In light of some recent police shootings, there are some comparisons being made between armed American police forces and foreign ones, like British police, who are generally unarmed.
I know there's a lot of international folks in this forum, and I really am interested in your opinions and experiences, and am legitimately curious: How does a regular police officer protect law abiding citizens armed only with hand-to-hand weapons?
And it's an interesting read, but nowhere, from what I could see, did the officer talk about an instance where he had to deal with an armed assailant. Not even guns, just knives, bats, or even fists. The only 'confrontation' he personally discussed was a single crazy guy who came willingly with zero force required.
And I guess that's troubling to me. What does the average police officer do when faced with an armed, violent, and noncompliant criminal in the act of committing a crime? Because from what I read, the answer, for british officers, is to call Trojan, their armed forces. And if that is the case, I have to wonder - in that circumstance, what more good is the officer in that situation than a random citizen with a phone, if all they can do is call for help?
For example: If I'm being mugged (or actively attacked) in the streets of London, and an unarmed police officer witnesses it, and the muggers decide they'd rather fight than flee, what happens? I mean, I don't expect a lone officer to chuck Norris his way against multiple armed assailants, yet I do expect them to be able to protect their citizenry, as that is their most basic and primary function as law enforcement officers, in my opinion.
I tried to look up that specific topic, but this was about all I could find:
In it, it refers to an instance where a noncompliant man with a knife was threatening American police officers, who consequently shot him. The article suggested the following options for the officers: "The officers who shot Powell did have a choice. They could have moved away from him. They could have gotten back into their car to protect themselves. They could have run away."
Call me an ignorant, brutish American if you must, but to me that is beyond the pale. It's the police officer's job to protect citizens, and themselves from dangerous criminals. And to suggest that police should 'hide' or 'run' from violent criminals, and consequently leaving their citizenry vulnerable to said criminals, is more than a little disturbing.
I'm not going to claim that our police forces are perfect, and there's probably a lot we could learn from the tactics of foreign, unarmed police forces. But I find it impossible to believe that violent crime, criminals, and dangerous weapons (even of the non-firearm variety) are non-existent in other countries, even ones with strict gun regulation. This leads me to wonder how their unarmed police actually do their job, which to me, is to protect their citizens.
Anyways, that's my question. I apologize if I have come across in any way as being disrespectful of other countries police forces, it was not my intent. I would appreciate it if you responded in kind.
Kap'n Krump wrote: How does a regular police officer protect law abiding citizens armed only with hand-to-hand weapons?
By deescalating potentially violent encounters.
Very few crimes involve weapons in the UK due to culture, lack of availability and heavy prison sentences for weapon use/carriage. If there is someone wandering around with a weapon then there are armed response units but they rarely shoot anyone.
Deescalation is always the first and second response. I get the impression that police in the US shoot first and ask questions later.
Both fair points, but for one thing, non lethal countermeasures are not 100% reliable - for example, pepper spray, used in the first video, isn't usable in certain situations - high winds, for example. Tazers are decent, but also not guaranteed, as they generally require close range (as does pepper spray) and can be deflected by thick clothing, I believe. Regardless, british cops generally don't carry either - from my understanding.
Moreover, in both videos, the cops greatly outnumber the assailant, in the second case, 30 to 1. I assume that this is generally not the case, but maybe there are more british cops than American ones?
Brit here - our police officers get along fine without guns mainly because we hardly have any gun-wielding criminals. I've never even seen a gun other than a couple of antiques. The way I see it, if our normal police encounter armed individuals, I want them calling for experts. Quite a lot of my family went into the police force. Whilst lovely people most of the time, they are not the sharpest tools in the shed. I trust them to carve a roast, and it would make me feel actively less safe to see a gun on any of their hips.
Its really difficult to de-escalate a situation when you are pointing a gun at someone. A lot of European forces tend to go more for de-escalation and arrest rather than the whole judge/jury/executioner trip. Less of a chance to murder innocent people because you have twitchy fingers then. Of course, this would not work in the same way in America, because your civilians/police/criminals/polititians have a really weird relationship with firearms.
Most of our cops do carry but we still see almost no fatalities. I think the real problem here is America's gun culture. Police in the USA has to work from the assumption that everyone is armed, or so it would seem to me.
How do American police protect citizens against criminals in tanks? From my understanding, in that situation they would call the army or the national guard, but then what use is an officer in that situation if the best they can do is use their cellphone like a regular citizen?
- - - - -
I'm being facetious and hyperbolic, obviously, but the principal is the same. The reason why anti-tank weaponry is not considered necessary for our LEO's to protect citizens is because we live in a society where criminals with access to tanks are rare.
Similarly, I imagine that unarmed police officers work in other parts of the world because most of their criminals don't use guns. For various reasons, in their cultures guns are not something that's even enticing to own.
Kap'n Krump wrote: How does a regular police officer protect law abiding citizens armed only with hand-to-hand weapons?
By deescalating potentially violent encounters.
Very few crimes involve weapons in the UK due to culture, lack of availability and heavy prison sentences for weapon use/carriage. If there is someone wandering around with a weapon then there are armed response units but they rarely shoot anyone.
Deescalation is always the first and second response. I get the impression that police in the US shoot first and ask questions later.
That's interesting - armed (even non-firearm related) crimes are uncommon in the UK? And I realize it's rare, but I'm not sure how to deescalate when faced with an non compliant, armed assailant. I mean, if someone's getting knifed to death in an alley, what does a regular foot cop do to stop it, if he's unable to physically stop the attack from occurring? He can call in backup, sure, and then you get a scenario like the youtube videos posted earlier, ditto for the armed response teams.
But I'd assume that if the cop is unable to engage for fear of their own safety, than the criminal could potentially escape before backup gets on scene. And I guess that's the question - is it worse to kill someone who is killing someone else, or allow the possibility of them escaping justice, and, worse yet, repeat the offense? Maybe that's the difference, I suppose.
Soladrin wrote: Most of our cops do carry but we still see almost no fatalities. I think the real problem here is America's gun culture. Police in the USA has to work from the assumption that everyone is armed, or so it would seem to me.
Yeah, I read that Ireland also has a relatively high gun ownership rate, yet their cops don't carry guns and generally things are fine. That would be an interesting case study / comparison. I think I forgot to mention it, but my brother is a highway patrolman, and generally, you're probably right - he works alone in wide stretches of highway, so I think it's fair to say he is at least on guard. I've read highway patrolling is one of the most dangerous kinds of police jobs, because weapons are easily concealable in vehicles and backup is usually not close at hand.
Usually non-lethal response. Pepper spray, tasers, water cannons (although I think they have been banned in the UK), talking down people.
There is an armed response unit but unarmed will always respond first.
It helps that guns aren't easily available to citizens in the UK. Knife crime is more common in the UK, which, while still extremely dangerous, is safer than facing off against an assailant with a gun.
Kap'n Krump wrote: How does a regular police officer protect law abiding citizens armed only with hand-to-hand weapons?
By deescalating potentially violent encounters.
Very few crimes involve weapons in the UK due to culture, lack of availability and heavy prison sentences for weapon use/carriage. If there is someone wandering around with a weapon then there are armed response units but they rarely shoot anyone.
Deescalation is always the first and second response. I get the impression that police in the US shoot first and ask questions later.
That's interesting - armed (even non-firearm related) crimes are uncommon in the UK? And I realize it's rare, but I'm not sure how to deescalate when faced with an non compliant, armed assailant. I mean, if someone's getting knifed to death in an alley, what does a regular foot cop do to stop it, if he's unable to physically stop the attack from occurring? He can call in backup, sure, and then you get a scenario like the youtube videos posted earlier, ditto for the armed response teams.
But I'd assume that if the cop is unable to engage for fear of their own safety, than the criminal could potentially escape before backup gets on scene. And I guess that's the question - is it worse to kill someone who is killing someone else, or allow the possibility of them escaping justice, and, worse yet, repeat the offense? Maybe that's the difference, I suppose.
I think that scenarios where cops happen upon a crime in progress are relatively rare. Cops rarely just stumble upon something like a knifing in progress, almost never really. Most shootings occur when officers are either called to a scene (and know that something rough may occur already) or when someone theyre detaining turns hostile.
Police in the US generally do seek de-escalation. They want to go home just like anyone else without either being shot or having to shoot. Tasers and physical compliance are used when force becomes necessary and firearms only in the most dangerous circumstances. Which, even if they are only a small fraction of the time, will still be more common in the US than in Britain, just based on population.
Don't forget that the US population is roughly 320 million versus 64 million in Britain, so part of what you are seeing is just raw numbers. Much of this is just media portrayal- most US police never shoot anyone. The number of homicides by police is a tiny fraction of all homicides, and the vast majority involve an armed suspect. Worse, the data is generally pretty shoddy, so it's hard to draw many conclusions, yet it is being used to fuel a very real perception of racial persecution.
Attempts to approach the issue a more sound data based approach don't seem to match the narrative (see http://www.nber.org/papers/w22399) and don't indicate a racial disparity in shootings. Indeed, Mr. Fryer found that in such situations, officers in Houston were about 20 percent less likely to shoot if the suspects were black!
Disarming US police seems a very bad idea when you consider how widespread gun violence is in our country. And violent and habitual criminals don't seem likely to stop carrying. Heck, anyone remember the North Hollywood Shootout?
The better approach is not tolerate abuse of force and aggressively and consistently deal with criminals, in uniform or out. However, catering to incendiary rhetoric will only exacerbate problems.
Frozocrone wrote: Usually non-lethal response. Pepper spray, tasers, water cannons (although I think they have been banned in the UK), talking down people.
There is an armed response unit but unarmed will always respond first.
It helps that guns aren't easily available to citizens in the UK. Knife crime is more common in the UK, which, while still extremely dangerous, is safer than facing off against an assailant with a gun.
If we need armed. We have them. There highly trained SWAT style units about as required.
We also can if terrorist bring in SAS troops if too tough or bad. They just shoot to kill though. Full military.
Frozocrone wrote: Usually non-lethal response. Pepper spray, tasers, water cannons (although I think they have been banned in the UK), talking down people.
There is an armed response unit but unarmed will always respond first.
It helps that guns aren't easily available to citizens in the UK. Knife crime is more common in the UK, which, while still extremely dangerous, is safer than facing off against an assailant with a gun.
If we need armed. We have them. There highly trained SWAT style units about as required.
We also can if terrorist bring in SAS troops if too tough or bad. They just shoot to kill though. Full military.
Exactly. The Armed Response unit is extremely well trained. In the case of the Lee Rigby murder, the response unit shot at the suspects (who were firing back at police), neutralized them and started giving first aid within 6 seconds.
Spoiler ed video because of content (and also Piers Morgan for those that dislike him).
Spoiler:
If the SAS have been brought in, then the situation really has hit in the fan. But those guys are one of, if not the best in the world.
If there is one thing I love about living in the UK, it's a relatively safe environment from guns.
Frozocrone wrote: Usually non-lethal response. Pepper spray, tasers, water cannons (although I think they have been banned in the UK), talking down people.
There is an armed response unit but unarmed will always respond first.
It helps that guns aren't easily available to citizens in the UK. Knife crime is more common in the UK, which, while still extremely dangerous, is safer than facing off against an assailant with a gun.
If we need armed. We have them. There highly trained SWAT style units about as required.
We also can if terrorist bring in SAS troops if too tough or bad. They just shoot to kill though. Full military.
the latter part is something that the US would find very hard to do. Bringing in the military would rub just about everyone wrong in the US. Additionally In mainland Europe, seeing soldiers armed with automatic weapons patrolling streets in large cities isnt rare. In the US, calling in the SEALs to deal with a domestic event, or having combat equipped US soldiers or Marines patrol streets, would result in almost universal and bipartisan backlash from all spectrums of society.
Frozocrone wrote: Usually non-lethal response. Pepper spray, tasers, water cannons (although I think they have been banned in the UK), talking down people.
There is an armed response unit but unarmed will always respond first.
It helps that guns aren't easily available to citizens in the UK. Knife crime is more common in the UK, which, while still extremely dangerous, is safer than facing off against an assailant with a gun.
If we need armed. We have them. There highly trained SWAT style units about as required.
We also can if terrorist bring in SAS troops if too tough or bad. They just shoot to kill though. Full military.
the latter part is something that the US would find very hard to do. Bringing in the military would rub just about everyone wrong in the US. Additionally In mainland Europe, seeing soldiers armed with automatic weapons patrolling streets in large cities isnt rare. In the US, calling in the SEALs to deal with a domestic event, or having combat equipped US soldiers or Marines patrol streets, would result in almost universal and bipartisan backlash from all spectrums of society.
Its rare. But events like Iranian embassy years ago do trigger that level of response. It has t be very serious but if say nightmare like ISIS hostages. You probbly would see black clad very lethal reply..
Talking more specalist response. They are the very best we have in kicking down doors and direct close qauter assault.
Threat alone of them is ernough to scare the gak out of anyone with a degree of sanity
That's kind of just a matter of scale though, isn't it?
The USA being so much bigger of a place has the national guard as an additional layer in between. And then, effectively the Marines as a layer above that before you start reaching "posse commitatus" levels, if my years watching 24 and the West Wing has taught me anything.
Right, I understand that. It's just one of those weird cultural things, the US has tons of heebie jeebies about directly employing the military for anything in domestic borders.
Its also part of why many domestic law enforcement agencies are so heavily armed, as calling in something like the SAS or SEALs would be almodt unthinkable and they must provide for themselves.
The title of this thread seems to make a presumption. That a fully armed and combative police force is normal and that unarmed, or less prone to an escalation of violence, is abnormal.
Perhaps the reverse is true. How does an armed and adversarial police force ever hope to protect its citizens?
In most big equivalent events though, for or example, the various FBI special tactical units would rock up, right, you wouldn't expect SWAT to solely deal with a Michael Bay level situation. - Neither would the UK
I think the OP's question is really interesting, and it has got me thinking.
I am British. The British police famously have never been routinely armed, and do not want to be armed, and the people don't want to arm them. Yet the UK is not a hotbed of violent crime. Why not?
Part of it is gun control on a legal and a social basis. Apparently UK criminals do actually find it fairly hard to get hold of guns. British people on the whole don't feel a need to have guns. If they want a gun, it's fairly easy to get one if you have a good reason, and most people don't seem to have that reason.
How many other countries have unarmed police? I think most of the European police are armed, though as another member noted above, the rate of shootings by police is still very low in European countries. In truth, it seems as if the USA is the outlier, rather than the UK.
However, violent crime statistics are notoriously difficult to compare due to different standards in different countries. For example, in the UK, all sex crimes are recorded in the violent crime statistics, so goosing a nurse will earn you a criminal record if he or she complains. In the USA, only violent crimes committed with a weapon are recorded, so a mass punch up of 18 men in the pub car park goes unnoticed.
Why do US police find it necessary to shoot so many people to protect the public? If the US police are protecting the public, why do so many US people feel a need to carry a gun around with them? Do black people in the US feel they are protected by the police?
Is the USA actually simply a more violent society than most of the rest of the first world? Is it more violent in its imagination then in reality? Why would this be the case? The UK has seen its share of violence. As the Advice to US Servicemen in WW2 says, the reason that English is spoken all over the world isn't because the British are pantywaists.
To answer the hypothetical question of the British policeman coming across someone being knifed in an alley, I would guess first he would call for help, then he would lay into the assailant with his truncheon. Of course if the assailant has already been stabbing the poor victim, it's a bit late for the police to arrive and save him. They have to hope he will live long enough for the ambulance to arrive.
In the USA I presume the policeman would shoot the knife wielder, then call for help. The ambulance will have two casualties to deal with. But presumably the US policemen is likely to face a gun wielding assailant, so the victim probably is already dead or dying, and the policeman faces a choice of trying to talk down the assailant or just shooting him.
However this is a very unusual situation in any country. The police of most nations are not constantly interrupting violent crime in progress. Most criminals complete their crime and have to be detected afterwards.
Ummm, what? The Marines and Navy both have regulations via DoD and are generally construed to fall under the Act. The National Guard exception is for mobilization by state governors. Which is another issue- the US has state based law enforcement. So disarming police would mean all 50 states agree to such a thing. Never happening.
Federalizing police, especially under the guise of military being the only armed intervention would likely cause a tremendous backlash- basically every gun loving preppers dream.
But yeah the point I was more making is due to the larger population, there's more hierarchy and levels of abstraction.
Being a small island having so many layers and differences in powers in the store of emergency response hierarchy doesn't make sense.
EG, the SAS being the best the country can offer, can also quite literally get anywhere in the country in a couple of hours. So going from firearms officers, if you take them as our SWAT equivalents to SAS isn't that gigantic a response scale wise.
BlaxicanX wrote: How do American police protect citizens against criminals in tanks? From my understanding, in that situation they would call the army or the national guard, but then what use is an officer in that situation if the best they can do is use their cellphone like a regular citizen?
- - - - -
I'm being facetious and hyperbolic, obviously, but the principal is the same. The reason why anti-tank weaponry is not considered necessary for our LEO's to protect citizens is because we live in a society where criminals with access to tanks are rare.
Similarly, I imagine that unarmed police officers work in other parts of the world because most of their criminals don't use guns. For various reasons, in their cultures guns are not something that's even enticing to own.
Actually they usually just clear the path and let the tank run its course until it runs out of fuel or gets stuck on something..
its also happened at least twice.
once in a stolen tank off an army base and once in a home made bulldozer tank which ripped the crap out of a neighborhood.
To add to all the above comments and perhaps the best lesson for the OP is that the Uk police know how and when to escalate. For the most part.
Outside The Troubles the UK police are very rarely regularlyarmed. There are exceptions, diplomatic security is permanently armed as is airport security and security at some events. Those police openly carry assault rifles or other automatic long arms.
Lesson 1.
Dont have a cop with a gun.
Have a cop with a taser and baton only, but back him up with 24/7 SWAT coverage.
This is the kicker every deployment of the police force will normally be accompanied by the Armed Response unit. Normally this is a marked van filled with guns. The police operate normally but if they have to carry. Such as a gun is reported, then the unarmed police are replaced with snipers and police with long arms. The only people who should be carrying pistols concealed or otherwise are diplomatic protection. Yes US police faocers can call SWAT support, but in the Uk SWAT equivalent is always very close when there are any large numbers of police deployed, even for a simple policing action as a football game or late night town centre drinking. Its also the same police performing both roles usually, got a problem those with special training get to the armaments van and tool up.
SWAT is normally called in for a major problem. To the Uk if a gun is present at all, that means SWAT equivalent takes over, automatically. There is no halfway house beyond scene officers trying to talk out problems or get people away from a scene with known shooter.
Lesson 2.
Bring no firepower, until you really need firepower, then bring a lot of it.
There is no use in a halfway house approach of casual armed police coverage.
Next you have too look at what happens if there is a shooting. If your police have to enter a gunfight give them a gun for the fight. There have been many notorious cases of cops or FBI agents with sidearms being outgunned but one or two suspects armed with longarms. Also even if you dont end up needing to outgun the bad guys, an armed suspect facing down cops with immediately available personal sidearms is not as good as having a police van in the immediate vicinity with assault rifles and sniper rifles.
- Diplomatic protection will need concealed carry, are normally ex soldiers and perform the job of the US secret service. The Monarch, and only the monarch has soldiers to guard her, the guards at the palaces are not just for tourists to look at, ceremonial or not, those are armed elite troops. Even so the actual personal bodyguards fro the royals are normally police officers from the diplomatic protection service.
- High risk events and targets like airports will have mostly unarmed police with some police at the back openly carrying long arms. So if immeidate responce is needed the correct tools are used for the job. For so many idfferent ways it would be better to have one SWAT team openly deployed and a hundred unarmed cops at a demonstration than the same number of cops all with handguns.
Lesson 4.
Please dont mind the assault rifle.
Because UK police don't normally carry guns the policeman holding the long arm doesn't cause concern. Its also the way they hold it, very visible, nothing concealed but also in a passive position. Unless there is an active inciodent going on the guns will not be waved around, hands will be off triggers. Sometimes the gun is cradled in both arms and supported by an arm strap. In almost all cases the armed visible policemen will be outnumbers by unarmed policemen who will also be the ones closest to the public.
The bottom line is that UK police have a rep for being restrained (mostly) and unarmed (mostly), yet you wont have to go too far to find a policemen standing around with an assault rifle. The 'unarmed bobby ethos' is largely a myth, Uk police are very quick to thoroughly outgun anyone looking for trouble, but normally all you get to see in the community regular patrol police are the stick, pepper spray and tasers and even most of those weapons are concealed in pouches.
I think it boils down to the training and tools available. When you have a hammer, a lot of problems look like nails.
I spent a two and a half year stint working as an SIA approved security guard at various events across the UK, which inevitably involved a certain amount of police collaboration. In both their cases and ours, there was a small amount of cross-training and security briefings on certain events (it makes no sense to do these things separately when you're all watching for the same stuff). So I got to see the inner security workings from Royal Ascot where they're wheeling out the Queen, all the way down to small music festivals.
Most events tend to involve large quantities of booze, so I got to see the police enact several takedowns, and deal with a few myself. In every case, the priority is de-escalation and conflict resolution. Is there a bloke swinging a bottle around threateningly at people? Offer to take him to another location for another drink. Agree with him that the other guy was a fether first. Make soothing noises at him. Heck, if you're a woman, flirt with him slightly. Whatever it takes to get close without suspicion and lead him somewhere to cool off, or worst case, let you slap cuffs on quickly. I've lost count of the number of times I saw it done or did a variant of it myself.
What you find, is that most people calm down relatively easily if you can give them a hope that it can all be somehow worked out, and that you're not their enemy. I daresay that translates to the streets. And even if it fails, it tends to put the people involved off guard enough that you and someone else can immobilise them with no real risk involved. Not once in that that two and a half years did I ever see a knife or gun used in anger. It's just not that common.
Probably the most hair-raising it ever got was when there were a bunch of skinhead protestors trying to disassemble the security wall around the back of the stage during the Pope's visit to the UK, as they were 'armed' with the various tools they were using to try and take the walls apart. But even there, it was just a case of holding the wall in place, nobody was trying to belt you with a crowbar (of which several were present).
In a situation where a citizen is being attacked by another citizen with a knife, it is rare a policeman would spot it on their own, they usually patrol in pairs. They're equipped with stab proof vests (heavy bloody things), and truncheons blunt enough to lay out any moron daft enough to try and engage. It's possible they'd get hurt, but they wouldn't stand back and watch unless it was obvious suicide.
Meanwhile, if someone has a gun, we have specialists for rapid deployment. Alright, it might not be as fast a help as a bobby pulling a sidearm on the spot, but judging by the number of cops with sidearms killed by people with semi-automatics in the US, I'm not sure the alternative is necessarily better. The only gun related killings here tend to be gang killings, and if the police have spotted someone in a car with a gun, you can bet your wage packet there'll be a police helicopter on it within fifteen minutes, the number plate will be being traced, and a specialist team en route in pursuit immediately.
Most events tend to involve large quantities of booze, so I got to see the police enact several takedowns, and deal with a few myself. In every case, the priority is de-escalation and conflict resolution. Is there a bloke swinging a bottle around threateningly at people? Offer to take him to another location for another drink. Agree with him that the other guy was a fether first. Make soothing noises at him. Heck, if you're a woman, flirt with him slightly. Whatever it takes to get close without suspicion and lead him somewhere to cool off, or worst case, let you slap cuffs on quickly. I've lost count of the number of times I saw it done or did a variant of it myself.
Not gonna lie
a hand full of those sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen.
which is actually IIRC is a reason to not shoot to wound or be extra physical, as IIRC those lawsuits get nuts and money keep getting payed out to those injured vs one straight payoff to the family or what not (not saying its right or anything)
Yeah I came across the Peelian Principles as a result of reading the other thread and they're really pretty interesting stuff as a basis for a police force.
1) To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.
2) To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.
3) To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.
4) To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.
5) To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.
6) To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.
7) To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
8) To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.
9) To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.
_______________
As a sidenote, there even something about the phrase "Law Enforcement" that gives me the heeby newbies.
Most events tend to involve large quantities of booze, so I got to see the police enact several takedowns, and deal with a few myself. In every case, the priority is de-escalation and conflict resolution. Is there a bloke swinging a bottle around threateningly at people? Offer to take him to another location for another drink. Agree with him that the other guy was a fether first. Make soothing noises at him. Heck, if you're a woman, flirt with him slightly. Whatever it takes to get close without suspicion and lead him somewhere to cool off, or worst case, let you slap cuffs on quickly. I've lost count of the number of times I saw it done or did a variant of it myself.
Not gonna lie
a hand full of those sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen.
If the person is absolutely hammered, their word ain't getting them any lawsuits. We have plenty of the Po patrolling Wind Street, Swansea's main area of getting hammered, they spend most the night talking to people. They are very approachable, the police generally are here. But when the poop hits the fan, wham bang back of the the van for you. Spend a night cooling off in the cells.
It isn't that hard to get guns in the UK, it's not easy, but it is possible. My local fishing shop has a selection of hunting rifles and ammunition, my regular opponent at the FLGS has several guns, and gun licenses of his own. But no one here feels the need to go out and buy a gun, probably because of the hassle.
My I know there are a few armoured units around here, you just don't see them. And we have a mounted unit in case the peasants being to revolt again.
Most events tend to involve large quantities of booze, so I got to see the police enact several takedowns, and deal with a few myself. In every case, the priority is de-escalation and conflict resolution. Is there a bloke swinging a bottle around threateningly at people? Offer to take him to another location for another drink. Agree with him that the other guy was a fether first. Make soothing noises at him. Heck, if you're a woman, flirt with him slightly. Whatever it takes to get close without suspicion and lead him somewhere to cool off, or worst case, let you slap cuffs on quickly. I've lost count of the number of times I saw it done or did a variant of it myself.
Not gonna lie
a hand full of those sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen.
which is actually IIRC is a reason to not shoot to wound or be extra physical, as IIRC those lawsuits get nuts and money keep getting payed out to those injured vs one straight payoff to the family or what not (not saying its right or anything)
I can see how you think that. But what Ketara is saying doesn't come off as such visibly. Take the flirting for instance, its very light, often just a word or two and a short smile. The messageof the body language is 'we are friendly' not 'we are cruising for hot sex'.
a hand full of those sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen.
which is actually IIRC is a reason to not shoot to wound or be extra physical, as IIRC those lawsuits get nuts and money keep getting payed out to those injured vs one straight payoff to the family or what not (not saying its right or anything)
If you're on your own as an SIA licensed security guard and there's no immediate physical threat (which falls under a separate section of law, namely the citizens arrest) there's actually a very specific set of things you have to say if you want to remove someone from the premises. We were always instructed to request that they leave first, and then instruct them very clearly a second time and receive a refusal before you're legally allowed to physically pick them up and remove them. At that stage, any injuries suffered from them resisting fall more or less entirely on their own head. The legal phrase for what we were permitted to do is 'reasonable force'. If someone goes up to a judge and says that the people wrestling them out the door as they're laying about on CCTV are using 'unreasonable force', they generally get laughed out the courtroom. Most wouldn't even try it.
The thing is, if you have few armed citizens your criminals also don't see much need to beef up the weaponry. The average robber can walk into a store armed with a knife or even with nothing except the threat of violence, pick up his 24-pack of beer and the measly cash in the first register, then walk out. He's already known or the police dog sniffs out his door within the hour. And since he's so incredibly smart he can't even fathom that the cops could have found him. Someone had to rat him out, if only he could figure out who. It's not the nice policeman's fault he got caught and he knows he'll be back on the streets pretty soon anyway since no one got hurt so giving up is the right thing to do.
Few armed people, I said - we do have a very high number of hunters and different sports shooters but using a legal or stolen long arm for crime is very rare. Handguns are harder to get (though there are illegal war trophies from all over the EU) and it's usually only big time crooks like bikers and drug dealers that see a need for those. Not against the cops or regular people but against rivals or customers who might attack them or rip them off. These too will generally be all too happy to not resist arrest.
Illinois State Police is notoriously hard to get into, and prefers guys that have a bit more experience in life, and they pay better than most of the competition. They seem to have a higher quality of officers. More stringent hiring criteria and the pay to back up being picky could result in better law enforcement. I'm wondering if the officers doing these bad shoots are "that guy" in their respective departments. We'll probably never know the truth. Some officer unions have provisions for removing negative things from files after so many years.
Exactly. The Armed Response unit is extremely well trained. In the case of the Lee Rigby murder, the response unit shot at the suspects (who were firing back at police), neutralized them and started giving first aid within 6 seconds.
Spoiler ed video because of content (and also Piers Morgan for those that dislike him).
Spoiler:
If the SAS have been brought in, then the situation really has hit in the fan. But those guys are one of, if not the best in the world.
If there is one thing I love about living in the UK, it's a relatively safe environment from guns.
Just a minor, quick correction but the Lee Rigby killers did not shoot at police, or indeed anyone else. The pistol they had was a non-functioning antique. Even if it had been functional, finding the correct ammunition would have been extremely difficult, if not impossible (it was chambered for 9.4mm Dutch which a quick google search seems to suggest is no longer manufactured).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote: Those police openly carry assault rifles or other automatic long arms.
I think the majority of firearms in use by the police are actually only capable of semi-automatic fire, even the MP5s and G36s.
As a sidenote, there even something about the phrase "Law Enforcement" that gives me the heeby newbies.
If Hot Fuzz has taught me anything, it's that your constabulary peoples prefer to be called the Police Service which, IMO does sound quite a bit better.
Also, once thing I've noticed, and in talking to a very small sample of US police, is that here in the US one of the de-escalation measures, when I heard it, tends to actually be an escalation. A couple badge wearing friends of mine tell me that their official department "de-escalation" steps does involve the drawing and pointing of their service issued pistol at an uncooperative suspect. My time in the military tells me that that is just another step on the EOF chart. This probably isn't true of all departments and jurisdictions, but it may not be all that far off.
It's worth pointing out that Australia has probably about the same number of guns in private hands as the US, but our cops are still armed. They don't shoot that many people though. So I'm not sure that the decision to arm cops automatically stems from the populace being unarmed, nor does armed police automatically lead to a higher rate of shootings.
The number of guns held by US citizens almost certainly plays a part. I know if I was a cop walking up to a car I pulled over on a lonely highway I'd probably be a little more jumpy in the US than I would be here, it's just a probability thing.
But there is certainly a cultural change as well. US policing has changed massively in a couple of generations. In the 1970s police shootings spiked, at peaked at around 240 a year. There was a lot written about how police had to face a more violent, more hostile population. SWAT tactics were developed and expanded, there were big reductions in cops 'walking the beat'. More aggression was used by police to ensure their own protection.
Thing is, the number of cops killed has steadily dropped since then. It's now down to less than half the peak, and when you account for population growth it's probably more like a quarter of the rate. But police culture hasn't recovered. Despite the reduction in threat to police the use of SWAT teams to issue warrants increases every year. The number of people shot by police remains constant.
And hey, the number of people who actually own a gun decreases every year, and yet the number of shootings is the same.
I don't know, I have a lot of sympathy for cops because it's a bloody hard job. But I also know how much culture and training can change outcomes. I think US police are long overdue for a revision of their policing.
Canadian police are all armed with pistols, and I'm sure something more substantial in the trunks of their cruisers.
It is their weapon of last resort, though. I don't think they use Tazers anymore after the death of the Polish guy at YVR, or if they do its at a much safer level.
Dutch police are armed (pistol on their hip, MP5 in their car), but it usually is mostly for show. Police officers almost never have to actually draw their weapon, let alone use it. When they do, it is special enough to get mentioned on the national news. In Russia, it is pretty much the same. Police officers are armed (pistol on hip and AKS in car) but don't have to use their weapons much. This is probably because the vast majority of people in the Netherlands and Russia do not have a gun, and therefore criminals also don't feel the need to carry a gun most of the time. Besides that, I also think it is a culture thing. Police here is very good at de-escaliting situations, so police officers are just less likely to shoot someone, even if that person is armed, and criminals are just far less likely to shoot at the police in return.
sebster wrote: It's worth pointing out that Australia has probably about the same number of guns in private hands as the US, but our cops are still armed. They don't shoot that many people though. So I'm not sure that the decision to arm cops automatically stems from the populace being unarmed, nor does armed police automatically lead to a higher rate of shootings.
The number of guns held by US citizens almost certainly plays a part. I know if I was a cop walking up to a car I pulled over on a lonely highway I'd probably be a little more jumpy in the US than I would be here, it's just a probability thing.
But there is certainly a cultural change as well. US policing has changed massively in a couple of generations. In the 1970s police shootings spiked, at peaked at around 240 a year. There was a lot written about how police had to face a more violent, more hostile population. SWAT tactics were developed and expanded, there were big reductions in cops 'walking the beat'. More aggression was used by police to ensure their own protection.
Thing is, the number of cops killed has steadily dropped since then. It's now down to less than half the peak, and when you account for population growth it's probably more like a quarter of the rate. But police culture hasn't recovered. Despite the reduction in threat to police the use of SWAT teams to issue warrants increases every year. The number of people shot by police remains constant.
And hey, the number of people who actually own a gun decreases every year, and yet the number of shootings is the same.
I don't know, I have a lot of sympathy for cops because it's a bloody hard job. But I also know how much culture and training can change outcomes. I think US police are long overdue for a revision of their policing.
I think this is a very important point. Perception and culture are strong drivers of behavior. That's why this whole "police v. blacks" narrative is very dangerous. While the media loves to see "teams", the reality is that law enforcement is very much a part of the community and everyone has a vested interest in safety. Crime, and especially violent crime, has trended downward, but the most violent areas remain problematic. Likewise, crime is disproportionally located in lower income, high population areas which also tend to be disproportionately minority. This can lead to false associations of race and causation, when it is largely economic drivers. Like most issues, it's not a simple one and requires addressing multiple fronts. Police that view themselves as separate from these communities and communities that view police as an "other" are almost guaranteed to be working against one another to tragic results that let the worst elements thrive.
BlaxicanX wrote: How do American police protect citizens against criminals in tanks? From my understanding, in that situation they would call the army or the national guard, but then what use is an officer in that situation if the best they can do is use their cellphone like a regular citizen?
Wait for it to get stuck or run out of gas. Approach. Shoot to kill.
I think a very good insight into British policing is the Sam Vimes discworld books.
Pratchett did his research well and really seems to understand the nature of "old-fashioned" policing, of knowing your streets and the people in it, of knowing when to speak and when to pull your truncheon. Look at the times that Sam Vimes was able to diffuse potentially deadly situations by knowing what to say and how to say it, when to use force and when to stand back and just watch. Most importantly, he understands that coppers aren't soldiers and to start to act like them (such as using swords, the obvious parallel to the should police have guns issue) is the first step to building a barrier between the people and the people who happen to be coppers.
Orlanth wrote: Those police openly carry assault rifles or other automatic long arms.
I think the majority of firearms in use by the police are actually only capable of semi-automatic fire, even the MP5s and G36s.
I cant comment on that. The weapons they use naturally have full auto settings. Perhaps they are modified, perhaps the officers are trained for semi-automatic fire only and are forbidden from using full auto. I could beleive either scenario is reasonable as predetermining each bullets path must be important consideration.
I do know the snipers are especially regulated, but that makes sense as a snipers job is very specific and not based around deterrent or de-escalation but in precision removal.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote: It's worth pointing out that Australia has probably about the same number of guns in private hands as the US, but our cops are still armed. They don't shoot that many people though. So I'm not sure that the decision to arm cops automatically stems from the populace being unarmed, nor does armed police automatically lead to a higher rate of shootings.
The number of guns held by US citizens almost certainly plays a part. I know if I was a cop walking up to a car I pulled over on a lonely highway I'd probably be a little more jumpy in the US than I would be here, it's just a probability thing.
Population density is a major factor. Oz and the Uk have a similar culture with regards to gun violence and a similar progression on gun culture. However I think them ain reason austrailian cops are universally armed and Uk ones are not is due to geography. US and Oz rural policing is likely to be handeld with very limited backup and that backup might not be timely due to distances involved. Have a gun incident in the UK prettyy much anywhere and specialist persons either from special forces or the police can be there reasoanably quickly. I think it will be rather different in rural Queensland or Montana.
Yes, but we're forgetting, Aussie police aren't just armed, they are armed with mobile flying white shark launchers. Its easy to get compliance when the PoPo can fire an angry white shark at your face.
Australia, the only place more dangerous than a Texas ice house.
I hope it never happens, but out of interest, if the gak really hits the fan in the USA (100 terrorists take over an office block, hostages/suicide vests/booby traps) then who gets the call in the USA to deal with it?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I hope it never happens, but out of interest, if the gak really hits the fan in the USA (100 terrorists take over an office block, hostages/suicide vests/booby traps) then who gets the call in the USA to deal with it?
Navy Seals? Delta force? Regular army or Marines?
The FBI, local SWAT, and National Guard most likely, with maybe additional assistance from other agencies like the ATF or DEA. Deploying federal military units in a domestic situation is an extremely touchy thing, and there are civilian agencies that are generally more purpose built for something like that.
Soladrin wrote: Most of our cops do carry but we still see almost no fatalities. I think the real problem here is America's gun culture. Police in the USA has to work from the assumption that everyone is armed, or so it would seem to me.
I wouldn't ascribe it to the gun culture at all. The vast majority of gun crimes are committed by illegally owned firearms in the first place. As has been pointed out rather extensively, our means of cutting off the flow of illegal guns is quite different from say Britain, which is an Island nation, that doesn't share an extensive border with a nearly-failed state.
I'm not sure any police force 'protects' its citizens, armed or unarmed. You don't protect an assault victim. You don't protect a robbery victim.
By nature, they respond to events/crimes. Where they actual prevent it is through manpower intensive presence, and I suspect armed/unarmed doesn't make much difference, the real difference I bet is 'cop here' or 'cop not here'.
CptJake wrote: I'm not sure any police force 'protects' its citizens, armed or unarmed. You don't protect an assault victim. You don't protect a robbery victim.
This is a pretty salient point, and, at least in the US, is codified by the courts. A police officer in the US is under no obligation to protect anyone, their obligation is to investigate and arrest, not to provide service or protection, despite whatever motto's they may have stenciled on their cars
CptJake wrote: I'm not sure any police force 'protects' its citizens, armed or unarmed. You don't protect an assault victim. You don't protect a robbery victim.
By nature, they respond to events/crimes. Where they actual prevent it is through manpower intensive presence, and I suspect armed/unarmed doesn't make much difference, the real difference I bet is 'cop here' or 'cop not here'.
Of course they protect, that's the deterrent effect Police Services provide by existence and visible patrol.
You can't measure protection as it is the non-occurrence of crime.
CptJake wrote: I'm not sure any police force 'protects' its citizens, armed or unarmed. You don't protect an assault victim. You don't protect a robbery victim.
By nature, they respond to events/crimes. Where they actual prevent it is through manpower intensive presence, and I suspect armed/unarmed doesn't make much difference, the real difference I bet is 'cop here' or 'cop not here'.
Of course they protect, that's the deterrent effect Police Services provide by existence and visible patrol.
You can't measure protection as it is the non-occurrence of crime.
I highlighted in orange the part of my post you seem to have missed.
Crime stats are pretty even in the UK and US, yes there are different types of crimes (more assaults per capita in the UK and more murders per capita in the US for example) but over all crime rates are pretty similar. Armed/Unarmed seem to offer about the same amount of 'protection' over all when you look at it. I guess the 'protection' offered by either is about the same really. The reality is, as I (poorly) stated is the cops, armed or unarmed, mostly respond. They investigate. They arrest perps who have already committed a crime. 'Protection' expands as far as the LOS of the nearest cop, not much more, regardless of the cop being armed or not.
CptJake wrote: I'm not sure any police force 'protects' its citizens, armed or unarmed. You don't protect an assault victim. You don't protect a robbery victim.
This is a pretty salient point, and, at least in the US, is codified by the courts. A police officer in the US is under no obligation to protect anyone, their obligation is to investigate and arrest, not to provide service or protection, despite whatever motto's they may have stenciled on their cars
It's a "keep the peace" standard in Illinois. Whatever that means.
725 ILCS 5/107-16
Apprehension of offender. It is the duty of every sheriff, coroner, and every marshal, policeman, or other officer of an incorporated city, town, or village, having the power of a sheriff, when a criminal offense or breach of the peace is committed or attempted in his or her presence, forthwith to apprehend the offender and bring him or her before a judge, to be dealt with according to law; to suppress all riots and unlawful assemblies, and to keep the peace, and without delay to serve and execute all warrants and other process to him or her lawfully directed.
Thanks a lot for the discussion - I'm mostly content to sit back and read people's thoughts, as I've more or less said my piece. It's educational, though.
Here's a picture that illustrates the modern US approach to policing.
Spoiler:
(C) Jonathan Bachman of Reuters, used for the Fair Use purpose of review and discussion.
Regrettably this heavy armed, aggressive approach, which began in the LAPD, has spread out across the world, leading to some shocking incidents at various protests and demonstrations in the UK and Italy for instance.
The police here are not protecting the public. They are protecting their authoritah.
Kilkrazy wrote: Here's a picture that illustrates the modern US approach to policing.
Spoiler:
(C) Jonathan Bachman of Reuters, used for the Fair Use purpose of review and discussion.
Regrettably this heavy armed, aggressive approach, which began in the LAPD, has spread out across the world, leading to some shocking incidents at various protests and demonstrations in the UK and Italy for instance.
The police here are not protecting the public. They are protecting their authoritah.
Is.... she a witch or something? it looks like they are getting force pushed backwards.
Well considering she was peacefully detained and afforded all legal protections despite breaking the law, and no one was injured, doesn't that mean they were doing it right?
Precaution != abuse. The body armor is in context of numerous officers recently being shot.
In Northern Ireland, all the 'Peelers' are armed, unlike their mainland UK counterpoints. Everyone has a handgun (I think it's a Glock of some description) and some carry carbines too. And I think that they should have them because of the political landscape here. Dissident republicans are still out there looking to kill them with car bombs and ambushes. It''s why they also still routinely patrol the streets in these:
They looked more intimidating in the old RUC era battleship grey. That's why they were changed.
Anyway, take away their guns, and they will come under attack more often. They're strong deterrents. And yet they're almost never drawn let alone used. The system we have here is, unless they are actually threatened with a gun (and I mean aimed or shot at), they have to ask for permission from HQ to even draw their own.
Kilkrazy wrote: Here's a picture that illustrates the modern US approach to policing.
Spoiler:
No that is not reflective of a standard patrol cop, full body armor is only rolled out for when there's a riot going on or a high threat level event requiring swat. US police will have a standard issue bullet proof vest and a pistol, but certainly not body armor. They are likely to have a shotgun in their patrol car but it's very rarely carried, some cities have their patrol cars equipped with an AR-15 or high power rifle after events like the LA bank robbery just in case. For standard patrol duty the public does not respond well to cops carrying anything heavier than a pistol. What you are citing above it is a response to a potential riot situation and where the lives of officers had been directly threatened (and several killed), lets not pretend it's their everyday bloodthirster wear simply so you can demonize them.
Also note that even though they are in riot armor neither of those cops are armed with a weapon heavier than a pistol, nor are any of the cops in the background. They aren't even brandishing clubs or riot shields. Which is likely intentional due to awareness of how the LA style riot tactics are connected to racial tensions.
Kilkrazy wrote: Here's a picture that illustrates the modern US approach to policing.
Spoiler:
(C) Jonathan Bachman of Reuters, used for the Fair Use purpose of review and discussion.
Regrettably this heavy armed, aggressive approach, which began in the LAPD, has spread out across the world, leading to some shocking incidents at various protests and demonstrations in the UK and Italy for instance.
The police here are not protecting the public. They are protecting their authoritah.
Is.... she a witch or something? it looks like they are getting force pushed backwards.
I can see the equipment being justified.
Thats funny. In actually they were doing a dance routine for the next Mel Brooks film. Step kick...shuffle shuffle..step kick...shuffle shuffle.
djones520 wrote: The vast majority of gun crimes are committed by illegally owned firearms in the first place. As has been pointed out rather extensively, our means of cutting off the flow of illegal guns is quite different from say Britain, which is an Island nation, that doesn't share an extensive border with a nearly-failed state.
On the other hand, those illegal firearms are mostly coming from within the USA. The mexicans themself don't usually have any access to firearms - the cartels employ US citizens to buy AR-15 clones, Barrett .50s and the like that they then smuggle into Mexico. All accomplished by the (yes, illegal) practice called "straw purchases", ie having someone with no criminal record buy a gun for someone else. Same goes for US criminal gangs. Why bother getting a crate of guns from outside when you can buy them all legally, right here, as long as someone not you does the buying? Or stealing them from someone with the right to store and sell them?
djones520 wrote: The vast majority of gun crimes are committed by illegally owned firearms in the first place. As has been pointed out rather extensively, our means of cutting off the flow of illegal guns is quite different from say Britain, which is an Island nation, that doesn't share an extensive border with a nearly-failed state.
On the other hand, those illegal firearms are mostly coming from within the USA. The mexicans themself don't usually have any access to firearms - the cartels employ US citizens to buy AR-15 clones, Barrett .50s and the like that they then smuggle into Mexico. All accomplished by the (yes, illegal) practice called "straw purchases", ie having someone with no criminal record buy a gun for someone else. Same goes for US criminal gangs. Why bother getting a crate of guns from outside when you can buy them all legally, right here, as long as someone not you does the buying? Or stealing them from someone with the right to store and sell them?
No, the Cartels are not mostly arming themselves through straw purchases. Most of their guns come from the Gov't of Mexico or Central America.
s we discussed in a previous analysis, the 90 percent number was derived from a June 2009 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report to Congress on U.S. efforts to combat arms trafficking to Mexico (see external link).
According to the GAO report, some 30,000 firearms were seized from criminals by Mexican authorities in 2008. Of these 30,000 firearms, information pertaining to 7,200 of them (24 percent) was submitted to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) for tracing. Of these 7,200 guns, only about 4,000 could be traced by the ATF, and of these 4,000, some 3,480 (87 percent) were shown to have come from the United States.
This means that the 87 percent figure relates to the number of weapons submitted by the Mexican government to the ATF that could be successfully traced and not from the total number of weapons seized by Mexican authorities or even from the total number of weapons submitted to the ATF for tracing. In fact, the 3,480 guns positively traced to the United States equals less than 12 percent of the total arms seized in Mexico in 2008 and less than 48 percent of all those submitted by the Mexican government to the ATF for tracing. This means that almost 90 percent of the guns seized in Mexico in 2008 were not traced back to the United States.
djones520 wrote: The vast majority of gun crimes are committed by illegally owned firearms in the first place. As has been pointed out rather extensively, our means of cutting off the flow of illegal guns is quite different from say Britain, which is an Island nation, that doesn't share an extensive border with a nearly-failed state.
On the other hand, those illegal firearms are mostly coming from within the USA. The mexicans themself don't usually have any access to firearms - the cartels employ US citizens to buy AR-15 clones, Barrett .50s and the like that they then smuggle into Mexico. All accomplished by the (yes, illegal) practice called "straw purchases", ie having someone with no criminal record buy a gun for someone else. Same goes for US criminal gangs. Why bother getting a crate of guns from outside when you can buy them all legally, right here, as long as someone not you does the buying? Or stealing them from someone with the right to store and sell them?
No, the Cartels are not mostly arming themselves through straw purchases. Most of their guns come from the Gov't of Mexico or Central America.
s we discussed in a previous analysis, the 90 percent number was derived from a June 2009 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report to Congress on U.S. efforts to combat arms trafficking to Mexico (see external link).
According to the GAO report, some 30,000 firearms were seized from criminals by Mexican authorities in 2008. Of these 30,000 firearms, information pertaining to 7,200 of them (24 percent) was submitted to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) for tracing. Of these 7,200 guns, only about 4,000 could be traced by the ATF, and of these 4,000, some 3,480 (87 percent) were shown to have come from the United States.
This means that the 87 percent figure relates to the number of weapons submitted by the Mexican government to the ATF that could be successfully traced and not from the total number of weapons seized by Mexican authorities or even from the total number of weapons submitted to the ATF for tracing. In fact, the 3,480 guns positively traced to the United States equals less than 12 percent of the total arms seized in Mexico in 2008 and less than 48 percent of all those submitted by the Mexican government to the ATF for tracing. This means that almost 90 percent of the guns seized in Mexico in 2008 were not traced back to the United States.
Or they could have come from the Underground Empire of the Mole People. All those numbers tell us is that the vast majority of the guns were untraceable by the ATF, and that the vast majority of the guns that were traceable were from the US.
So... you're saying there is a massive firearm manufacturing ring in the US that builds weapons to be untraceable? 7,000 of those 30,000 seized exhibited evidence of being built in the US, that is why some of them were traceable. Those other 23,000 were not turned over because there was no proof they were built in the US.
Of those that are traceable, I've got to wonder how many of them are weapons that we sold to their government for use by their military/police, and have been stolen/sold/etc... to the cartels.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I hope it never happens, but out of interest, if the gak really hits the fan in the USA (100 terrorists take over an office block, hostages/suicide vests/booby traps) then who gets the call in the USA to deal with it?
Navy Seals? Delta force? Regular army or Marines?
Probably just some lowly beat cop with a bad attitude who isn't even in his jurisdiction, and is only in that office block because they are visiting their estranged spouse for the holidays...
jmurph wrote: I think this is a very important point. Perception and culture are strong drivers of behavior. That's why this whole "police v. blacks" narrative is very dangerous.
This is a good point. Discussion of police shootings and the racial disparity is necessary, but it is dangerous if it moves in to a simplistic narrative of ''black people vs police'.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote: Population density is a major factor. Oz and the Uk have a similar culture with regards to gun violence and a similar progression on gun culture. However I think them ain reason austrailian cops are universally armed and Uk ones are not is due to geography. US and Oz rural policing is likely to be handeld with very limited backup and that backup might not be timely due to distances involved. Have a gun incident in the UK prettyy much anywhere and specialist persons either from special forces or the police can be there reasoanably quickly. I think it will be rather different in rural Queensland or Montana.
I do think geography plays a major part.
Possibly, but it has to be remembered that while Australia is a very big place with a small population, almost all of us live in a handful of very big cities. Australia is sold for tourism as the big outback, but life here for almost everyone is life in big cities. So yeah, I'd understand that country police would be armed because they can be hours from back up given at times. But most policing is in the cities, and they're armed identically to country police.
And in Europe I think police are armed in just about every country. It might be better to see the UK as unique in having so many unarmed police, and the US as unique in having so many shootings. The comparison is interesting, but it should be understood in terms of one very unusual circumstance against another.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
djones520 wrote: I wouldn't ascribe it to the gun culture at all. The vast majority of gun crimes are committed by illegally owned firearms in the first place. As has been pointed out rather extensively, our means of cutting off the flow of illegal guns is quite different from say Britain, which is an Island nation, that doesn't share an extensive border with a nearly-failed state.
I'm getting really bored with this 'Mexico as a failed state' thing. Living standards there are improving massively year on year. The country is undergoing a quiet economic revolution. But the only thing seen by so many people is cartels and violence, and so they assume that's all Mexico is.
Also, most crimes are committed with illegally owned firearms, but they weren't purchased or made as illegal firearms. It shouldn't be too hard for anyone to notice that the country with the most legal firearms by a long way is also the country with the most illegal firearms and figure out the connection.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote: I'm not sure any police force 'protects' its citizens, armed or unarmed. You don't protect an assault victim. You don't protect a robbery victim.
There is little actual intervention, where a policeman actually stops a mugging that's underway, that's true. But one of the best ways of driving down crime is with effective policing - increasing the conviction rate reduces the rate of crime. If you've got a 2% chance of being caught for a mugging you've got little disincentive, but if the chance is 20%...
That's the protection offered by police. And it's a major reason, alongside education and living standards, that people are lot less likely to be impacted by crime in the UK, US or Australia, than they are in Brazil or Papua New Guinea.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: This is a pretty salient point, and, at least in the US, is codified by the courts. A police officer in the US is under no obligation to protect anyone, their obligation is to investigate and arrest, not to provide service or protection, despite whatever motto's they may have stenciled on their cars
I think this is a point that is often mistakenly interpreted. Sure, police have no legal obligation, but this basically means they can't be sued for failing to prevent a crime. This is a legal necessity, imagine if every victim of crime had a legal means to sue police for failing to stop their house getting broken in to. Police depts would need more lawyers than police.
But while they don't have a strict legal obligation, that doesn't mean it isn't something police target as a primary aim. Policing is all about protection, about reducing the rate of crime. Ultimately there's two key indicators in whether a police strategy or dept has been effective, alongside the clearance rate for crimes the other primary measure is whether the rate of crime is declining.
Kilkrazy wrote: Here's a picture that illustrates the modern US approach to policing.
Spoiler:
(C) Jonathan Bachman of Reuters, used for the Fair Use purpose of review and discussion.
Regrettably this heavy armed, aggressive approach, which began in the LAPD, has spread out across the world, leading to some shocking incidents at various protests and demonstrations in the UK and Italy for instance.
The police here are not protecting the public. They are protecting their authoritah.
Is.... she a witch or something? it looks like they are getting force pushed backwards.
I can see the equipment being justified.
Thats funny. In actually they were doing a dance routine for the next Mel Brooks film. Step kick...shuffle shuffle..step kick...shuffle shuffle.
Nah, the furthest guy is definitely slipping on a banana. It may or may not have been placed there by Mel Brooks though. We don't really want to say, worried they will shoot him for it.
I love the phrase "diet mace".... and I have no idea why
One thing that I found of particular note in that article, was the recurring theme of community... Most of these cops live where they work and definitely seem to think differently because of it. I'm reminded of the old phrase, "don't gak where you eat" and it still rings true. I also think many of them in that area realize that they can run into people they have had prior dealings with, and, at least the author treated them accordingly and he didn't have issues. That resonates with me because while I've not suffered abuse from US cops, my dealings with them haven't been nearly so cordial as this bloke made things sound.
djones520 wrote: So... you're saying there is a massive firearm manufacturing ring in the US that builds weapons to be untraceable? 7,000 of those 30,000 seized exhibited evidence of being built in the US, that is why some of them were traceable. Those other 23,000 were not turned over because there was no proof they were built in the US.
Well, what it shows it that the cartels can't get enough guns without making illegal purchases in the US and smuggling the guns over to Mexico. Especially the higher-end stuff like assault rifles and .50cal snipers. Even if all guns became illegal in the US right now the Mexican cartels have nothing to sell your criminals. Their own criminals need guns to fight other criminals and the Mexican police. Only when guns become worth more than drugs will they even consider that as a possible article to smuggle into the US.
djones520 wrote: So... you're saying there is a massive firearm manufacturing ring in the US that builds weapons to be untraceable? 7,000 of those 30,000 seized exhibited evidence of being built in the US, that is why some of them were traceable. Those other 23,000 were not turned over because there was no proof they were built in the US.
Well, what it shows it that the cartels can't get enough guns without making illegal purchases in the US and smuggling the guns over to Mexico. Especially the higher-end stuff like assault rifles and .50cal snipers. Even if all guns became illegal in the US right now the Mexican cartels have nothing to sell your criminals. Their own criminals need guns to fight other criminals and the Mexican police. Only when guns become worth more than drugs will they even consider that as a possible article to smuggle into the US.
No, that is not what it shows at all. Most of what they use is full auto stuff from their own Gov't and Central America (a lot from Guatemala).
Vaktathi wrote: This is a pretty salient point, and, at least in the US, is codified by the courts. A police officer in the US is under no obligation to protect anyone, their obligation is to investigate and arrest, not to provide service or protection, despite whatever motto's they may have stenciled on their cars
I think this is a point that is often mistakenly interpreted. Sure, police have no legal obligation, but this basically means they can't be sued for failing to prevent a crime. This is a legal necessity, imagine if every victim of crime had a legal means to sue police for failing to stop their house getting broken in to. Police depts would need more lawyers than police.
But while they don't have a strict legal obligation, that doesn't mean it isn't something police target as a primary aim. Policing is all about protection, about reducing the rate of crime. Ultimately there's two key indicators in whether a police strategy or dept has been effective, alongside the clearance rate for crimes the other primary measure is whether the rate of crime is declining.
I don't necessarily disagree in theory, however, in practice however what this means is that policing is increasingly about enforcement of the law and suspect apprehension, which is not necessarily the same thing as protecting and serving the community, and why there's usually very little reason for most people to favorably view directly interacting with the police.
djones520 wrote: So... you're saying there is a massive firearm manufacturing ring in the US that builds weapons to be untraceable? 7,000 of those 30,000 seized exhibited evidence of being built in the US, that is why some of them were traceable. Those other 23,000 were not turned over because there was no proof they were built in the US.
Well, what it shows it that the cartels can't get enough guns without making illegal purchases in the US and smuggling the guns over to Mexico. Especially the higher-end stuff like assault rifles and .50cal snipers. Even if all guns became illegal in the US right now the Mexican cartels have nothing to sell your criminals. Their own criminals need guns to fight other criminals and the Mexican police. Only when guns become worth more than drugs will they even consider that as a possible article to smuggle into the US.
A big problem in Mexico is the defection of army personnel and the theft of army property to and by the Cartels. Yes, a portion of cartel owned firearms -do- come from the US but claiming that our gun laws put military grade firearms in the hands of criminals that wouldn't otherwise have them is a grossly inaccurate generalization.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Here's a picture that illustrates the modern US approach to policing.
Spoiler:
(C) Jonathan Bachman of Reuters, used for the Fair Use purpose of review and discussion.
Regrettably this heavy armed, aggressive approach, which began in the LAPD, has spread out across the world, leading to some shocking incidents at various protests and demonstrations in the UK and Italy for instance.
The police here are not protecting the public. They are protecting their authoritah.
They are only carrying pistols and don't even have them out. I don't see how they are 'heavily armed'.
Kilkrazy wrote: Here's a picture that illustrates the modern US approach to policing.
Spoiler:
(C) Jonathan Bachman of Reuters, used for the Fair Use purpose of review and discussion.
Regrettably this heavy armed, aggressive approach, which began in the LAPD, has spread out across the world, leading to some shocking incidents at various protests and demonstrations in the UK and Italy for instance.
The police here are not protecting the public. They are protecting their authoritah.
They are only carrying pistols and don't even have them out. I don't see how they are 'heavily armed'.
Nor do I see any aggressive approach in the photos, aside from the posture of the police who are in mid run. The photos taken subsequently after this one show the woman, who had been ordered multiple times to get off the street, quickly escorted off the street she was illegally standing in, without incident. Textbook clean arrest by decisive police, who tried to avoid an arrest, and a compliant arrestee, but it still ends up fodder to fuel a certain narrative.
And also, to "the police here are protecting their authoritah" comment...
More than a 120 police were injured in Baltimore a year ago. They are protecting themselves with that gear in case things go south. I guarantee none of them want to wear that gak in the middle of the day, out in the sun in July, in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
And I guess that's troubling to me. What does the average police officer do when faced with an armed, violent, and noncompliant criminal in the act of committing a crime? Because from what I read, the answer, for british officers, is to call Trojan, their armed forces. And if that is the case, I have to wonder - in that circumstance, what more good is the officer in that situation than a random citizen with a phone, if all they can do is call for help?
If something is truly beyond an officer's abilities, they can help civvies flee, keep them organised when safe, and provide medical experience (1st aid stuff). They are also able to calmly relay useful information to more helpful units.
I think some very good points have been made to answer the question how unarmed (or armed) police force can upkeep the law and intervene:
Better training, different "culture"/approach to aggression and conflict resolution, communal integration.
(Non-)availibility of hand guns is a factor, for sure.
There is also simple socio-economics: None of the European countries mentioned has such high gaps between the poor and rich than the US. They also have functioning social systems that keep most people out of the poverty spiral.
There is a direct correlation between poverty and crime.
Poverty breeds petty crimes, lower education, less identification with and loyalty to a given societal model, encourages parallel societies (gangs), drug abuse. If you mix in easy access to handguns, that quickly becomes a self-reinforcing spiral of crime and violence and an instituionalization of a law of might.
So, long-term poverty generates petty crimes which in turn generate drug crimes, which in turn generate/attract organized crime. Whole city blocks deteriorate, jobs move, backward views and a lack of education and therefore possibility of participation are transferred to the next generation, institutionalizing the problems...
The police force is faced with a high armament in civilians, in "beleaguered" areas of cities, with open and often hostile opposition due to lack of loyalty/mistrust of "racist police" etc., which itself is poorly educated, and trained to respond first and foremost with lethal force to any threat, the constant reinforcement of negative stereotypes and antagonization in the public ("All black/latino are dangerous" vs. "all cops are killers"), the complete failure of the War on Drugs....
This is how it works in Germany:
Policemen are always armed. But availibility of hand guns, and of course semi- and automatic weapons in the civil area is very low.
The only people who have those are shooting ranges (only pistols and sports rifles, and those must be locked at all times) and criminal organizations -who tend not to use them often, and not against the police or civilians.
While I only have theoretical knowledge and anecdotal one from our neighbours (federal police), the training standards and requirements to become a policeman are in general much higher than in the States, though comparison depends on agency and State, as i understand it.
The use of lethal force is only allowed in an immediate threat to the police officer's or someone else's life. Policemen are trained to only use their guns as a last resort. De-Escalation is always the first procedure to dangerous situations, or isolation and call for reinforcement.
Contrary to the US, German civilians carry no guns and the average German trusts the police to do their job properly and without abuse. So there is a relative high level of mutual trust, or at least confidence that an encounter with the other will most likely not lead to your death.
And without basic trust in that, communication is almost impossible, and without communication there can be no de-escalation.
In 2015, a total of 8 people got killed by police forces (that is 8 in a population of 80 mio), all of them in (self-)defense against knife attacks. 1 policeman was killed in a knife attack. In total, 589 persons became victims of murder or manslaughter (including all registered cases of euthanasia).
For a population of 320mio like the US that would mean:
32 people killed by cops, 4 cops killed, roughly 2400 people deceased through violent means, per year.
In 2015, the USA had 1,134 people killed by cops, 56 cops killed through violent means (if I counted correctly) and a yet unknown number of homicides (was 13,472 homicides in 2014, but practically all major cities announced a sharp rise in violent crimes in 2015. (the next FBI report is due for september, I believe)
A big problem in Mexico is the defection of army personnel and the theft of army property to and by the Cartels. Yes, a portion of cartel owned firearms -do- come from the US but claiming that our gun laws put military grade firearms in the hands of criminals that wouldn't otherwise have them is a grossly inaccurate generalization.
Why smuggle in straw purchased weapons when the government runs them to you anyway (tinfoil hat)
Policemen are always armed. But availibility of hand guns, and of course semi- and automatic weapons in the civil area is very low.
The only people who have those are shooting ranges (only pistols and sports rifles, and those must be locked at all times)
Small point note, it is in fact legal for civilians in Germany to own (and keep in their homes) handguns and semi auto rifles, however the requirements to obtain them are much higher than in the US, though it is possible. Last time I was there I got to fondle a couple firearms that a pal who lived there owned, took him almost two years to get all the paperwork however. Carry ability/licensing is the biggest difference, being nearly impossible to get in Germany.
SickSix wrote: You can't compare international police policies to America. No other country has privately owned firearms as a fundamental part of its culture.
Our police will always need guns. However it would be great if they could use them less.
Hopefully continued use and training of less than lethal methods will decrease use of lethal force.
I'm inclined to go with this. Even if America scrapped the 2nd tomorrow, there would still be millions of weapons in the country...
Even if Washington declared an amnesty and bought back every weapon, it would still take years...
I think America is past the point of no return when it comes to gun control. Even if a 2/3rds majority agreed to scrap the 2nd, gun deaths would still continue...
For that reason, police and decent citizens should be armed...
On the other hand, I think the US police could learn a lot from their British counter-parts...
TheCustomLime wrote: A big problem in Mexico is the defection of army personnel and the theft of army property to and by the Cartels. Yes, a portion of cartel owned firearms -do- come from the US but claiming that our gun laws put military grade firearms in the hands of criminals that wouldn't otherwise have them is a grossly inaccurate generalization.
But they do run guns from the US for their own use. It could be it's just so much easier to get the gun across one border than moving it across multiple Mexican districts and maybe in from a southern neighbor. And military grade, well - the US is one of the few places where .50cal rifles is just another gun anyone can have. Cheap Chinese pistols is another matter, that's probably something easy enough to get by the cargo container that the cartels wouldn't bother dragging them through the US.
TheCustomLime wrote: A big problem in Mexico is the defection of army personnel and the theft of army property to and by the Cartels. Yes, a portion of cartel owned firearms -do- come from the US but claiming that our gun laws put military grade firearms in the hands of criminals that wouldn't otherwise have them is a grossly inaccurate generalization.
But they do run guns from the US for their own use. It could be it's just so much easier to get the gun across one border than moving it across multiple Mexican districts and maybe in from a southern neighbor. And military grade, well - the US is one of the few places where .50cal rifles is just another gun anyone can have. Cheap Chinese pistols is another matter, that's probably something easy enough to get by the cargo container that the cartels wouldn't bother dragging them through the US.
You are really not understanding what you're being told and shown.
TheCustomLime wrote: A big problem in Mexico is the defection of army personnel and the theft of army property to and by the Cartels. Yes, a portion of cartel owned firearms -do- come from the US but claiming that our gun laws put military grade firearms in the hands of criminals that wouldn't otherwise have them is a grossly inaccurate generalization.
But they do run guns from the US for their own use. It could be it's just so much easier to get the gun across one border than moving it across multiple Mexican districts and maybe in from a southern neighbor. And military grade, well - the US is one of the few places where .50cal rifles is just another gun anyone can have. Cheap Chinese pistols is another matter, that's probably something easy enough to get by the cargo container that the cartels wouldn't bother dragging them through the US.
Most of the Cartel "military" weapons comes from Central/South American countries.
TheCustomLime wrote: A big problem in Mexico is the defection of army personnel and the theft of army property to and by the Cartels. Yes, a portion of cartel owned firearms -do- come from the US but claiming that our gun laws put military grade firearms in the hands of criminals that wouldn't otherwise have them is a grossly inaccurate generalization.
But they do run guns from the US for their own use. It could be it's just so much easier to get the gun across one border than moving it across multiple Mexican districts and maybe in from a southern neighbor.
You mean the Mexican districts where a good chunk of Mexican federal agents/police are in the back pocket of the Cartels themselves and the 3rd world countries that make up Central America? You believe that they have tighter security against Cartel gun-running than the US-Mexico border?
And military grade, well - the US is one of the few places where .50cal rifles is just another gun anyone can have. Cheap Chinese pistols is another matter, that's probably something easy enough to get by the cargo container that the cartels wouldn't bother dragging them through the US.
Okay, this may come off as a surprise to a lot of Europeans, but America doesn't allow you to buy anti-materiel and assault rifles at Wal-mart while shopping for diapers. Those weapons are regulated by the BATFE and they aren't trivial things to own. They have to be registered, you have to pay extra-taxes, submit to random BATFE searches and so on. There is no thriving industry of Maude running down to the local gun store, picking up an M2 Barrett .50 cal and throwing it across the border for Cartel Carlos to catch. The most common weapons that are smuggled across the border are commonly obtained firearms like pistols and IIRC many of these are illicitly obtained in of themselves. The 2nd Amendment is not killing Mexico.
The reason why Mexico is in a bad state with drugs and guns is because it has a long, easily crossed land border with the world's biggest market for illegal drugs, and land borders with several of the world's most productive countries of illegal drugs.
Kilkrazy wrote: The reason why Mexico is in a bad state with drugs and guns is because it has a long, easily crossed land border with the world's biggest market for illegal drugs, and land borders with several of the world's most productive countries of illegal drugs.
It is thus a key entrepot for illegal drugs.
You may want to look at a map. Mexico has land borders with three countries. The US to the north, and Guatemala and Belize to the south. Belize is a pretty reliable partner in combatting the illegal drug trade, and Guatemala is not really a producer of much except poverty though it is a transshipment route for arms and drugs. You then have several other central american nations before you hit the real drug producing nations on the south american continent. Most shipments do not go over land through all those borders.
My meaning is that your statement that Mexico has "land borders with several of the world's most productive countries of illegal drugs" is wrong. The map shows this.
Unless by 'several' you mean 'none'. And I doubt you meant that.
I also think I was clear when I stated Guatemala is a transshipment point for arms and drugs, and that the drugs don't move from production countries in South America to Mexico across all the land borders in between.
What part should I attempt to clear up, because I am genuinely not sure what you don't get.
jhe90 wrote: Its rare. But events like Iranian embassy years ago do trigger that level of response.
Has anything since ever involved that sort of military response? I can't think of anything, but by their very nature, SAS operations aren't going to be publicised; I think their activity at the Iranian Embassy was only revealed because the TV cameras were already there watching.
Vaktathi wrote: I don't necessarily disagree in theory, however, in practice however what this means is that policing is increasingly about enforcement of the law and suspect apprehension, which is not necessarily the same thing as protecting and serving the community, and why there's usually very little reason for most people to favorably view directly interacting with the police.
I definitely agree that policing that focuses too much on enforcement and suspect apprehension fails to serve the community's needs and provide the proper protection. I also agree that such policing is a lot more common than it should be. However, I think that such approaches come for a whole range of causes ('tough on crime' and zero tolerance rhetoric, doing what you can measure etc). I don't think the lack of a specific legal obligation comes in to it.
TheCustomLime wrote: A big problem in Mexico is the defection of army personnel and the theft of army property to and by the Cartels. Yes, a portion of cartel owned firearms -do- come from the US but claiming that our gun laws put military grade firearms in the hands of criminals that wouldn't otherwise have them is a grossly inaccurate generalization.
sebster wrote: Your post above is just completely and utterly wrong in every possible sense.
I think you may have missed a sentence or two in the article you quoted.
insightcrime wrote:The report does not, however, mention Mexican security forces, which InSight Crime found in a 2011 study to be a large source of black market weapons.
The CESOP report also does not explain where it sourced its estimate that 2,000 weapons illegally cross the US-Mexico border every day.
So the report covers imports from America but does not cover those from Mexican security forces and does not source its claims. It seems to me that TheCustomLime's at least somewhat correct, even if he did understate America's contribution to the problem.
TheCustomLime wrote: A big problem in Mexico is the defection of army personnel and the theft of army property to and by the Cartels. Yes, a portion of cartel owned firearms -do- come from the US but claiming that our gun laws put military grade firearms in the hands of criminals that wouldn't otherwise have them is a grossly inaccurate generalization.
But they do run guns from the US for their own use. It could be it's just so much easier to get the gun across one border than moving it across multiple Mexican districts and maybe in from a southern neighbor.
You mean the Mexican districts where a good chunk of Mexican federal agents/police are in the back pocket of the Cartels themselves and the 3rd world countries that make up Central America? You believe that they have tighter security against Cartel gun-running than the US-Mexico border?
And military grade, well - the US is one of the few places where .50cal rifles is just another gun anyone can have. Cheap Chinese pistols is another matter, that's probably something easy enough to get by the cargo container that the cartels wouldn't bother dragging them through the US.
Okay, this may come off as a surprise to a lot of Europeans, but America doesn't allow you to buy anti-materiel and assault rifles at Wal-mart while shopping for diapers. Those weapons are regulated by the BATFE and they aren't trivial things to own. They have to be registered, you have to pay extra-taxes, submit to random BATFE searches and so on. There is no thriving industry of Maude running down to the local gun store, picking up an M2 Barrett .50 cal and throwing it across the border for Cartel Carlos to catch. The most common weapons that are smuggled across the border are commonly obtained firearms like pistols and IIRC many of these are illicitly obtained in of themselves. The 2nd Amendment is not killing Mexico.
Personally, I put a large amount of blame on what is happening in Mexico on the drug users in this country who either can't make the connection or care that their money is empowering the cartels to turn Mexico into a hell hole where tens of thousands of people a year are killed. It'd be interesting to know how many of those drug users are anti gun.
Breotan wrote: I think you may have missed a sentence or two in the article you quoted.
Nah, you should just click through on the links. The link about Mexican security forces being a source of weapons... still has all those weapons coming from the US. Seriously click through to the link - it talks about police and security forces being a key part of the operation to bring US guns across the border. And then it talks about 'recycling guns', ie taking weapons captured in raids out of police lockers before they are decommissioned and then selling them on the black market. At no point does it mention a primary source of weapons as being anywhere other than the US.
You make a fair point about the 2,000 per day count. I did wonder about whether to use that number or not, and decided in the end that the reply was punchier and shorter that it would otherwise be. I figured whether the figure was 580 or 2,000 it was still a lot. But I should have just used 580, so you make a fair call there.
It seems to me that TheCustomLime's at least somewhat correct, even if he did understate America's contribution to the problem.
But the only issue is the US contribution to guns in Mexico. And so by understating that by a long way, his answer became wrong. And it isn't just TheCustomLime, and I don't want to feel like I'm picking just on him, similar sentiments were expressed by a few posters. There appears to be an idea that the guns in Mexico aren't primarily from the US, and that belief is simply wrong.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote: Personally, I put a large amount of blame on what is happening in Mexico on the drug users in this country who either can't make the connection or care that their money is empowering the cartels to turn Mexico into a hell hole where tens of thousands of people a year are killed. It'd be interesting to know how many of those drug users are anti gun.
You can assign blame to the drug users. Its not wrong, in that people are responsible for the consequences of the goods they consume. But I'm just not sure it's a particularly useful approach - do you think anyone is likely to give up drugs because we've assigned them some of the blame?
Someone mentioned the police in Ireland before, I just wanted to add that the police forces here are so poorly equipped and their attitude is so bad that I have no confidence at all in their ability to do any actual protecting, and that bothers me.
SickSix wrote: You can't compare international police policies to America. No other country has privately owned firearms as a fundamental part of its culture.
Our police will always need guns. However it would be great if they could use them less.
Hopefully continued use and training of less than lethal methods will decrease use of lethal force.
Well, here's a glaring example on how NOT to deescalate a situation.
SickSix wrote: You can't compare international police policies to America. No other country has privately owned firearms as a fundamental part of its culture.
Our police will always need guns. However it would be great if they could use them less.
Hopefully continued use and training of less than lethal methods will decrease use of lethal force.
Well, here's a glaring example on how NOT to deescalate a situation.
That's more complicated than it first appears, actually.
For those who can't watch:
-Suspect enters bus
-Suspect attempts to bribe bus driver
-Suspect gets aggressive
-Bus stops to let passengers out
-Policewoman charges in gun first, hoping to make the suspect surrender
-Suspect collides with Policewoman almost as soon as she gets in
-Both fall over, Policewoman fires gun, Suspect trying to separate himself from Policewoman
-Policeman runs in, gun ready, tries to separate the two
-Suspect struggling for control of the gun
-Policeman shoots him at the first safe opportunity
Suspect was scared of being shot, hence attempting to get the gun away is justified
Policewoman doesn't know that he isn't trying to kill her, so her struggling is justified
Policeman sees a fight over a gun, cannot make the situation safe without either removing both guns, or shooting the Suspect.
Policeman makes the call and shoots Suspect.
Shoots him multiple times to ensure success/safety. Moderately justified from the Policeman's perspective.
The whole thing's a mess really. Now, if Policewoman hadn't rushed in, the three of them would have had time to think about the situation and react more sensibly. The suspect would then probably not have been shot.
SickSix wrote: You can't compare international police policies to America. No other country has privately owned firearms as a fundamental part of its culture.
Our police will always need guns. However it would be great if they could use them less.
Hopefully continued use and training of less than lethal methods will decrease use of lethal force.
Well, here's a glaring example on how NOT to deescalate a situation.
That's more complicated than it first appears, actually.
For those who can't watch:
-Suspect enters bus
-Suspect attempts to bribe bus driver
-Suspect gets aggressive
-Bus stops to let passengers out
-Policewoman charges in gun first, hoping to make the suspect surrender
That's the moment it goes south.
Either you keep the suspect at gunpoint from outside the bus (probably not doable since the driver would be in the line of fire) or you go in without your gun drawn. There's two of you (rather heavily built) against a skinny fella, once you put a gun in the equation something can go very wrong.
That was awful. Poorly handled by the initial officer. WTF was she thinking charging in with gun drawn without ordering him off first? Next step would be to get the bus driver out and make sure the vehicle is not capable of movement. Crackhead isolated on the bus is a lot easier to deal with.
Police officers in the US deal with possibly armed and actually armed suspects without firing a shot on a daily basis. Those videos just don't make the news.
Vaktathi wrote: I don't necessarily disagree in theory, however, in practice however what this means is that policing is increasingly about enforcement of the law and suspect apprehension, which is not necessarily the same thing as protecting and serving the community, and why there's usually very little reason for most people to favorably view directly interacting with the police.
I definitely agree that policing that focuses too much on enforcement and suspect apprehension fails to serve the community's needs and provide the proper protection. I also agree that such policing is a lot more common than it should be. However, I think that such approaches come for a whole range of causes ('tough on crime' and zero tolerance rhetoric, doing what you can measure etc). I don't think the lack of a specific legal obligation comes in to it.
TheCustomLime wrote: A big problem in Mexico is the defection of army personnel and the theft of army property to and by the Cartels. Yes, a portion of cartel owned firearms -do- come from the US but claiming that our gun laws put military grade firearms in the hands of criminals that wouldn't otherwise have them is a grossly inaccurate generalization.
Your post above is just completely and utterly wrong in every possible sense.
I think the lack of specific legal obligation to protect citizens plays a big part in the establishment of policing policies. There are many financial, political and legal incentives to push for more enforcement and suspect apprehension policies while there are virtually no incentives, other than better public relations, to decreasing that type of policing and emphasizing more community based de-escalation policies. That level of imbalance in incentives is why it's so hard to change the current style of policing.
In regards to the US-Mexico gun smuggling issue, the article you linked says this:
A 2013 study (pdf) by the University of San Diego and the Igarape Institute in Brazil -- and a follow-up to that report published in 2014 -- estimated that, on average, 212,887 firearms were bought in the US every year between 2010 and 2012, by purchasers who intended to traffic them. This represents some 580 weapons a day -- just 29 percent of the figure provided by CESOP.
While arms trafficking on the US-Mexico border is undoubtedly big business, the discrepancy between the two estimates highlights the uncertainty of just how many weapons are being trafficked into Mexico.
"Getting a firm grasp on the scope and scale of arms trafficking across the US-Mexico border is exceedingly difficult," Robert Muggah, an author of the joint 2013 study, told InSight Crime.
Until the Mexican government produces data that supports their claim of 200,000 firearms being illegally smuggled into their country from the US each day I don't see a reason to repeat their claim as fact.
Even in the USD/Igarape Institute study they repeat the same misleading claims:
AT F efforts to trace firearms provided
in Mexico have consistently found that an overwhelming proportion of firearms - as high as 90% - came to Mexico
from the United States (Serrano, 2008).12 For example, a 2007 AT F trace of firearms confiscated in Mexico found that
1,805 (73.5%) of 2,455 firearms came from three of the four U.S. border states: Arizona, California, and Texas (Marks,
2006). Likewise, a Government Accountability Office (GA O) report found that of 4,000 weapons traced by AT F (from an
original sample of 7,200 serial numbers sent from Mexico), some 3,480 (87%) could be traced to US dealers (McGreal,
2011).
The percentage of guns sent to the ATF for tracing that can be traced to the US is still only a subset of the number of guns confiscated by Mexican authorities. 3,480 is 87% of 4,000 but 3,480 is only 48% of 7,200 so where did the 52% of confiscated guns that weren't sent to the ATF for tracing come from?
Obviously straw purchases happen and are very rarely prosecuted because they are difficult to prove. Even when the ATF sets up sting operations to allegedly track the movement of straw purchased firearms to Mexico to effect arrests of high level smuggling ring members such as Operation Fast and Furious shows how the ATF can monitor gun walking but then have very little pay off for watching thousands of guns get walked across the border. We can't make straw purchases even more illegal than they already are and we can't put everyone who purchases a gun under surveillance to track their movements. We already have laws that limit the amount of guns a person can purchase at a time or over a set amount of time but that doesn't stop cartels or smuggling rings from just enlisting more people into their operations.
The best way to reduce the gun smuggling would be to reduce the demand which gets us back to how the federal, state and local governments legislate against drugs and enforce and prosecute drug crimes. Right now our laws create a high demand for illegal drugs and that high demand creates a hugely profitable illegal drug trade which creates violence as cartels and criminals vie for control of portions of that lucrative trade in illegal drugs.
jmurph wrote: There were 123 law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty in 2015 in the US. There were 2 in Britain; 1 shot. Different environments.
jmurph wrote: There were 123 law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty in 2015 in the US. There were 2 in Britain; 1 shot. Different environments.
And/or better Policing.
You can't even make a valid comparison. The environments are soo far apart from eachother.
jmurph wrote: There were 123 law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty in 2015 in the US. There were 2 in Britain; 1 shot. Different environments.
And/or better Policing.
You can't even make a valid comparison. The environments are soo far apart from eachother.
jmurph wrote: There were 123 law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty in 2015 in the US. There were 2 in Britain; 1 shot. Different environments.
And/or better Policing.
You can't even make a valid comparison. The environments are soo far apart from eachother.
Prestor Jon wrote: Until the Mexican government produces data that supports their claim of 200,000 firearms being illegally smuggled into their country from the US each day I don't see a reason to repeat their claim as fact.
The figure of 580 guns a day is the low ball figure. It's the lowest figure of what is considered a reasonable guess. And 580 is more than 200,000 a year.
I'm sorry, but any attempt to claim that the guns in Mexico aren't getting there from the US is just head in the sand stuff. It'd be no different to saying 'sure there's loads of drugs in Mexico and cartels that work to get their drugs in to other countries, but we can't know for sure if that's where lots of the drugs in the US are coming from'.
The percentage of guns sent to the ATF for tracing that can be traced to the US is still only a subset of the number of guns confiscated by Mexican authorities. 3,480 is 87% of 4,000 but 3,480 is only 48% of 7,200 so where did the 52% of confiscated guns that weren't sent to the ATF for tracing come from?
That's how sampling works. You send a sample, test that and measure it as a percentage of the whole. You don't have to test every single gun to get a decent measure of the total population.
We can't make straw purchases even more illegal than they already are and we can't put everyone who purchases a gun under surveillance to track their movements.
You could, though, track purchases by individuals to establish patterns. If a guy is buying multiple pistols and rifles each month, and then you run a check and he's working part time at Wendy's and has multiple priors for gang related crime... it's pretty safe to investigate and establish what he's doing. But that investigation would only start with information reaching local or federal police about one person buying multiple guns, likely from different gun stores. Collecting that information would require tracking gun purchases in a way that many Americans, and I'm guessing you yourself, wouldn't be comfortable with.
I'm not saying you should do it, that's up to you guys. But just be aware of what the options really are, and what turning away from those options costs.
The best way to reduce the gun smuggling would be to reduce the demand which gets us back to how the federal, state and local governments legislate against drugs and enforce and prosecute drug crimes. Right now our laws create a high demand for illegal drugs and that high demand creates a hugely profitable illegal drug trade which creates violence as cartels and criminals vie for control of portions of that lucrative trade in illegal drugs.
That would certainly play a part. And it's the flip side of the point I just made about the cost of looser gun laws. It's okay to have tight drug laws, a country can decide that if they want. But they should be honest in recognising that it pushes drug production and distribution in to criminal hands, and that will bring murder and police corruption with it. People just need to be honest about that.
Except the majority of guns used by cartels in Mexico captured by the gov't of Mexico are not traced to the US, especially not to straw purchases (guns from the US given to Gov of Mexico and then finding their way to the Cartels are not the guns we're talking about).
The majority of guns used do come from Central America or at least through Central America. The cartels tend to want actual military hardware, and have access to it. But not from guns purchased in US gun shops.
Prestor Jon wrote: Until the Mexican government produces data that supports their claim of 200,000 firearms being illegally smuggled into their country from the US each day I don't see a reason to repeat their claim as fact.
The figure of 580 guns a day is the low ball figure. It's the lowest figure of what is considered a reasonable guess. And 580 is more than 200,000 a year.
I'm sorry, but any attempt to claim that the guns in Mexico aren't getting there from the US is just head in the sand stuff. It'd be no different to saying 'sure there's loads of drugs in Mexico and cartels that work to get their drugs in to other countries, but we can't know for sure if that's where lots of the drugs in the US are coming from'.
The percentage of guns sent to the ATF for tracing that can be traced to the US is still only a subset of the number of guns confiscated by Mexican authorities. 3,480 is 87% of 4,000 but 3,480 is only 48% of 7,200 so where did the 52% of confiscated guns that weren't sent to the ATF for tracing come from?
That's how sampling works. You send a sample, test that and measure it as a percentage of the whole. You don't have to test every single gun to get a decent measure of the total population.
We can't make straw purchases even more illegal than they already are and we can't put everyone who purchases a gun under surveillance to track their movements.
You could, though, track purchases by individuals to establish patterns. If a guy is buying multiple pistols and rifles each month, and then you run a check and he's working part time at Wendy's and has multiple priors for gang related crime... it's pretty safe to investigate and establish what he's doing. But that investigation would only start with information reaching local or federal police about one person buying multiple guns, likely from different gun stores. Collecting that information would require tracking gun purchases in a way that many Americans, and I'm guessing you yourself, wouldn't be comfortable with.
I'm not saying you should do it, that's up to you guys. But just be aware of what the options really are, and what turning away from those options costs.
The best way to reduce the gun smuggling would be to reduce the demand which gets us back to how the federal, state and local governments legislate against drugs and enforce and prosecute drug crimes. Right now our laws create a high demand for illegal drugs and that high demand creates a hugely profitable illegal drug trade which creates violence as cartels and criminals vie for control of portions of that lucrative trade in illegal drugs.
That would certainly play a part. And it's the flip side of the point I just made about the cost of looser gun laws. It's okay to have tight drug laws, a country can decide that if they want. But they should be honest in recognising that it pushes drug production and distribution in to criminal hands, and that will bring murder and police corruption with it. People just need to be honest about that.
I'm not hiding my head in the sand or denying that some amount of guns are bought in US gun stores and smuggled into Mexico. I believe that the 2,000 guns per day figure can't be supported by data and was contrived to allow former president Calderon to make a stronger political point. I recognize that 580 is the lowball figure but at least it's supported by data and sound methodology, the number could be greater, is even likely to be greater but 580 is still a better substantiated figure than 2,000. I thought you agreed with that.
Breotan wrote: I think you may have missed a sentence or two in the article you quoted.
Nah, you should just click through on the links. The link about Mexican security forces being a source of weapons... still has all those weapons coming from the US. Seriously click through to the link - it talks about police and security forces being a key part of the operation to bring US guns across the border. And then it talks about 'recycling guns', ie taking weapons captured in raids out of police lockers before they are decommissioned and then selling them on the black market. At no point does it mention a primary source of weapons as being anywhere other than the US.
You make a fair point about the 2,000 per day count. I did wonder about whether to use that number or not, and decided in the end that the reply was punchier and shorter that it would otherwise be. I figured whether the figure was 580 or 2,000 it was still a lot. But I should have just used 580, so you make a fair call there.
The Mexican govt isn't sending guns to the ATF to be traced as a sampling, they're sending them to get confirmation. The 87% figure isn't accurate in regards to the percentage of the total of confiscated arms that are sourced to US gun stores.
https://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110209-mexicos-gun-supply-and-90-percent-myth
According to the GAO report, some 30,000 firearms were seized from criminals by Mexican authorities in 2008. Of these 30,000 firearms, information pertaining to 7,200 of them (24 percent) was submitted to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) for tracing. Of these 7,200 guns, only about 4,000 could be traced by the ATF, and of these 4,000, some 3,480 (87 percent) were shown to have come from the United States.
This means that the 87 percent figure relates to the number of weapons submitted by the Mexican government to the ATF that could be successfully traced and not from the total number of weapons seized by Mexican authorities or even from the total number of weapons submitted to the ATF for tracing. In fact, the 3,480 guns positively traced to the United States equals less than 12 percent of the total arms seized in Mexico in 2008 and less than 48 percent of all those submitted by the Mexican government to the ATF for tracing. This means that almost 90 percent of the guns seized in Mexico in 2008 were not traced back to the United States.
The remaining 22,800 firearms seized by Mexican authorities in 2008 were not traced for a variety of reasons. In addition to factors such as bureaucratic barriers and negligence, many of the weapons seized by Mexican authorities either do not bear serial numbers or have had their serial numbers altered or obliterated. It is also important to understand that the Mexican authorities simply don't bother to submit some classes of weapons to the ATF for tracing. Such weapons include firearms they identify as coming from their own military or police forces, or guns that they can trace back themselves as being sold through the Mexican Defense Department's Arms and Ammunition Marketing Division (UCAM). Likewise, they do not ask ATF to trace military ordnance from third countries like the South Korean fragmentation grenades commonly used in cartel attacks.
Of course, some or even many of the 22,800 firearms the Mexicans did not submit to ATF for tracing may have originated in the United States. But according to the figures presented by the GAO, there is no evidence to support the assertion that 90 percent of the guns used by the Mexican cartels come from the United States — especially when not even 50 percent of those that were submitted for tracing were ultimately found to be of U.S. origin.
Back in 2011 CBS news covered this, doing reporting on the massive increase in US gun manufacturers being authorized to sell large bulk shipments of arms directly to the Mexican army and the problem with those guns ending up in cartel hands.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/legal-us-gun-sales-to-mexico-arming-cartels/
CBS News investigative correspondent Sharyl Attkisson discovered that the official tracking all those guns sold through "direct commercial sales" leaves something to be desired.
One weapon - an AR-15-type semi-automatic rifle - tells the story. In 2006, this same kind of rifle - tracked by serial number - is legally sold by a U.S. manufacturer to the Mexican military.
Three years later - it's found in a criminal stash in a region wracked by Mexican drug cartel violence.
That prompted a "sensitive" cable, uncovered by WikiLeaks, dated June 4, 2009, in which the U.S. State Department asked Mexico "how the AR-15" - meant only for the military or police - was "diverted" into criminal hands.
And, more importantly, where the other rifles from the same shipment went: "Please account for the current location of the 1,030 AR-15 type rifles," reads the cable.
There's no response in the record.
The problem of weapons legally sold to Mexico - then diverted to violent cartels - is becoming more urgent. That's because the U.S. has quietly authorized a massive escalation in the number of guns sold to Mexico through "direct commercial sales." It's a way foreign countries can acquire firearms faster and with less disclosure than going through the Pentagon.
Here's how it works: A foreign government fills out an application to buy weapons from private gun manufacturers in the U.S. Then the State Department decides whether to approve.
And it did approve 2,476 guns to be sold to Mexico in 2006. In 2009, that number was up nearly 10 times, to 18,709. The State Department has since stopped disclosing numbers of guns it approves, and wouldn't give CBS News figures for 2010 or 2011.
With Mexico in a virtual state of war with its cartels, nobody's tracking how many U.S. guns are ending up with the enemy.
"I think most Americans are aware that there's a problem in terms of the drug traffickers in Mexico, increases in violence," said Bill Hartung, an arms control advocate with the Arms and Security Project at the Center for International Policy. "I don't think they realize that we're sending so many guns there, and that some of them may be diverted to the very cartels that we're trying to get under control."
The State Department audits only a tiny sample - less than 1 percent of sales - but the results are disturbing: In 2009, more than a quarter (26 percent) of the guns sold to the region that includes Mexico were "diverted" into the wrong hands, or had other "unfavorable" results.
NICS background checks don’t represent a one-to-one correspondence to increases in the private stock of firearms. Some NICS checks are performed for used guns. Some are completed for people obtaining a concealed carry permit, who aren’t necessarily purchasing a gun. Once people obtain a carry permit, most don’t need to go through the NICS system again if they purchase a gun. Also, several guns can be purchased by an individual on one NICS check.
Still, there is a high correlation between NICS checks and gun sales. In 2013, the last record year, one NICS check corresponded to .76 new private firearms. 2014 and 2015 are both very similar to 2013 in the number of NICS checks. The .76 ratio was used to extrapolate the increase in private firearms during those years.
17.5 million is a lot of guns. Even if just 2% of those guns were straw purchases made by Mexican cartel smuggling rings that would be just over 350,000 guns. Given the research done by the USD/Igarape study it's likely that more than 2% of purchases made in some FFL gun shops along the southern US border are straw purchases, the US govt's botched Fast and Furious operation also supports that likelihood. While the localized percentage of straw purchases is likely high on a national level there's no evidence to support a claim that there is a widespread problem with straw purchases. The ATF is responsible for policing the usage of every Federal Firearm License issued by the federal govt and making sure that no illegal or improper activity is being done with them. It appears that there is ample evidence to support the ATF devoting more resources to monitoring FFLs along the southern border and taking greater steps to prevent straw purchases in that region. I don't know why the ATF doesn't seem to be making that effort and/or why whatever effort they are making is ineffective but the ATF has the authority and responsibility to deal with the problem already, they can revoke any FFL if there's evidence of straw purchases or other illegal activity. Gun stores are already required to maintain federal paperwork, notably Form 4473 and those records are supposed to be checked by the ATF on a regular basis. Everyone who gets an FFL even individual FFLs for personal collections is required to keep records and provide those records to the ATF anytime they ask for them. More intensive policing by the ATF of FFLs along the southern border should be enough to cut down on straw purchases and we don't need any new laws for that because, again, monitoring FFLs is one of the primary jobs of the ATF. I would have no issue with the ATF taking a more intensive interest in policing FFLs along the southern border in an effort to decrease felonious straw purchases cartel gun smuggling.
I wholeheartedly agree with you that we need more honesty in society and in politics when it comes to laws and govt policies.
Buttery Commissar wrote: I had real trouble explaining this to a friend of mine from Wisconsin, that our police usually don't carry.
"How do they get people to listen?"
I'm in turn not used to a culture where a gun would be required to command attention. It's very hard for both sides to understand.
Pretty much this, I think part of at least the UK system is either trying to not get it out of hand, or failing that Strength in Numbers, most UK Towns are at most 10 minutes 'wide' meaning its very easy to direct a large amount of officers to a location very quickly, even our citys aren't that huge if your allowed to put on the sirens and hammer it (the coutryside sort of polices itself as everyone and their Mum is tooled up with Shotguns and assorted pointy farm equipment !)
Buttery Commissar wrote: I had real trouble explaining this to a friend of mine from Wisconsin, that our police usually don't carry.
"How do they get people to listen?"
I'm in turn not used to a culture where a gun would be required to command attention. It's very hard for both sides to understand.
Pretty much this, I think part of at least the UK system is either trying to not get it out of hand, or failing that Strength in Numbers, most UK Towns are at most 10 minutes 'wide' meaning its very easy to direct a large amount of officers to a location very quickly, even our citys aren't that huge if your allowed to put on the sirens and hammer it (the coutryside sort of polices itself as everyone and their Mum is tooled up with Shotguns and assorted pointy farm equipment !)
What's the common attitude towards police in the UK? I think that might also play a role in the difference between the countries. We tend to have a very cynical view of police with the police often seen as oppressive authority figures. Aside from some small towns I don't think the attitude of cops being friendly neighborhood peace keepers is prevalent at all. That adversarial relationship is a factor in the recent highly publicized fatal police encounters.
Buttery Commissar wrote: I had real trouble explaining this to a friend of mine from Wisconsin, that our police usually don't carry. "How do they get people to listen?"
I'm in turn not used to a culture where a gun would be required to command attention. It's very hard for both sides to understand.
Pretty much this, I think part of at least the UK system is either trying to not get it out of hand, or failing that Strength in Numbers, most UK Towns are at most 10 minutes 'wide' meaning its very easy to direct a large amount of officers to a location very quickly, even our citys aren't that huge if your allowed to put on the sirens and hammer it (the coutryside sort of polices itself as everyone and their Mum is tooled up with Shotguns and assorted pointy farm equipment !)
What's the common attitude towards police in the UK? I think that might also play a role in the difference between the countries. We tend to have a very cynical view of police with the police often seen as oppressive authority figures. Aside from some small towns I don't think the attitude of cops being friendly neighborhood peace keepers is prevalent at all. That adversarial relationship is a factor in the recent highly publicized fatal police encounters.
Attitude to police varies greatly. You get a lot of impoverished areas in cities that hate cops because they spend all day watching US TV programs spouting vitriol against US cops, and then misapply that to our police because benefit scroungers are too stupid to spot the difference. The average dude on the street tends to be neutral until thwacked with a baton one to many times, or until they get caught in a riot (at which point the crowd's IQ drops to be on par with the dumbest member). From what I've seen, anyone who has been helped by cops or knows someone in the police fore tends to be pretty favourable towards them. A good example of this was during the 2011 riots, people would hand out supplies of tea and whatnot to the police guarding their streets:
Yeah, if you just watched US tv, you would think that police are just going around willy nilly shooting and killing people. Odd thing is that the numbers we have indicate that police shootings have gone down over the years and generally tracked the overall decrease in violent crime. Yet the left is claiming some massive epidemic (fewer people were killed by police in 2015 than by falling) and the right is up in arms claiming some kind of crime epidemic (violent crime is pretty near historic lows). It's strange- we live in one of the safest eras in American history thanks to both law enforcement *and* more community focused and de-escalation polices, but nobody wants to believe that! But I guess i's kind of hard to polarize people with those facts.
What do we want? Incremental changes to continue systemic improvements!
When do we want it? On a rational timetable that allows adequate rollout and implementation of evaluation systems that can track progress!
Well, you're on the final push to eradiate this stuff then. It's gone from uncontested normalcy to an unexpected and outrageous phenomenon. Hopefully in a decade or two it'll be almost eradicated.
In Belgium, we have mostly the same events than for the rest of Europa. Sure, the news make it appear we have a lot of trouble with terrorists, but in all fairness, this is not what happens most of the time. The real trouble is right wing propaganda trying to exploit the fear of people for their own interests, but that's another matter and it's not new anyway.
But yes, talking with respect and showing to the other you're not his enemy solve a lot of troublesome situations. It's just basic communication, so simple that it should be dumb obvious but really, in these times that's something that has to be repeated. It doesn't only apply to police, however. It's handy anytime, anywhere, for any situation.
Don't be agressive, don't try to talk like you're superior, listen to the other, treat him on equal grounds, use facts rather than judgment, don't act on your feelings and keep a cool head.
Just that is enough to solve a wide number of troublesome situations.
If policemen use that rather than guns, it's not really a surprise the results are quite different. But then, of course, the situation in the USA isn't the same than in UK. Still, the results are there and I don't think it's reasonable to just ignore them completely.
Sarouan wrote: The real trouble is right wing propaganda trying to exploit the fear of people for their own interests, but that's another matter and it's not new anyway.
In my opinion, hundreds of people being shot, bombed, drived over and chopped to pieces by fanatics screaming religious slogans is a much bigger problem than right wing propaganda.
I'm not saying police always need guns, but I am saying that yearly, monthly and weekly terror is worse than people sharing their political views in a non-violent way.
What's the common attitude towards police in the UK?
Most people have a healthy or grudging respect for them; they tend to be decent enough to deal with.
There's a minority who hate them, but that tends to be because in their view the police pick on them, by arresting them for crimes, or taking their alcohol off them.
The biggest problem the police face in the UK tends to be that the public view them as a bit useless - they are understaffed to the point that they can't deal with petty issues, or are unduly focused on catching motorists breaking the law rather than real criminals.
Sarouan wrote: The real trouble is right wing propaganda trying to exploit the fear of people for their own interests, but that's another matter and it's not new anyway.
In my opinion, hundreds of people being shot, bombed, drived over and chopped to pieces by fanatics screaming religious slogans is a much bigger problem than right wing propaganda.
But how often does that realistically happen, and what difference would it make if people weren't told to worry about it by the right wing press?
Not claiming this site is impartial at all, but it's got the most complete list I could find. Just providing some numbers here, not making any points either way.
Herzlos wrote: unduly focused on catching motorists breaking the law rather than real criminals.
Non-serious motor crime is usually pretty easy to prove, and is generally a straight-to-fine affair. Probably nets them more money per year than their actual budget.
Prestor Jon wrote: I'm not hiding my head in the sand or denying that some amount of guns are bought in US gun stores and smuggled into Mexico. I believe that the 2,000 guns per day figure can't be supported by data and was contrived to allow former president Calderon to make a stronger political point. I recognize that 580 is the lowball figure but at least it's supported by data and sound methodology, the number could be greater, is even likely to be greater but 580 is still a better substantiated figure than 2,000. I thought you agreed with that.
Honestly I think whether it 580 or 2,000 guns a day, it is still a huge number of guns and more than enough to keep the cartels in business, when you remember that unlike the US guns aren't often disposed of after a shooting.
The Mexican govt isn't sending guns to the ATF to be traced as a sampling, they're sending them to get confirmation. The 87% figure isn't accurate in regards to the percentage of the total of confiscated arms that are sourced to US gun stores.
Ah, fair enough. I misread.
One weapon - an AR-15-type semi-automatic rifle - tells the story. In 2006, this same kind of rifle - tracked by serial number - is legally sold by a U.S. manufacturer to the Mexican military.
Three years later - it's found in a criminal stash in a region wracked by Mexican drug cartel violence.
That prompted a "sensitive" cable, uncovered by WikiLeaks, dated June 4, 2009, in which the U.S. State Department asked Mexico "how the AR-15" - meant only for the military or police - was "diverted" into criminal hands.
And, more importantly, where the other rifles from the same shipment went: "Please account for the current location of the 1,030 AR-15 type rifles," reads the cable.
Sure, but that's a single story about one group of rifles. It isn't relevant in the scheme of the 200k+ weapons that are going in to the US each year, at a minimum.
You go on the mention increasing weapons sales direct to the Mexican government, and maybe a worryingly high percentage are onsold to cartels. That's possible. But the high point you give is 18k, so if every single one of those guns was onsold to the cartels then it'd be 9% of the minimum number crossing the border.
It might be a problem and there's an argument that the US government should discontinue the sale of guns... but it is still a fraction of the problem of civilian guns being bought and smuggled across the border.
With Mexico in a virtual state of war with its cartels, nobody's tracking how many U.S. guns are ending up with the enemy.
The drug war has effectively been over for about 5 years. There's still a really high murder rate, of course, but the almost open warfare ended around 2011/2012.
The ATF is responsible for policing the usage of every Federal Firearm License issued by the federal govt and making sure that no illegal or improper activity is being done with them. It appears that there is ample evidence to support the ATF devoting more resources to monitoring FFLs along the southern border and taking greater steps to prevent straw purchases in that region. I don't know why the ATF doesn't seem to be making that effort and/or why whatever effort they are making is ineffective but the ATF has the authority and responsibility to deal with the problem already, they can revoke any FFL if there's evidence of straw purchases or other illegal activity.
As I understand, and I may be wrong, but the ATF is very limited in its ability to look at patterns in individual users. They can't go and collect purchase warrants for an entire region, for instance. They need a warrant to access the purchase records of individuals. This prevents them from performing any kind of stats review to pick out and red flag individuals with suspicious behaviour.
While 200,000 guns is a lot of guns it's only 1% of the estimated 17.5 million new guns that were purchased by private citizens in the US last year. Localized to the south west that 1% can be a decent chunk of gun store sales but nationally it's tiny fraction of our gun sales, 99% of guns sold by stores don't end up Mexico.
The story done by CBS in 2011 shows how the State Dept drastically increased the number of guns authorized to be sold by private manufacturers to the Mexican govt. In 2006 it was 2,500 and in 2009 it was 18,700. Then during the height of the drug war violence the State Dept, under SecState Clinton stopped disclosing the number of guns that US manufacturers were allowed to sell to the Mexican govt. We don't know how many guns were sold but the amount was growing exponentially and a quarter of the guns were going missing. The number of guns getting into cartel hands from those govt sales probably isn't a majority of the 200,000 annual figure but it could be a significant portion.
The ATF oversees the proper usage of every Federal Firearms License it issues. They have the right to conduct inspections and audits on ant gun store at any time and check their paperwork including the forms filled out by buyers. Those audits could reveal purchase patterns of individuals buying an inordinate number of guns or suspicious numbers of certain types of guns being sold. There seems to be ample evidence that such audits should be routinely done by the ATF at gun stores along the border in places like El Paso.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal The ATF deliberately let straw purchases happen in Arizona supposedly to help build criminal cases against cartel leaders. Gun store owners reported suspicious activity and probable straw purchasers but were instructed by the ATF to make the sales anyway. Over 2,000 guns from just a few stores were allowed to be trafficked to Mexico. No arrests of cartel members occurred but some straw purchasers were successfully prosecuted. The ATF could easily do a much better and effective job of combatting gun smuggling into Mexico but aren't doing so for whatever reason.
While 200,000 guns is a lot of guns it's only 1% of the estimated 17.5 million new guns that were purchased by private citizens in the US last year. Localized to the south west that 1% can be a decent chunk of gun store sales but nationally it's tiny fraction of our gun sales, 99% of guns sold by stores don't end up Mexico.
The question isn't 'how many US purchases end up Mexico?' The question is 'of all the guns that end up in Mexico, how many come from the US.' And the answer is '200,000 at least, probably something north of that, which means the US supplies somewhere between most and the overwhelming amount'.
The ATF oversees the proper usage of every Federal Firearms License it issues. They have the right to conduct inspections and audits on ant gun store at any time and check their paperwork including the forms filled out by buyers. Those audits could reveal purchase patterns of individuals buying an inordinate number of guns or suspicious numbers of certain types of guns being sold. There seems to be ample evidence that such audits should be routinely done by the ATF at gun stores along the border in places like El Paso.
The right to conduct audits means you have the right to check that paperwork exists and is in order, so that it can be used at a later date if you have a person you are suspicious of. It doesn't mean you can routinely collect data from paperwork in order to undertake data analysis as part of a red flag system.
And you might be right that the ATF has the power to do more than they can. I have no problem believing that the ATF, like any policing service, has a bad habit of spending lots of resources on big name targets, and spends little resources on grunt work like identifying, investigating and prosecuting individual straw purchases.
But I've also read a lot about the limitations state and federal police have in collecting and processing information on gun purchasing, and I've no reason to disbelieve those stories.
Herzlos wrote: unduly focused on catching motorists breaking the law rather than real criminals.
Non-serious motor crime is usually pretty easy to prove, and is generally a straight-to-fine affair. Probably nets them more money per year than their actual budget.
Yeah, a lot of people forget that traffic revenues are used to supplement taxes. So, if you don't want police pulling traffic duty, are you prepared to pay more taxes to make up the gap? Usually not. Plus, traffic stops are how a lot of much worse stuff gets found. I would guess that it is the most frequent way that people with outstanding arrest warrants get picked up.
Someone mentioned the police in Ireland before, I just wanted to add that the police forces here are so poorly equipped and their attitude is so bad that I have no confidence at all in their ability to do any actual protecting, and that bothers me.
Which is this guys opinion only Irish Gardai (police) are usually equipped with stab vests, batons and pepper spray. VS a person armed with a handgun or semi, absolutely they are fubar. No question.
However those incidents in Ireland are rare:
population/ access to weapons/ culture/lack of serious organised crime (on a huge scale)/ minimal "lone wolf shootings"/experience from Northern Ireland/ "island" mentality - (how far are you going to run?) /tight nit local communities/quick SDU response/ Irish mentality/outlook on life/ difficulty of access for extrmeists (island)/
However in Dublin and larger population centers we have whats called the SDU who are effectively a SWAT unit.
Also most detectives in Ireland are armed (despite what people think - 25% of police).
Point being, you dont hear about Irish police in serious firefights because of the above the reasons.
And if a serious wave of violence breaks out the SDU come in.
There have of course been shooters in Ireland (CBA to find the links_) and some have been shot but its usually a drunk/disgruntled geezer with a shotgun VS 20 SDU.
Anywho, to answer the OPs question - unarmed cops dont protect their citizens via show of force or overwhelming firepower.
They do it through all of the above reasons. And of course that cant work for every country.
Question: say Russia - huge population, many disgruntled - why no major/mass shootings there? (I know very differnt to Ireland). Or Portugal/Spain/Poland/Italy/Switzerland/Nordics (bar Breslin).
Ratius wrote: Or Portugal/Spain/Poland/Italy/Switzerland/Nordics (bar Breslin).
Our government and various terrorist organizations have had a monopoly on mass killing for so long that we just don't know how to do that.
"Passion" murders or whatever happen, of course, and they are horrifying things, but killing multiple people on a public place? That hasn't happened in a while, especially after ETA said "feth this job" and disbanded.
And interestingly enough, despite some pretty dark* episodes in their not-so-far past people seem pretty confident in the police and Guardia Civil (our Gendarmerie Nationale/Carabinieri equivalent) with a "solid" 6/10 vs the 1.88/10 for our politicians.
*And with dark I mean DARK, covered in blood and calcium oxide. And not only during fascism, during the first years of democracy they conducted what can only be described as State Terrorism.
Just to add to the point about the Irish police - my dad was one (if you remember the Batdad thread about the girl who got tased).
There are some armed police - detectives and the SDU as noted. But they are rarely deployed and very rarely shoot anyone.
This is because of cultural factors that have been explained. It is also worth noting that the police force was set up to be neutral during a civil war and was not supposed to be on any particular "side" - the name Garda Síochána means protectors of the peace and that was the original philosophy of the force. So they have a much more community focused approach.
This is slowly being eroded by overexposure to american culture and societal change, but I guess it's still there.
I don't think such an approach could really work in America. For one, it's just a lot bigger and more diverse so communities are more likely to be significantly different from the policeman who is patrolling there. One of the great strengths of the Gardaí when dealing with the IRA and so on is that they were well known on a personal level in the community and could be trusted by the people there, so they got told things. (Of course the flip side of this is corruption - cosy arrangements between locals and police led to a good few cases).
And of course, the prevalence of handguns is high in the US. In Ireland, there are a lot of shotguns. Single or Double barrelled, no pump action or any that can hold more than 2 shells at a time. Most gun crime is done with sawn offs. But a shotgun that can fire two shots before needing to be reloaded is not as dangerous or easy to conceal as a handgun, so they are not used all that frequently.
It's a totally different sort of situation so it requires a different style of policing. I prefer the Irish situation but I'm not ignorant enough to think it would work in the US.
