bawlz. Many of the deaths blamed on tasers result from the suspect doing something before hand that resulted his his or her death. Civil suits can be brought against nearly everything and thats where most people hear that taser caused a death because suspects are blameless holy people.
Grey Templar wrote: And in the cases where police are abusing their power, its usually not with a gun. usually its with their batons, pepper spray, and good ol' fisticuffs.
Like this abuse?
Being pepper spray'ed aint no joke...
Um, pepper spray ain't nothin and they were asking for it.
By sitting peacefully on a path? I guess the people who marched through Birmingham in 1963 were asking to be sprayed by water cannons and attacked by police dogs.
Grey Templar wrote: And in the cases where police are abusing their power, its usually not with a gun. usually its with their batons, pepper spray, and good ol' fisticuffs.
Like this abuse?
Being pepper spray'ed aint no joke...
Um, pepper spray ain't nothin and they were asking for it.
By sitting peacefully on a path? I guess the people who marched through Birmingham in 1963 were asking to be sprayed by water cannons and attacked by police dogs.
Watch the video in the post above yours. Its the full unedited version of what actually happened.
The protesters had hemmed the police in and were acting in a very threatening manner. They are lucky all that happened was pepper spray.
Grey Templar wrote: And in the cases where police are abusing their power, its usually not with a gun. usually its with their batons, pepper spray, and good ol' fisticuffs.
Like this abuse?
Being pepper spray'ed aint no joke...
Um, pepper spray ain't nothin and they were asking for it.
By sitting peacefully on a path? I guess the people who marched through Birmingham in 1963 were asking to be sprayed by water cannons and attacked by police dogs.
Watch the video in the post above yours. Its the full unedited version of what actually happened.
The protesters had hemmed the police in and were acting in a very threatening manner. They are lucky all that happened was pepper spray.
They were chanting slogans. They did not act against the police in any offensive way which warranted that response. Were the police ever in any real danger?
In fact they used the same tactics the police use to contain a protest, they kettled them.
Grey Templar wrote: And in the cases where police are abusing their power, its usually not with a gun. usually its with their batons, pepper spray, and good ol' fisticuffs.
Like this abuse?
Being pepper spray'ed aint no joke...
Um, pepper spray ain't nothin and they were asking for it.
By sitting peacefully on a path? I guess the people who marched through Birmingham in 1963 were asking to be sprayed by water cannons and attacked by police dogs.
Threatening the police safety, encircling the police, demanding release of arrested suspects. For the love of god watch the video and get off the media hype. Pepper spray isn't mustard gas. It blurs vision and stings, but it's not really hurting you.
Grey Templar wrote: And in the cases where police are abusing their power, its usually not with a gun. usually its with their batons, pepper spray, and good ol' fisticuffs.
Like this abuse?
Being pepper spray'ed aint no joke...
Um, pepper spray ain't nothin and they were asking for it.
Threatening the police safety, encircling the police, demanding release of arrested suspects. For the love of god watch the video and get off the media hype. Pepper spray isn't mustard gas. It blurs vision and stings, but it's not really hurting you.
I have watched the video. How did any of the protesters ever threaten the polices safety?
Threatening the police safety, encircling the police, demanding release of arrested suspects. For the love of god watch the video and get off the media hype. Pepper spray isn't mustard gas. It blurs vision and stings, but it's not really hurting you.
I have watched the video. How did any of the protesters ever threaten the polices safety?
Preventing the officers from leaving when they wanted to and demanding the release of suspects held in custody.
Those are threats to the safety of the officers.
Plus we have the protestors behavior and retoric which was clearly agressive.
Threatening the police safety, encircling the police, demanding release of arrested suspects. For the love of god watch the video and get off the media hype. Pepper spray isn't mustard gas. It blurs vision and stings, but it's not really hurting you.
I have watched the video. How did any of the protesters ever threaten the polices safety?
Surrounding the police so that they have no available exits. If the protests got violent, aka too late, they had no way to assure their own safety via retreat. Chanting If you let them go, we will let you go, implied the threat of having the officers detained. A multitude of issued warnings and their non-compliance with orders. Pepper spray is a low level tool for the police to use.
Preventing the officers from leaving when they wanted to and demanding the release of suspects held in custody.
Those are threats to the safety of the officers.
Plus we have the protestors behavior and retoric which was clearly agressive.
The next time I get kettled by the poilice I should be within my rights to pepper spray right back at them then.
Preventing the officers from leaving when they wanted to and demanding the release of suspects held in custody.
Those are threats to the safety of the officers.
Plus we have the protestors behavior and retoric which was clearly agressive.
The next time I get kettled by the poilice I should be within my rights to pepper spray right back at them then.
If the police are kettling you, you are in violation of the law. Pepper spraying them would result in conviction for assaulting a peace officer.
Preventing the officers from leaving when they wanted to and demanding the release of suspects held in custody.
Those are threats to the safety of the officers.
Plus we have the protestors behavior and retoric which was clearly agressive.
The next time I get kettled by the poilice I should be within my rights to pepper spray right back at them then.
If the police are kettling you, you are in violation of the law.
Not in the UK. The British police (at least the Met) kettle everyone in an area irrespective of what they are doing.
Preventing the officers from leaving when they wanted to and demanding the release of suspects held in custody.
Those are threats to the safety of the officers.
Plus we have the protestors behavior and retoric which was clearly agressive.
The next time I get kettled by the poilice I should be within my rights to pepper spray right back at them then.
Dear god this should be exalted as the worst argument on Dakka ever. And that's saying something.
Preventing the officers from leaving when they wanted to and demanding the release of suspects held in custody.
Those are threats to the safety of the officers.
Plus we have the protestors behavior and retoric which was clearly agressive.
The next time I get kettled by the poilice I should be within my rights to pepper spray right back at them then.
Dear god this should be exalted as the worst argument on Dakka ever. And that's saying something.
Thanks, that means a lot to me. I was also making a semi valid point. Why should the police get carte blanche?
Preventing the officers from leaving when they wanted to and demanding the release of suspects held in custody.
Those are threats to the safety of the officers.
Plus we have the protestors behavior and retoric which was clearly agressive.
The next time I get kettled by the poilice I should be within my rights to pepper spray right back at them then.
Dear god this should be exalted as the worst argument on Dakka ever. And that's saying something.
Thanks, that means a lot to me. I was also making a semi valid point. Why should the police get carte blanche?
Just because you''re being detained by the police or they're doing something that they have the AUTHORITY to do, doesn't give you a right to fight back. If that were the case, every traffic ticket would result in a brawl with the cops. Giving people the right to fight against police is terrible. BTW if you do pepper spray an officer, you can be shot and killed as you have hampered his ability to defend himself against a likely attack as well as assaulted him. He has a priority to keep his tools away from someone who could use them against himself or others, that means handcuffs, pepper spray, baton, patrol car, taser and guns. I would highly encourage you to find a citizen police academy or criminal justice course to expand your knowledge of police workings.
Hell they're lucky the cops acted with so much restraint... in the face of a mob like that pepper spray was the lowest level option available to police. Batons would not have been out of the question or more serious options like tear gas.
The Lieutenant made it pretty clear "If you stay here, you'll be subject to the use of force." at least three times, and the third time they LAUGHED at him like it was all a game. Reality is clearly not something that enters into the protestor's heads at any point during this. The icing on the cake is when they "give" the police permission to leave.
I'd like to credit Lieutenant Pike and his officers for their careful management of the incident and getting out of the situation with no officers harmed by useless fethheads.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Hell they're lucky the cops acted with so much restraint... in the face of a mob like that pepper spray was the lowest level option available to police. Batons would not have been out of the question or more serious options like tear gas.
The Lieutenant made it pretty clear "If you stay here, you'll be subject to the use of force." at least three times, and the third time they LAUGHED at him like it was all a game. Reality is clearly not something that enters into the protestor's heads at any point during this. The icing on the cake is when they "give" the police permission to leave.
I'd like to credit Lieutenant Pike and his officers for their careful management of the incident and getting out of the situation with no officers harmed by useless fethheads.
Actually a baton is considered equal force to pepper spray in the eyes of the law. Fun fact. It's good to see they were not charged though. Pity it's going to civil litigation now.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Hell they're lucky the cops acted with so much restraint... in the face of a mob like that pepper spray was the lowest level option available to police. Batons would not have been out of the question or more serious options like tear gas.
The Lieutenant made it pretty clear "If you stay here, you'll be subject to the use of force." at least three times, and the third time they LAUGHED at him like it was all a game. Reality is clearly not something that enters into the protestor's heads at any point during this. The icing on the cake is when they "give" the police permission to leave.
I'd like to credit Lieutenant Pike and his officers for their careful management of the incident and getting out of the situation with no officers harmed by useless fethheads.
Actually a baton is considered equal force to pepper spray in the eyes of the law. Fun fact. It's good to see they were not charged though. Pity it's going to civil litigation now.
If only they followed this advice: (nsfw)
Spoiler:
I remember my force criteria training, but common sense wise not legal wise, pepper spray is a softer option then a proper beating
it would. for some people pepper spray is mearly unpleasent, not something that stops you in your tracks. A beating/tasering is what will be needed to stop a person like that.
US Cops get their batons out rarely compared to pepper spray. its simply quicker and safer because you can use it at a distance. Similer to a taser.
I feel like the baton is a last ditch weapon option compared to the othe non-lethal impliments.
Obviously you have violated the law and the law requires they restrain you and bring you to justice.
So now we have that wrapped up I guess we don't need trials, evidence and due process since if you are arrested you are obviously guilty.
But obviously you arn't listining to reason so why bother.
Quite.
Oh quite right, when you're arrested you should just show up when you please to the court house to address these silly little claims against you. Then the judge can give you a piece of hard candy, pat you on the bottom and say, "Now there's a good lad!" while you skip out the doors.
Obviously you have violated the law and the law requires they restrain you and bring you to justice.
But obviously you arn't listining to reason so why bother.
I have no idea where your from but its clearly not from an area with a strong police union.
I respect cops. I also hate cops. My mother spent 21 years on Buffalo PD, the last 9 in Internal Affairs. She wont even tell me some of the worst things because she worries it will make me lose all faith in police.
But they're human. Humans with not enough training, too many responsibilities, and not enough accountability. Its not easy to deal with the scum of humanity day in and day out. But realistically thats what they do. Everywhere across the world. The worst we have to offer thats who they deal with. Giving them more power is not the answer. But neither is giving them none. But that also plays largely into my belief that if you changed the drug laws things would be a lot different. Better IMO, but im no expert. Well at laws at least. Got that drug thing down pretty good.
Obviously you have violated the law and the law requires they restrain you and bring you to justice.
So now we have that wrapped up I guess we don't need trials, evidence and due process since if you are arrested you are obviously guilty.
But obviously you arn't listining to reason so why bother.
Quite.
Oh quite right, when you're arrested you should just show up when you please to the court house to address these silly little claims against you. Then the judge can give you a piece of hard candy, pat you on the bottom and say, "Now there's a good lad!" while you skip out the doors.
Innocent until proven guilty is the basis on which western law is built. To claim that someone who has been arrested on suspicion of a crime has actually, unequivocally committed that crime is wrong until their guilt is proven in a court of law.
Massive cases of incompetence, corruption, making up the rules as they go along, generally not knowing the law etc etc etc
In my experience, the highest contributing factor is public ignorance. The public, quite simply, are too poorly educated to know what is appropriate behaviour on the part of law enforcement officers and some will react badly to what should be viewed as normal policing.
This is exacerbated in poorer communities where most everyone will have been arrested at some point and their personal and emotional experiences, coupled with their ignorance of police powers and what constitutes proper policing, leads to a very bitter and inaccurate view of police.
For example, I had one extremely irate scrote (that is, a scumbag who wasn't currently committing a crime) tell me that the police were abusing their powers because they shut down his noisy party at midnight. He insisted that because it was the weekend, he was allowed to keep it going to 1am and the coppers only shut it down because they had a grudge against him because of his record.
There was no grudge, and no right to be noisy until 1am, it was all imagined on his part but no less real to him because of it.
Lone Cat wrote: Thanks. it's time TASER should be standard police gear of the GB. (and p'rhaps. every 'developed' nations on earth)
or why shouldn't it be?
Tasers are a less lethal option. When you absolutely need to stop someone right now, to protect life or prevent serious injury, then you don't use a taser. You use a gun.
Further, a taser is not a compliance tool. You don't just tase someone because you want them to do something.
It's a tool used to incapacitate people in dangerous situations where it is not justified shooting them, and pepper spray would be ineffective. It's legitimate applications are real, but also quite narrow.
Unfortunately, the temptation to use the taser as a pain compliance tool is very strong, and it happens very often.
It's a tricky issue. We're currently trialling a system whereby only the section sergeant carries a taser. It's the sergeants job to attend any bizarre, unusual or exceptionally dangerous situations and assume direct control from the beat coppers, and generally the situations where the use of a taser is acceptable will also be the sort of situations that aren't terribly time sensitive. A guy with a knife standing off against police will probably continue to stand there for five or ten minutes while the Sgt arrives with a taser, and generally when a job like that (Man with knife on street) comes over the radio, the sergeant will be on his way anyway.
Obviously you have violated the law and the law requires they restrain you and bring you to justice.
So now we have that wrapped up I guess we don't need trials, evidence and due process since if you are arrested you are obviously guilty.
But obviously you arn't listining to reason so why bother.
Quite.
Oh quite right, when you're arrested you should just show up when you please to the court house to address these silly little claims against you. Then the judge can give you a piece of hard candy, pat you on the bottom and say, "Now there's a good lad!" while you skip out the doors.
Innocent until proven guilty is the basis on which western law is built. To claim that someone who has been arrested on suspicion of a crime has actually, unequivocally committed that crime is wrong until their guilt is proven in a court of law.
I believe you missed the point again. You may have just made a strawman argument while you were at it, I'm not 100% sure. We aren't talking about innocence or guilt, but police use of force to detain someone. You have an unreasonably low threshold for what an officer can do. No officer could do his or her job if they didn't use force as needed. If you're being uppity, the officer doesn't have to sit around and wait for you to throw a punch. The officer has the authority to defend themselves from harm as needed. That's why handcuffs exist and the wrap and the spit guard. If you are under arrest, you need to comply or face the consequences. Getting them into handcuffs or any other restraining apparatus may take force. Let me ask you, at what point do you think an officer may use force? When the suspect is not complying with the officer's orders? When the suspect threatens the officer? When the officer is attacked by the suspect?
I believe you missed the point again. You may have just made a strawman argument while you were at it, I'm not 100% sure. We aren't talking about innocence or guilt, but police use of force to detain someone. You have an unreasonably low threshold for what an officer can do. No officer could do his or her job if they didn't use force as needed. If you're being uppity, the officer doesn't have to sit around and wait for you to throw a punch. The officer has the authority to defend themselves from harm as needed. That's why handcuffs exist and the wrap and the spit guard. If you are under arrest, you need to comply or face the consequences. Getting them into handcuffs or any other restraining apparatus may take force. Let me ask you, at what point do you think an officer may use force? When the suspect is not complying with the officer's orders? When the suspect threatens the officer? When the officer is attacked by the suspect?
Please read this, said by Grey Templar
Why are they assaulting you?
Obviously you have violated the law and the law requires they restrain you and bring you to justice.
To take this approach is to directly nullify the entire premise of innocence until proven guilty.
I believe you missed the point again. You may have just made a strawman argument while you were at it, I'm not 100% sure. We aren't talking about innocence or guilt, but police use of force to detain someone. You have an unreasonably low threshold for what an officer can do. No officer could do his or her job if they didn't use force as needed. If you're being uppity, the officer doesn't have to sit around and wait for you to throw a punch. The officer has the authority to defend themselves from harm as needed. That's why handcuffs exist and the wrap and the spit guard. If you are under arrest, you need to comply or face the consequences. Getting them into handcuffs or any other restraining apparatus may take force. Let me ask you, at what point do you think an officer may use force? When the suspect is not complying with the officer's orders? When the suspect threatens the officer? When the officer is attacked by the suspect?
Please read this, said by Grey Templar
Why are they assaulting you?
Obviously you have violated the law and the law requires they restrain you and bring you to justice.
To take this approach is to directly nullify the entire premise of innocence until proven guilty.
No it isn't. Restrain just means handcuffs. I understand he used improper terminology, that it should be you are suspected of committing a crime, but that's not really what you've been arguing.
'Obviously you have violated the law' is the contentious part, the police detain you because you are suspected of violating a law, until you are found guilty then you are only suspected of violation
And really, from the policeman's perspective you have violated the law. You won't actually legally be charged till you have your day in court, but its the cops job to make sure you get your day in court.
I'd also like to point out that there is a world of difference between a policeman arresting/detaining you and "assaulting you".
Police have quite firm training on appropriate levels of force with which they can use to restrain people and yes, they can use quite a lot of force. However, they cannot assault you; that implies a level of unreasonable force.
For example, a policeman may tackle you to the ground, pin you and handcuff you (assuming your behaviour warrants it). He cannot then start kicking you or pepper spray you while you lay on the ground.
Obviously you have violated the law and the law requires they restrain you and bring you to justice.
To take this approach is to directly nullify the entire premise of innocence until proven guilty.
Don't be disingenuous. You know very well what GT was saying, and the fact that he worded it poorly should not be taken as licence to misrepresent his position.
Mr Hyena wrote: This incident is clear that the police's non-lethal methods of defending themselves is ineffective. They need better non-lethal weapons.
There's no such thing as a "non-lethal weapon", any weapon can kill given the right circumstances or incompetence on the part of the wielder, there are only weapons which are less-lethal than the alternatives.
And no, the police should not be armed, and nor they should be carrying tasers, or bear-mace, or microwave cannons, or whatever the next innovation in doing violence is, because it's been shown during the pilot schemes for these sorts of things that if you give an officer the option of using mace or tasers, they will use that option even in situations which they would previously have solved without them, and where they were clearly not necessary.
It's a horribly utilitarian truth that having a system which occasionally results in an officer or a member of the public being killed is the better option, because tragic as those events are, the fact is more people would die -civvies AND police officers- more often in a UK where every officer carries a ranged weapon.
Besides which, the police in this country have shown themselves to be just as susceptible to corruption and cover-ups as any other, the IPCC and the courts are enough of a joke as it is, the last thing we need are scum like Simon Harwood wandering the streets with tasers and handguns.
I'd just like to state for the record after some of the more intense arguments from U.K. dakkanauts that their constables should not be armed, I'm extremely glad I live in a nation where not only are the police armed, but so am I.
When they bring in rigorous psychological testing to weed out the evil so-and-sos who make up a (small)minority of the police and give the rest a bad name, when they stop with the herd mentality that means they stick together and cover up any wrong doing, when they charge police who have abused their power. Maybe then the police can have less lethal means of protection rolled out for all officers. Until then they should be treating even tazers as firearms and restrict them to a few who have had proper training.
Guns should never be given out to every officer however, noone does well out of that (except maybe criminal gun dealers).
Yodhrin wrote: And no, the police should not be armed, and nor they should be carrying tasers, or bear-mace, or microwave cannons, or whatever the next innovation in doing violence is, because it's been shown during the pilot schemes for these sorts of things that if you give an officer the option of using mace or tasers, they will use that option even in situations which they would previously have solved without them, and where they were clearly not necessary.
It's a horribly utilitarian truth that having a system which occasionally results in an officer or a member of the public being killed is the better option, because tragic as those events are, the fact is more people would die -civvies AND police officers- more often in a UK where every officer carries a ranged weapon.
While this does apply to pain compliance and incapacitation, it doesn't apply to the use of deadly force. A taser has an (unacceptable) use outside of it's intended function: punishment and compliance. The same is true for batons, sprays, etc. If you want someone to do something and they aren't doing it, or you just want to hurt them, then you can use this less lethal tool on them.
The same doesn't apply to guns. No one is going to shoot someone for lipping off at them, or refusing to get out of a car. Well, no one except the nutters, but there's no accounting for them.
IMO, it's vitally important for the police to be able to defend themselves with lethal force where it's warranted.
Kaldor wrote: IMO, it's vitally important for the police to be able to defend themselves with lethal force where it's warranted.
Why would you ever need to use lethal force to defend yourself? Surely temporarily incapacitating someone serves the same purpose without anyone actually dying. How can it ever be warranted? In this thread we have seen people claim it's warranted to inflict violence on a non violent protest because of some perceived threat.
In Britain we don't kill the worst criminals after due process, so why would anyone grant the police the right to do so without a shred of evidence that the person is even a criminal?
I believe you missed the point again. You may have just made a strawman argument while you were at it, I'm not 100% sure. We aren't talking about innocence or guilt, but police use of force to detain someone. You have an unreasonably low threshold for what an officer can do. No officer could do his or her job if they didn't use force as needed. If you're being uppity, the officer doesn't have to sit around and wait for you to throw a punch. The officer has the authority to defend themselves from harm as needed. That's why handcuffs exist and the wrap and the spit guard. If you are under arrest, you need to comply or face the consequences. Getting them into handcuffs or any other restraining apparatus may take force. Let me ask you, at what point do you think an officer may use force? When the suspect is not complying with the officer's orders? When the suspect threatens the officer? When the officer is attacked by the suspect?
Please read this, said by Grey Templar
Why are they assaulting you?
Obviously you have violated the law and the law requires they restrain you and bring you to justice.
To take this approach is to directly nullify the entire premise of innocence until proven guilty.
How? Being arrested does not make you guilty. That does not happen until the Judge/Jury declares it.
If you remove societies ability to detain suspects until guilt is proven... well good luck buddy.
Kaldor wrote: IMO, it's vitally important for the police to be able to defend themselves with lethal force where it's warranted.
Why would you ever need to use lethal force to defend yourself? Surely temporarily incapacitating someone serves the same purpose without anyone actually dying. How can it ever be warranted? In this thread we have seen people claim it's warranted to inflict violence on a non violent protest because of some perceived threat.
In Britain we don't kill the worst criminals after due process, so why would anyone grant the police the right to do so without a shred of evidence that the person is even a criminal?
Because attaining incapacitation is not always possible. Someone coming at you with a gun, quick what less-than-lethal tool are you going to use? Tazer only incapacitates as long as the peson is being tazed and has a limited operating range. After that, they're virtually normal. Pepper spray as has been mentioned doesn't do crap against someone with the will to do something and again limited operating range. A baton is close range. Bean bag shotgun, less-than-lethal but a hit in the head is going to kill someone so I would take it you're against it.
How about this scenario: Officer was just clubbed in the head with a brick, losing consciousness. Temporary measures would be ineffective. Suspect has claimed an intent to kill. What is the officer to do?
Every person that has been against firearms so far has neglected that officers are still humans and citizens, not superman. The right to defend oneself from bodily harm still applies and as an officer they also have an obligation to every other citizen as well. It's not like they pull out their guns for traffic stops. Guns are used when suspects are using weapons with intent to kill. Sorry we can't drag the jury out along with the cop, but I honestly can't give a damn about the hundreds of people who invite lawful use of lethal force to be used against them. I'd rather they die than an officer.
Kaldor wrote: IMO, it's vitally important for the police to be able to defend themselves with lethal force where it's warranted.
Why would you ever need to use lethal force to defend yourself? Surely temporarily incapacitating someone serves the same purpose without anyone actually dying. How can it ever be warranted? In this thread we have seen people claim it's warranted to inflict violence on a non violent protest because of some perceived threat.
In Britain we don't kill the worst criminals after due process, so why would anyone grant the police the right to do so without a shred of evidence that the person is even a criminal?
When someone has opened fire on you, they should return fire with a taser? Walk up to within 10' of the guy and pepper spray him? If a perp is actively charging you with a knife, or other object that can inflict death, they should run away?
Or are you going to throw out the "shoot to wound" line, because that one is just as silly.
The number of times police in the UK are fired upon every year is minute. Specialist armed response units with regular officers being unarmed is a perfectly viable method of operation for our police given how few guns are in circulation in the UK.
We lose very few officers in the line of duty to any causes; arming them will not change this.
SilverMK2 wrote: The number of times police in the UK are fired upon every year is minute. Specialist armed response units with regular officers being unarmed is a perfectly viable method of operation for our police given how few guns are in circulation in the UK.
We lose very few officers in the line of duty to any causes; arming them will not change this.
May not be a large number, but it is on the rise. Especially shooting related.
Remember also that firearms statistics in the UK include numbers of crimes involving fake and air weapons.
Edit: Not particularly up to date, but showing the representative historical level of gun crime in the UK.
The issue isn't how many crimes are committed by fire arms. It's how many times deadly weapons are used against officers. Knifes, clubs, broken beer bottles, screw drivers, etc... they all can kill. I know our police officers are generally not trained to disarm someone with a knife, by hand. I'm pretty sure your's aren't either. I've been studying martial arts my whole life, and I wouldn't want to try to disarm a knife weilding perp.
Being armed with a fire arm gives police one more layer of protection between them and death. And when deaths and serious injuries sustained by officers are on the rise, then maybe a review of policies are warranted.
As SilverMk2 said the number of times an officers life is actually threatened is minute. I would like to add that this number would pale in comparison with the number of times members of the publics lives would be threatened and, on occasion, taken if every officer was armed. The police in this country have repeatedly shown themselves to be corrupt, and have caused a number of very unfortunate incidents over recent years. I am failing to think of a single case where anyone has been brought to justice for crimes committed. Because of this there is very little faith in the police, even in law abiding communities, and until this is seen to change there will be very little support for granting the right to carry a lethal weapon to your everyday, untrained bobby.
The most telling figure from the wiki article posted
The overall homicide rates per 100,000 (regardless of weapon type) reported by the United Nations for 1999 were 4.55 for the U.S. and 1.45 in England and Wales.
I don't want a more violent society, and arming the police is an unnecessary escalation.
Kaldor wrote: IMO, it's vitally important for the police to be able to defend themselves with lethal force where it's warranted.
Why would you ever need to use lethal force to defend yourself? Surely temporarily incapacitating someone serves the same purpose without anyone actually dying. How can it ever be warranted? In this thread we have seen people claim it's warranted to inflict violence on a non violent protest because of some perceived threat.
In Britain we don't kill the worst criminals after due process, so why would anyone grant the police the right to do so without a shred of evidence that the person is even a criminal?
Wow, really?
First of all, a taser is not a replacement for a firearm. It fires one shot, is not effective on thick clothing, takes too long to reload, and is not guaranteed to be effective.
Second of all, why would they need to use lethal force? I dunno, maybe if they were attacked by someone attempting to kill or seriously injure them, or someone else?
The most telling figure from the wiki article posted
The overall homicide rates per 100,000 (regardless of weapon type) reported by the United Nations for 1999 were 4.55 for the U.S. and 1.45 in England and Wales.
I don't want a more violent society, and arming the police is an unnecessary escalation.
You have to look at other factors that contribute to homicide rates; we have a much larger population, more densely packed with much larger wealth disparities.
The USA has fully armed police but a much higher homicide rate so guns does not automatically equal a peaceful society where everyone is blue and works for the greater good.
First of all, a taser is not a replacement for a firearm. It fires one shot, is not effective on thick clothing, takes too long to reload, and is not guaranteed to be effective.
Second of all, why would they need to use lethal force? I dunno, maybe if they were attacked by someone attempting to kill or seriously injure them, or someone else?
The most telling figure from the wiki article posted
The overall homicide rates per 100,000 (regardless of weapon type) reported by the United Nations for 1999 were 4.55 for the U.S. and 1.45 in England and Wales.
I don't want a more violent society, and arming the police is an unnecessary escalation.
Australia (with armed police) has a rate of 1.0, while the UK has a rate of 1.2 with unarmed police.
How about you arm your police, and reduce your homicide rates?
Or perhaps we can abandon this nonsense notion that arming police will somehow create a more violent society, or drive the homicide rate up?
Firstly, being attacked by someone does not give you the right to kill them. The fact you seem to think it does speaks wonders.
Secondly, the main concern in this debate is not protection for the police, it is protection for the public. This summer there was a shooting on 5th Avenue, police pursued the suspect which resulted in a firefight. 9 members of the public were shot in the crossfire by the police. This is what happens when firearms are given to people without the correct training and skillset (and you base an argument that police should have guns because an old chap was lax in his work?).
Thirdly, it will vastly increase the number of guns on the streets, as criminals will arm themselves, and people will take guns off the police. Are you aware that around one in ten of police shot in the US are shot with their own weapon?
On the homicide rates a comparison between different continents is probably not going to give a good idea so how about we look at two countries very close in culture. Norway, which doesn't arm its police has a rate of 0.6. Sweden arms it's police, it's rate is 1.0.
Of course arming the police creates a more violent society. It means criminals arm themselves and would vastly increase the number of people killed by the police. More people will die unnecessarily so that what? A copper can feel a bit safer? Thanks but I'd much rather the people feel safe.
What world do you live in where you think that the split second you have to make a decision when someone is attacking you, possibly trying to kill you, is enough time to formulate a plan to ensure that the person is stopped with minimal harm?
I recall a scenario were I was training for a deployment. The exercise was in escorting an insurgent that we've detained to a collection point. The "insurgent" attacked me, from 5 feet away he charged me. it took him literally the blink of an eye to get on me.
In that situation I had no time to think about what I was going to do. Had it been a real world situation I had one option and one option only to ensure I was going to see my family again, and that would be to put one in his chest. The only thing I could have assumed there was that his plan would be to kill me.
When you are dealing with a criminal element there is risk involved. There is danger. There are situations where deadly force is the only recourse. Where deadly force is the only safe option.
You are living in a fantasy world if you believe otherwise.
So in that split second you should reach for a gun and hope you get a shot off before they are on you, because if you don't then there is a chance that they might get the weapon, which they can turn on you and then the public. If the weapon you have is non lethal then it reduces the risk to everyone.
I live in England, and the police here don't want guns, and the public don't want them to have them either.
Its one highly visable incident becuase the victim died. They were undoubtably others. If anyone, irrespective of who it is, assaults me I will fight back.
Firstly, being attacked by someone does not give you the right to kill them. The fact you seem to think it does speaks wonders.
It does actually, but only if your own or an others life is in iminent danger and lethal force is your only option. It sould always be a last resort though.
dæl wrote: So in that split second you should reach for a gun and hope you get a shot off before they are on you, because if you don't then there is a chance that they might get the weapon, which they can turn on you and then the public. If the weapon you have is non lethal then it reduces the risk to everyone.
I live in England, and the police here don't want guns, and the public don't want them to have them either.
And what if they weapon that they already have isn't? What then? The scenarios are countless, and they're encountered everyday by law enforcement and military personnel worldwide.
British Police don't want them. Good for them. But you are arguing that the use of deadly force can not be justified, and you are flat out wrong.
But guns are not the magical safety button for police officers. Sometimes, the safer you think you are the more lax you can get.
When I was doing my EMS training we were given a very good quote by our instructor regarding hostile scenes and asking for police backup:
"Remember that just having a cop there doesn't mean your scene is safe. Every time a cop gets hurt or dies there was also a cop with a gun there to keep things safe. Always be aware and always have a backup plan."
Its one highly visable incident becuase the victim died. They were undoubtably others. If anyone, irrespective of who it is, assaults me I will fight back.
Firstly, being attacked by someone does not give you the right to kill them. The fact you seem to think it does speaks wonders.
It does actually, but only if your own or an others life is in iminent danger and lethal force is your only option. It sould always be a last resort though.
If you're referring to Ian Tomlinson, then remember the dodgy autopsy results and the lack of any punishment for the bloke that killed him. I don't want people who can effectively get away with murder having more efficient ways of murdering people who are walking along.
dæl wrote: So in that split second you should reach for a gun and hope you get a shot off before they are on you, because if you don't then there is a chance that they might get the weapon, which they can turn on you and then the public. If the weapon you have is non lethal then it reduces the risk to everyone.
I live in England, and the police here don't want guns, and the public don't want them to have them either.
And what if they weapon that they already have isn't? What then? The scenarios are countless, and they're encountered everyday by law enforcement and military personnel worldwide.
British Police don't want them. Good for them. But you are arguing that the use of deadly force can not be justified, and you are flat out wrong.
There is a very big difference between law enforcement and the military. Maybe its a culture clash and that's how its viewed over there, but I would hate for that to be the case this side of the pond. The majority of criminals are not armed here, so arming police will increase the number of guns on the street.
Deadly force, if the only available option to save lives, can be justified (but that is only due to the ineffectiveness of non lethal weaponry to incapacitate quickly). But is not the answer to someone running at you, as you claimed. If you give the police guns they will see it as an option at times when it is not necessary.
Why would you ever need to use lethal force to defend yourself? Surely temporarily incapacitating someone serves the same purpose without anyone actually dying. How can it ever be warranted? In this thread we have seen people claim it's warranted to inflict violence on a non violent protest because of some perceived threat.
How would you recommend "temporarily incapacitating" someone running at you with, say, a knife in their hand?
Taser? Sure, could do. What if you miss? You only get one shot. What if they're wearing an anorak?
Mace? Eh, you can work through it if you're properly motivated.
Melee combat? You just told us all how woefully inept and untrained the British cops are, so the chances that they're jujitsu masters is probably pretty slim.
The use of lethal force to defend yourself, incidentally, is warranted when someone else uses lethal force against you. Or threatens to. In the case above, how do you know if the guy running at you with the knife is going to stop stabbing you just short of killing you? You don't, of course. In your view, it seems as though an individual would not be authorized to protect themselves with a firearm until they'd been stabbed to a certain, arbitrary point where it became clear the guy was in fact trying to kill them.
I will reiterate, it is not a good idea to endanger every member of society so that one copper in a particularly rare circumstance can incapacitate someone lethally rather than in the way they have been doing for years. With a gun you would probably only get one shot, if you missed you just gave a gun to some crazy who up till now only had a knife.
To answer your question, in that instance you could use a tazer, CS gas or an extendible baton. All things which are carried by the police here, and all would be at a distinct advantage against a knife, especially when you are wearing a stab-proof vest and have at least one other copper with you.
I am in the army so I get taught about the use of force every year (I have even had to teach it a few times) and I have always been told that reasonable force is proportionate force.
dæl wrote: Firstly, being attacked by someone does not give you the right to kill them. The fact you seem to think it does speaks wonders.
Woah woah woah, if someone is attacking you with the intent to kill you or cause serious injury, it absolutely gives you the right to retaliate with lethal force. This isn't just my opinion, it's the legal basis (almost universally) for justifiable use of lethal force. There are other caveats, which I won't get into as it'll just sidetrack the conversation, but the end result is yes, if someone is attacking and trying to kill or seriously injure you, you are absolutely justified in responding with lethal force.
Secondly, the main concern in this debate is not protection for the police, it is protection for the public.
It's absolutely not. The purpose of the police is to ensure that the public can go about it's duties day to day without the fear of becoming a victim of crime. The purpose of arming police is to enable them to protect themselves first and foremost, and bystanders second. Now, I put it in that order purely because generally it is the police officer themselves who will be the target of such an attack, not because the lives of LEOs are more important than the public. Armed response units are called in to deal with siege situations, or to tackle hard targets. Those aren't jobs for beat coppers. The beat copper should have a gun, because sometimes people will try and kill them and sometimes they will need to shoot at someone to protect themselves. Or to protect others.
This summer there was a shooting on 5th Avenue, police pursued the suspect which resulted in a firefight. 9 members of the public were shot in the crossfire by the police. This is what happens when firearms are given to people without the correct training and skillset (and you base an argument that police should have guns because an old chap was lax in his work?).
Thirdly, it will vastly increase the number of guns on the streets, as criminals will arm themselves, and people will take guns off the police. Are you aware that around one in ten of police shot in the US are shot with their own weapon?
My point with that anecdote was not that police should be armed. IMO, that's a given. It was to illustrate that the necessity for using lethal force is a lot wider than some people appreciate.
The situation at the Empire State Building was a cluster feth, and no mistake. But that's no more a reason to disarm police than a mistaken dose of drugs at a hospital is a reason to ban pharmaceuticals.
On the homicide rates a comparison between different continents is probably not going to give a good idea so how about we look at two countries very close in culture. Norway, which doesn't arm its police has a rate of 0.6. Sweden arms it's police, it's rate is 1.0.
Oh for...
Really?
You want to push the envelope on this one?
Ok, let's see your peer reviewed studies indicating conclusively that societies with armed police forces have higher homicide rates, exclusively due to the armed police.
I double dare you.
Because all the evidence I have to hand indicates that maybe, and this is just a crazy thought, that homicide rates (and over all violence) have more to do with cultural, societal, educational and economic factors. Weird, huh?
dæl wrote: To answer your question, in that instance you could use a tazer, CS gas or an extendible baton. All things which are carried by the police here, and all would be at a distinct advantage against a knife, especially when you are wearing a stab-proof vest and have at least one other copper with you.
This is what I mean about the public being wildly uneducated about operational policing. You've literally got no idea what you're talking about here, and it shows.
Kaldor wrote: You've literally got no idea what you're talking about here, and it shows.
I can assure you I have a far greater knowledge of British culture and whether it would be a good idea for police officers to be walking the streets of this country armed, how this will affect peoples view of the police and whether the police will abuse this power, than someone from an entirely different culture.
The public's safety is far more important than whether in a very rare (although it would become less so if the police were armed) instance the police are threatened.
As to whether two people armed with weaponry of far greater range are in a better position than one with a knife, well it's kind of obvious.
If you wish to quote a piece of peer reviewed research then please do, I would be interested to read such. Every bit of sociological research I've seen has concluded that arming police, much like the death penalty, makes a society more violent.
What if they are wearing a bullet proof vest? What if they are DRIVING A TANK?!?!
Hypotheticals are hypothetical. The fact is that in the UK guns are not required by police, they are not desired by the majority of police officers and they are not wanted by the vast majority of the population.
It has already been pointed out how little gun crime there is in the UK and how few officers are killed in the line of duty. Having guns around would not really help increase the survival rate for police officers on the street, which seems to be the main suggestion as to why to arm the police in the first place. Combined with that are the downsides to arming everyone with a badge; cost, increased need for training and security, increased risks of accidents (including accidental shootings, unlawful shootings, etc) and so on.
As has also been pointed out, other countries where the police are not routinely armed and with similar gun control to the UK are not having to have mass police burials as their police force is routinely gunned down/stabbed/attacked, nor are their streets suffering from horrific levels of crime...
What if they are wearing a bullet proof vest? What if they are DRIVING A TANK?!?!
The problem with that slippery slope right there is, I actually gave a pretty reasonable what-if - I'd assume you're not going to argue that parkas are uncommon?
Hypotheticals are hypothetical. The fact is that in the UK guns are not required by police, they are not desired by the majority of police officers and they are not wanted by the vast majority of the population.
Fantastic. Frankly, I couldn't care less what you guys do or do not do with regards to your police. My response was to the nutbagtastic assertion that you do not have a right to defend yourself with lethal force if someone is attempting to use lethal force against you. Thus, the scope of my arguments are pretty narrow.
As has also been pointed out, other countries where the police are not routinely armed and with similar gun control to the UK are not having to have mass police burials as their police force is routinely gunned down/stabbed/attacked, nor are their streets suffering from horrific levels of crime...
It's also been pointed out that other Commonwealth countries where the police are armed haven't seen a huge uptick in gun violence.
I'll admit, I find it adorably quaint that your police attempt to protect the public with whistles and polite requests, but again, ain't my country, y'all can do what you like.
I'll admit, I find it adorably quaint that your police attempt to protect the public with whistles and polite requests, but again, ain't my country, y'all can do what you like.
If the murder rate comparison posted earlier in the thread is accurate the unarmed British police seem to be quite a lot more effective at protecting the public than the armed US police. I'm not sure what you think is quaint about that.
Seaward wrote: The problem with that slippery slope right there is, I actually gave a pretty reasonable what-if - I'd assume you're not going to argue that parkas are uncommon?
We are far too stylish in the UK to wear such garments
But to be serious; the point I was trying to make is that you can always find specific examples to counter generalities.
Fantastic. Frankly, I couldn't care less what you guys do or do not do with regards to your police. My response was to the nutbagtastic assertion that you do not have a right to defend yourself with lethal force if someone is attempting to use lethal force against you. Thus, the scope of my arguments are pretty narrow.
In the UK you don't have that right; you have the right to use "reasonable force" in some specific circumstances. That may include lethal force, but that will be determined after the fact. There is no castle doctrine in the UK or anything else which specifically states you can take someone's life as far as I am aware.
It's also been pointed out that other Commonwealth countries where the police are armed haven't seen a huge uptick in gun violence.
So, unless either crime rate plummeted or police officer deaths plummeted, what exactly is the point of arming the police?
I'll admit, I find it adorably quaint that your police attempt to protect the public with whistles and polite requests, but again, ain't my country, y'all can do what you like.
I find it incredibly saddening that you think the rule of law cannot be established unless backed up with lethal force.
Has the pro-gun side in America really gotten to the point that it wants to start arming other countries now? And who are all these people with such high regards for cops? The vast majority of my experiences with them have been quite horrible really. Most everyone I know also feels the same. Even my friends and family in law enforcement.
Seaward wrote: My response was to the nutbagtastic assertion that you do not have a right to defend yourself with lethal force if someone is attempting to use lethal force against you. Thus, the scope of my arguments are pretty narrow.
If someone is trying to kill you you have the right to stop them, if the only way of doing so means that you must take their life then that is an unfortunate consequence. You do not suddenly get carte blanche to kill someone because they tried to kill you. Go and read the wiki article on reasonable force I posted.
If someone is trying to kill you you have the right to stop them, if the only way of doing so means that you must take their life then that is an unfortunate consequence. You do not suddenly get carte blanche to kill someone because they tried to kill you. Go and read the wiki article on reasonable force I posted.
I'm familiar with reasonable force. I find it pretty pernicious.
To use my example once again, if someone's coming at you with a knife, shooting them dead is not the only possible way to stop them. You could, for example, spend years practicing the kicking of rocks, and bean a guy with whatever street debris happens to be nearby hard enough to stun him. You could train a herd of urchins to tie someone's shoelaces together in record time. You could pull out your can of WD-40 and your trusty lighter and, by spinning around really, really fast, create a protective shield of flame around yourself.
Or you could shoot the guy that showed every intent of ending your life and have a much better chance of actually surviving versus trying some bonkers non-lethal technique.
It doesn't take a whole lot of time to draw a weapon, especially when the policeman is actually trained in the use of a firearm.
When you actually train with something you use, you are able to deploy it faster.
Thats why US cops keep their hands on their weapons and keep their weapon pointed away from the potential threat. Also, when approaching a traffic stop they will remain behind and to the side of the person in the car. This makes it much more difficult for the person to pull something on the officer without them noticing.
Grey Templar wrote: Thats why US cops keep their hands on their weapons and keep their weapon pointed away from the potential threat. Also, when approaching a traffic stop they will remain behind and to the side of the person in the car. This makes it much more difficult for the person to pull something on the officer without them noticing.
And guess what, UK police are quite capable of stopping cars safely without being armed!
Of course that test only applies on level ground with no obstructions and the knife is already visible. At the point which a suspect has visably drawn a lethal weapon the officer will have drawn his weapon as well.
Jackal wrote: Why arm police?
People see it as a threat and seem to feel the need to arm themselves in the same way.
Really? I've never once felt the need to be armed when I see an armed police officer. I've seen this thrown out a ton in here, I wonder what emperical evidence there is to back it up?
Grey Templar wrote: Thats why US cops keep their hands on their weapons and keep their weapon pointed away from the potential threat. Also, when approaching a traffic stop they will remain behind and to the side of the person in the car. This makes it much more difficult for the person to pull something on the officer without them noticing.
And guess what, UK police are quite capable of stopping cars safely without being armed!
Guess what, our cops do hundreds of thousands of traffic stops a year without anything happening either.
But in the cases where a traffic stop is the scene of an altercation your cops are woefully underequipped.
That almost made me cry. Halfway draw, stop, support hand meanders on over to disengage safety, stop, worst press out in history, think about shooting, stop...shoot.
Jackal wrote: Why arm police?
People see it as a threat and seem to feel the need to arm themselves in the same way.
Really? I've never once felt the need to be armed when I see an armed police officer. I've seen this thrown out a ton in here, I wonder what emperical evidence there is to back it up?
I wonder if by people he meant criminals, as to be fair, criminals are still people.
Grey Templar wrote: Of course that test only applies on level ground with no obstructions and the knife is already visible. At the point which a suspect has visably drawn a lethal weapon the officer will have drawn his weapon as well.
The point I made earlier that specifics can be found to counter pretty much any general point
However, the reports of the UK police indicate that they can get on very well without arming every officer.
I should have been a tad more clear, thanks MrDwhitey
Knew someone was going to be sarcastic.
Because these days, even an opinion can be wrong
What you are suggesting is that its a good idea to bring more fire arms into the general population?
And that will serve the purpose of helping to reduce risks and crime?
Now, over here there are alot of crimes that involve a knide/blade of some description.
If a criminal knows that police officers are armed, why would he use a knife instead of obtaining a gun instead?
Guns have a much larger threat range, and for someone thats unstable, thats not allways much fun for the public.
It will simply cause shootings to rise.
And MrDwhitey - While im affraid you are true, one has to wonder at times.
Jackal wrote: Why arm police?
People see it as a threat and seem to feel the need to arm themselves in the same way.
Really? I've never once felt the need to be armed when I see an armed police officer. I've seen this thrown out a ton in here, I wonder what emperical evidence there is to back it up?
I wonder if by people he meant criminals, as to be fair, criminals are still people.
Yes, but criminals already have incentive to buy guns if guns are illegal.
If no/very few law abiding citizens have a gun, then the Criminal can make a simple black market investment to give himself the advantage in any situation where he is robbing a house or mugging someone. He has the gun and he doesn't have to worry about his victim pulling a gun on him, effectivly allowing him to operate with impunity.
Criminals are almost exclusivly cowards. They don't go after something unless they think they can get away with it.
Lets see some statistics comparing robberies between the UK and US. I would wager you would have more Robberies in the UK then in the US. For the uninformed, a burglery is breaking and entering a residence with the intention of commiting a crime(usually theft) without the use of force. Robbery is the crime of taking or attempting to take an item of value with the threat of force.
This came up in the last crime thread. The UK counts a number of lesser assault charges towards the overall "violent crime" statistics that the USA doesn't, for example.
Wow that Mythbuster's video was just bad XD Adam come on buddy! You even have a quick draw holster! I think my average draw to shot time is under two seconds depending on where I'm carrying and what I'm carrying. For example unless I'm on my college campus I carry my 1911 at condition one, round in chamber, hammer back, safety on. I really don't need the latter... 1911s have three independent safeties and the grip safety and trigger are more then enough. Similarly my M&P40C is more compact but because it doesn't have a physical or grip safety (like most LEO weapons as I'm lead to understand) I usually carry it at condition three. (Mag inserted, chamber empty) and my draw to fire time still comes in at under three seconds.
Draw times are also going from "Cold" no preparation or "slight of hand" to first shot fired, usually with decent sight picture.
I could probably get my times down and accuracy up (not that it really matters at the close combat engagement range... hard NOT to hit what you're shooting at there) but I don't have near enough time to make the range sadly and weapon empty drills can only do so much.
Yes, but criminals already have incentive to buy guns if guns are illegal.
If no/very few law abiding citizens have a gun, then the Criminal can make a simple black market investment to give himself the advantage in any situation where he is robbing a house or mugging someone. He has the gun and he doesn't have to worry about his victim pulling a gun on him, effectivly allowing him to operate with impunity.
Criminals are almost exclusivly cowards. They don't go after something unless they think they can get away with it.
But then you need to think about the black market economy. If guns are illegal, that makes them pricier on the black market, due to the difficulty of smuggling them under the radar. It would take either a very desperate criminal (ergo poor) or a very rich target to 'justify' (not in the literal sense of the word) robbing someone. In the former, they're probably robbing because they don't have enough money to pay the rent, never mind buying a gun!
And the reverse is also the same. They don't have to worry about the victim pulling a gun on them, ergo they don't need a gun to protect themselves from the victim if they fight back.
Grey Templar wrote: Is there anything in Robbery, Rape, or Burglery that isn't normally counted.
I personally can't remember and I don't really feel like going through the crime statistics report again.
And I believe this was a UN study using UN methods of measurement, not UK methods of crime measurement.
... however, based on the UK methods of reporting crime. Which is the issue here. Some countries will fold "crime x" and "crime y" into an overall "crime z", whilst others will report them all separately. When the UN is looking at "crime z", some countries will have a much higher rate of "crime z" because they report "crime x+y" in with crime z, whilst others report them separately.
Grey Templar wrote: Yeah, but I can't see these 3 sections having something that seems totally unrelated folded in.
They arn't exactly ambigious classifications like Domestic Violence or Public Disturbance.
Actually there are quite a few degrees of separation in even what could be considered "niche crimes" in the UK. Again, I can't remember the specifics and can't really be bothered to look, but if you fancy going through the crime report to see for yourself how the various crimes are broken down, help yourself
Kaldor wrote: You've literally got no idea what you're talking about here, and it shows.
I can assure you I have a far greater knowledge of British culture and whether it would be a good idea for police officers to be walking the streets of this country armed, how this will affect peoples view of the police and whether the police will abuse this power, than someone from an entirely different culture.
Possibly, but without a career in law enforcement or welfare I very much doubt it. But I was talking about your obvious lack of knowledge about operational policing and use of force.
If you wish to quote a piece of peer reviewed research then please do, I would be interested to read such. Every bit of sociological research I've seen has concluded that arming police, much like the death penalty, makes a society more violent.
Oh, so that's your argument? Where's your evidence? If you want to assert that armed police cause a rise in violence and homicide, you're going to have to back it up.
Jackal wrote: Why arm police?
People see it as a threat and seem to feel the need to arm themselves in the same way.
MrDwhitey wrote: If someones coming at you with a knife, chances are they're knifing you by the time a gun is out anyway.
Bu...but... magical protection from guns!
lol, there's obviously a lot more to it than that. A wild-west style showdown with the knife guy running down the gun guy is pretty unlikely, although highlights the utter stupidity of relying on tasers (and English police don't even get those, do they?) to protect yourself from an assailant.
Jackal wrote: If a criminal knows that police officers are armed, why would he use a knife instead of obtaining a gun instead?
If a criminal could quickly and easily obtain a firearm, he's going to do it regardless of whether the police are armed or not.
Grey Templar wrote: Ok, I don't see any strange inclusions in those particular catagories compared to other nations.
A lot of crime surveys go off victims reports and include crimes that were never reported to the police. A lot of other ones don't. So when you're talking about relatively minor crimes where some people won't bother calling the police (Someone took your iPod on the bus, or you got punched at the local nightclub for example) you can end up with large discrepancies between various surveys.
Jackal wrote: If a criminal knows that police officers are armed, why would he use a knife instead of obtaining a gun instead?
If a criminal could quickly and easily obtain a firearm, he's going to do it regardless of whether the police are armed or not.
Except that when he commits a crime with a gun it is no longer the standard bobbies after him but trained marksmen from the Armed Response Unit, who will shoot him if he puts up resistance.
Jackal wrote: If a criminal knows that police officers are armed, why would he use a knife instead of obtaining a gun instead?
If a criminal could quickly and easily obtain a firearm, he's going to do it regardless of whether the police are armed or not.
Except that when he commits a crime with a gun it is no longer the standard bobbies after him but trained marksmen from the Armed Response Unit, who will shoot him if he puts up resistance.
If he's planning on getting caught, he's just going to stay home.
In the crooks mind, he's going to be in and out before anyone can stop him. And he can always just run away if the coppers do catch up with him, same as if he was using a knife. Except he might even know that the armed response unit has to be called, giving him more time to make his getaway.
No data at all supports the position that arming police leads to an armed populace, and if anyone wants to assert that, I'd really like to see some data backing it up.
Jackal wrote: If a criminal knows that police officers are armed, why would he use a knife instead of obtaining a gun instead?
If a criminal could quickly and easily obtain a firearm, he's going to do it regardless of whether the police are armed or not.
The problem is if he goes a fair way out of his way to obtain a gun because he knows that the officers will be armed
Or if he goes a fair way out of his way to obtain a gun because he knows that the officers will be unarmed. Isn't knowing that the police aren't equipped to deal with a firearm more likely to make criminals obtain a firearm to give themselves an edge?
Who knows? Maybe someone trying to assert that an armed police leads to an armed criminal element should try finding some supporting evidence. Just a thought.
There is also no data that shows that arming police reduce police casualties. Ultimately the only thing that matters is whether or not the populace what their police force armed.
No, we have specially trained officers for such occations. I do not doubt the police's ability to protect us but I do not doubt the fact that not every policeman is good (although small minority) and this is why I say no.
So... here's a wild thought, instead of giving the british police guns, maybe upgrade their stab vests to bullet proof vests? Cheap, simple, doesn't arm them, increases one's life expectancy.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: So... here's a wild thought, instead of giving the british police guns, maybe upgrade their stab vests to bullet proof vests? Cheap, simple, doesn't arm them, increases one's life expectancy.
And another example of the shocking ignorance of operational policing.
While I absolutely agree that covert ballistic vests should be issued to all operational officers, they are a safety net at best. There is a wide range of injuries they won't prevent.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: So... here's a wild thought, instead of giving the british police guns, maybe upgrade their stab vests to bullet proof vests? Cheap, simple, doesn't arm them, increases one's life expectancy.
And another example of the shocking ignorance of operational policing.
While I absolutely agree that covert ballistic vests should be issued to all operational officers, they are a safety net at best. There is a wide range of injuries they won't prevent.
Thank you for jumping to conclusions, I'm well aware of the realities of police work and I'm all for police officers having guns, I in fact carry a pistol every day and encourage others to do like wise. What I was suggesting... and this is insane I know, is called a compromise! and trying to take the discussion in another possible direction as it seems the only possible solution suggested for the police forces in Britain is to arm themselves which clearly the citizenry as represented in this thread doesn't want. So I made a suggestion, again a compromise, that might save a few lives and increase response capabilities without arming regular beat cops.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: So... here's a wild thought, instead of giving the british police guns, maybe upgrade their stab vests to bullet proof vests? Cheap, simple, doesn't arm them, increases one's life expectancy.
In a country where it is more likely for a suspect to be carrying a knife?
Why would you forego protection from the most commonly used weapon in order to gain protection against a weapon which is nowhere near as common?
For any American posters (or other countries) that don't know of recent events in the UK, I'll repeat what I said in an earlier post.
In the last two weeks, a report was published about the Yorkshire police that showed they conspired to cover up their ineptitude in handling the Hillsborough disaster. Victims were slandered, witnesses were intimidated and a PR campaign was launched by the police to shift blame away from the police. It goes without saying that confidence in the UK police is not that high. When you add this to other high profile events concerning the police, then you can see how the idea of the UK police being armed is not something that finds support with the majority of the public.
Kronk said it best when he mentioned he never comments on these sorts of issues. This may stifle debate but the UK and the USA will never agree on this sort of thing. Your country, your rules.
Police in the UK are much more likely to be stabbed than shot, and body armour is generally good at protecting from either bullets or knives, but rarely both. Therefore it's much more important to have stab vests than ballistic ones.
Surtur wrote: Police should be armed. Period. There is no debate to be had here. You cannot put an officer on the street without a weapon unless you want a big painted bullseye on em too.
Well it depends on what they should be armed with. I vote for one or more of the following:
1. Games Workshop Whippy sticks. My name Enrosto Montoya and you killed me father. Prepare to die. whip whip whip!
2. Round head uniforms replete with helmet, matchlocks and rapiers. Alternatively Three musketeer outfits will suffice.
3. Cricket uniforms and cricket bats.
4. They may come armed with soccer hooligans, but only if those hooligans are stored safely in the trunk and with ammo separate (beer) prior to usage. Utilization of soccer hooligans may only occur after approval from the sergeant on duty.
Under no circumstances may a bobby be armed with haggis.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: So... here's a wild thought, instead of giving the british police guns, maybe upgrade their stab vests to bullet proof vests? Cheap, simple, doesn't arm them, increases one's life expectancy.
In a country where it is more likely for a suspect to be carrying a knife?
Why would you forego protection from the most commonly used weapon in order to gain protection against a weapon which is nowhere near as common?
I hate to be WILDLY optimistic but we live in a time of massive technological innovation, I'm certain there's a way to do both things with one item. Hell take the stab vest, stitch a pocket to the backs of the front and back portions of the vest and add ballistic plates. Or just add kevlar panels, that should handle most firearms or at least give you a better chance until you reach rifle calibers.
Not long ago I watched a BBC documentary about this old guy in Texas who patrols the border with Mexico on his horse. He's always on the lookout for drug smugglers and illegal immigrants. He's been shot like 100 times, and for reasons beyond me , he's prepared to die to help protect Texas.
Anyway, I can understand why he is armed. I can understand why people like Frazz and other Texas citizens would want to arm themselves against ruthless drug gangs. I can understand why the US police would be armed when there is on average 4 guns for each of its 300 million plus citizens.
But the fact that the original story about Manchester dominated the news speaks volumes about the cultural differences between the two countries. As somebody once said, we are two people seperated by a common Mcdonalds!
Plus it was not only guns used against those two officers in Manchester. The psycho also used a grenade. Maybe some of the militarily experienced people here on dakka could tell us how effective a kevlar vest is against a fragmentation grenade.
SO no one's for cuirass, armored gauntlets, steel helmet, rapier and matchlock then? Come on, if you're a Brit with an apple cutter, would you mess with that?
A Town Called Malus wrote: Plus it was not only guns used against those two officers in Manchester. The psycho also used a grenade. Maybe some of the militarily experienced people here on dakka could tell us how effective a kevlar vest is against a fragmentation grenade.
Actually it's pretty effective at keeping your vital bits unsullied by hunks of metal. Range dependent of course.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Plus it was not only guns used against those two officers in Manchester. The psycho also used a grenade. Maybe some of the militarily experienced people here on dakka could tell us how effective a kevlar vest is against a fragmentation grenade.
Actually it's pretty effective at keeping your vital bits unsullied by hunks of metal. Range dependent of course.
Can't say the same for the shockwave which is more dangerous then the fragmentation.
And I vote for encasing officers in 18th century cavelry armor
A Town Called Malus wrote: Plus it was not only guns used against those two officers in Manchester. The psycho also used a grenade. Maybe some of the militarily experienced people here on dakka could tell us how effective a kevlar vest is against a fragmentation grenade.
Actually it's pretty effective at keeping your vital bits unsullied by hunks of metal. Range dependent of course.
Can't say the same for the shockwave which is more dangerous then the fragmentation.
And I vote for encasing officers in 18th century cavelry armor
Surtur wrote: How about this be the new british police anti-knife technology:
I think that would be just smashing, and if they had a mace that would be literally smashing!
Uh... can the bad guys get Tasers?
If so, then being sheathed in metal may not be a great idea...
I believe the taser darts would just bounce off.
And in the unlikely event they do stick, since armor is worn with wool padding underneath the electricity will simply take the shortest path, through the armor and not the body.
Surtur wrote: How about this be the new british police anti-knife technology:
I think that would be just smashing, and if they had a mace that would be literally smashing!
Uh... can the bad guys get Tasers?
If so, then being sheathed in metal may not be a great idea...
I believe the taser darts would just bounce off.
And in the unlikely event they do stick, since armor is worn with wool padding underneath the electricity will simply take the shortest path, through the armor and not the body.
Interesting... if I was an entrepreneurial bad guy (like a bad "Q"), I'd put magnets on them darts...
Hmmm maybe a slightly lighter edition of armor as opposed to full plate would be more effective? A mix of leather and metal over vital areas? A full plate curiass for example.
Jihadin wrote: SO fall off horse...break a few bones...if not...get a tow truck to lift officer off ground
*nerdness on* actually the encumbrance of plate mail is greatly exaggerated. A knight was still expected to be able to do basic calisthenics while wearing it. It's weight is distributed across the body as to not feel too heavy or be too restrictive.
Just imagine the economic benefits to this though. All the job creation from need of blacksmiths and squires would be good for the economy. Also, getting chased down by a charging horse with a lance will brown many a punk's pants, aiding the clothing and laundry soap industry.
Okay Surtur. We load you in a full suit of armor and see how many push ups you can do...side straddle hops (jumping jacks to you civilians) 4 mile run, sit ups and wind sprints....
Jihadin wrote: Okay Surtur. We load you in a full suit of armor and see how many push ups you can do...side straddle hops (jumping jacks to you civilians) 4 mile run, sit ups and wind sprints....
jumping jacks will do fine, as will a jog of decent distance.
Jihadin wrote: Okay Surtur. We load you in a full suit of armor and see how many push ups you can do...side straddle hops (jumping jacks to you civilians) 4 mile run, sit ups and wind sprints....
Ok, gladly.
Automatically Appended Next Post: If Britons don't trust their police, why not just arm their police dogs?
) and they are (mostly) owned by law abiding individuals. Certainly not enough to justify the arming of all police, as it would require a hell of a lot more training, and for every single officer rather than a select few. Knee jerk reactions like this (albeit in the opposite direction) after the Dunblane shootings got a blanket ban on pistols, which makes them harder to get hold of. Legally owned firearms are much harder to conceal. (I think the definition of pistol in this case is "any firearm under 2ft long" - Correct me if I'm wrong on that) So I see less reasons to worry in that case.
