Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

With the recent death of two police officers in a random attack in Manchester, is it time for the police force to arm themselves on a wider scale?

I don't think so, and I don't think it would have helped in the Manchester case. They were apparently ambushed, and probably wouldn't have got a shot off even if they'd been armed.

The fact is it's unbelievably rare for a police officer to get shot in the UK. Because they're not armed, criminals by and large don't feel they need to be either. If the police were routinely armed, it would just lead to escalation where anyone planning to commit a crime would want to be carrying a firearm in case they ran into the police.

When surveyed, front-line British police overwhelmingly say they don't want to be routinely armed. I'm inclined to take their word for it.

I have no comment/opinion on what your country does with regards to fire arms control for its citizens or police force.

In this same vein, I have no patience for any non-American's opinions on my country's fire arms controls.

I'm very sorry for the loss of your policemen, though.

I think armed response units are the best option for the UK right now. If shootings were more of a commodity then there would be little choice in the matter, as it stands I'm not sure that it's wise, let alone worth the cost of arming and training the entire force to use pistols etc.

Does anybody know if bulletproof vest are standard for beat officers or not?

Bobbies and PCSO's get stab vests when they are out and about.

Given what I saw on the first two seasons of Sherlock, you'd think London had more guns than Texas.

I'd say no. The more guns you have, the more "accidents" will occur.

Remember that Brazilian guy on the tube shortly after 7/7? And that was trained fire arm officers.

They need either guns...or a more effective way to defend themselves.

What happened to those two police officers should NOT have happened. Heads should roll for that.

No, arming the police would lead to gangs arming themselves which would resolve in more deaths.

Armed response team work, no need to change it

Unlike Kronk I do have an opinion.
No.
Here in the US there are more guns in private hands than anywhere else in the world. You are something like 11 times more likely to be shot by the police than a police officer is to be shot by a member of the public. In your society it is simply imprudent to indroduce deadly force on a wide scale.

Do your bobbies have tasers?

Arm them and then what? They approach even the most benign situations in a heavy handed response on the off chance it's a trick?

I can't see why a knee jerk reaction like this even crosses peoples minds, he tricked the Police and they were caught off guard. It's a tragic story perpetrated by a disgusting individual.

I thought the argument I would have seen here would be for the Death Penalty in this guys case. There is no doubt that this man committed these crimes, in this case it would be cheaper to kill him rather than keep him in jail for another 40/50 years.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Do your bobbies have tasers?

Some do, not all.

More on Police gear.

 RossDas wrote:
I think armed response units are the best option for the UK right now. If shootings were more of a commodity then there would be little choice in the matter...

Commodity?

No, I don't think the general beat officers should be armed. We already have armed response units, and armed police at airports etc. There aren't as many firearms in the country as there are in the US (Not by a long shot ) and they are (mostly) owned by law abiding individuals. Certainly not enough to justify the arming of all police, as it would require a hell of a lot more training, and for every single officer rather than a select few. Knee jerk reactions like this (albeit in the opposite direction) after the Dunblane shootings got a blanket ban on pistols, which makes them harder to get hold of. Legally owned firearms are much harder to conceal. (I think the definition of pistol in this case is "any firearm under 2ft long" - Correct me if I'm wrong on that) So I see less reasons to worry in that case.

This is a terrible incident don't get me wrong, but apparently they were ambushed, and them having their own firearms is unlikely to have made too much difference.

Frazz - We do have police with Tazers - but I'm pretty sure they aren't issued to to general officers for normal duties.

EDIT - Ninja'd - Thanks for the link Medium

How many unarmed police officers do you lose to violent crime in a year?

How many more people do you think would suffer firearms-related injuries each year if the police were armed?

Do you think that arming police officers would have a deterrent effect on violent criminals?

What the UK does should be with the support of their citizens. If the citizens do not believe their bobbies should have guns, then their society is making that decision and will work with the positive benefits or negative consequences.

Now my Texan opinion about Stateside firearms:
There are laws that men make to help civilization work properly and then there are simple rules of survival. When civilized rules go out the window, he who has the gun makes the rules. Criminals break the laws and therefore don't follow rules, especially in the paradox of "gun control." Criminals, dictators and politicians prefer unarmed law-abiding citizens.

Now mind you, Texas has very clear rules about what is legal and isn't. So as a good citizen and productive member of society and trained in firearms, I can and have shown that I'm responsible enough to carry a firearm to defend myself. I have a license to do so. That and the laws are very clear about what self-defense is. Your rights to firearms are revoked if you show you can't play well with others in society and have to visit our fine rehabilitative facilities in Huntsville or other unsavory places in Texas.

This can turn into a "well if cops have guns we gangs need them too" "well criminals have them so cops need them" cycle of argument. Unfortunately, the problem isn't the guns, its the criminals and human nature. A viable solution is needed. Regulation of guns has shown over and over again that criminals will still be the only ones having them if regular citizens can't. Just look at Australia and Canada and the millions of dollars they've spent on getting weapons out of the hands of their citizens. Now they have unarmed citizens and still-armed criminals.

I feel bad for the police who ended up being victims of this act of violence.

Tibbsy wrote:
No, I don't think the general beat officers should be armed. We already have armed response units, and armed police at airports etc. There aren't as many firearms in the country as there are in the US (Not by a long shot ) and they are (mostly) owned by law abiding individuals. Certainly not enough to justify the arming of all police, as it would require a hell of a lot more training, and for every single officer rather than a select few. Knee jerk reactions like this (albeit in the opposite direction) after the Dunblane shootings got a blanket ban on pistols, which makes them harder to get hold of. Legally owned firearms are much harder to conceal. (I think the definition of pistol in this case is "any firearm under 2ft long" - Correct me if I'm wrong on that) So I see less reasons to worry in that case.

This is a terrible incident don't get me wrong, but apparently they were ambushed, and them having their own firearms is unlikely to have made too much difference.

Frazz - We do have police with Tazers - but I'm pretty sure they aren't issued to to general officers for normal duties.

EDIT - Ninja'd - Thanks for the link Medium

I'm surprised about the no tasers thing. Its a much better alternate than a stick and doesn't have the potential for permanent injury like a large object upside the head (which I happen to have).

This incident is clear that the police's non-lethal methods of defending themselves is ineffective. They need better non-lethal weapons.

 Frazzled wrote:

Tibbsy wrote:
No, I don't think the general beat officers should be armed. We already have armed response units, and armed police at airports etc. There aren't as many firearms in the country as there are in the US (Not by a long shot ) and they are (mostly) owned by law abiding individuals. Certainly not enough to justify the arming of all police, as it would require a hell of a lot more training, and for every single officer rather than a select few. Knee jerk reactions like this (albeit in the opposite direction) after the Dunblane shootings got a blanket ban on pistols, which makes them harder to get hold of. Legally owned firearms are much harder to conceal. (I think the definition of pistol in this case is "any firearm under 2ft long" - Correct me if I'm wrong on that) So I see less reasons to worry in that case.

This is a terrible incident don't get me wrong, but apparently they were ambushed, and them having their own firearms is unlikely to have made too much difference.

Frazz - We do have police with Tazers - but I'm pretty sure they aren't issued to to general officers for normal duties.

EDIT - Ninja'd - Thanks for the link Medium

I'm surprised about the no tasers thing. Its a much better alternate than a stick and doesn't have the potential for permanent injury like a large object upside the head (which I happen to have).

Well the voltage is lethal to some people at least with nightsticks you can kind of control how much force you use with it.

First and foremost, the deaths of these two policewomen was a tragedy, and the killer should be locked away for the rest of his life.

On with the main issue: should your average joe policeman in the UK be armed? Hell no. I don't like the police that much. I don't hate them, but I don't like them. It's a difficult and thankless task, but I remember growing up in the 1980s and the hassle I got just for being black and in the wrong place.
Too many times have I seen the police use excessive force when common sense would have prevailed and calmed a situation down. This week, British news was reporting on the Hillsborough tragedy and how the police tried to launch a mass cover up operation. This year, we have seen elements of the police engage in corruption and collusion with various UK media outlets. In short, the police have had a bad year with various reports painting them in a bad light. They have a lot of work to do to earn people's trust again in the UK.

This article lists British police officers killed in the line of duty since 1900.
Thousands of police officers in Britain are believed to have died during the course of their duties, but this article includes only those who were killed as a direct result of a crime or while attempting to prevent, stop or solve a specific criminal act. The list omits those who died in more common or regular circumstances, such as in road traffic accidents or air raids during the Second World War.[1]
The list also omits the more than 300 officers of the former Royal Ulster Constabulary[2] and current Police Service of Northern Ireland who were killed during The Troubles in Northern Ireland.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_police_officers_killed_in_the_line_of_duty

Well the voltage is lethal to some people at least with nightsticks you can kind of control how much force you use with it.

Nightsticks don't react fast enough and put the Officer in question, in danger.

You shouldn't be surprised about Tasers. Tasers simply make it easier to reach for a push button response instead of actually accessing and resolving a majority of situations. Thier use has drawn a lot of criticism from older cops, not the back to the revolver types; just guys who think policing is more than force.
People also remember a bone crushing beating as a deterrent a hell of a lot longer than being tased or maced. Trust me.

 Frazzled wrote:


I'm surprised about the no tasers thing. Its a much better alternate than a stick and doesn't have the potential for permanent injury like a large object upside the head (which I happen to have).

I believe the police are trained to strike at the legs, behind the knees and not the face. You bring the suspect to the ground with minimum potential of severely harming them.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


I'm surprised about the no tasers thing. Its a much better alternate than a stick and doesn't have the potential for permanent injury like a large object upside the head (which I happen to have).

I believe the police are trained to strike at the legs, behind the knees and not the face. You bring the suspect to the ground with minimum potential of severely harming them.

What about when the cameras aren't on?

 AustonT wrote:
You shouldn't be surprised about Tasers. Tasers simply make it easier to reach for a push button response instead of actually accessing and resolving a majority of situations. Thier use has drawn a lot of criticism from older cops, not the back to the revolver types; just guys who think policing is more than force.
People also remember a bone crushing beating as a deterrent a hell of a lot longer than being tased or maced. Trust me.

Getting OC sprayed fething sucks. I'd call it a decent deterrent. No idea how it compares to getting tased, but I'm not signing up for the test.

Its a shocking to see

 Albatross wrote:

 RossDas wrote:
I think armed response units are the best option for the UK right now. If shootings were more of a commodity then there would be little choice in the matter...

Commodity?

Common place is what I meant to say; rushed my post a bit while making a curry!

I believe that older and more experienced policemen pretty quickly learn how to put someone down fast with a baton, regardless of training.

The british police are interesting. They've got, like most of the civil service in the UK it would seem, a mountain of pointless paperwork weighing them down at every turn. People are generally unhappy with them and they seem generally unhappy, themselves. They would never go into the area I lived in without at least five officers. But all of that aside, every single police officer I dealt with was approachable, reassuring and helpful. When I was the victim of crime they did their jobs and I had no complaints.

I reckon they don't need guns. Gun crime isn't common enough and the UK isn't (yet) lawless enough on a wide scale to warrant it. From my experience, of course. I do think they need to be cut loose from some of the mountains of paperwork to actually patrol- I barely ever saw a copper on the beat anywhere except the main streets on saturday night.

My dad is a retired Irish policeman, and they're even less armed than the british. He's had firearms training, and carried a gun at certain times, such as when he was guarding explosives during the Troubles. But he reckons the best way to police is to get the community on side, and that's harder to do when you or someone you work with has shot people in the community.

Unfortunately, policing is a dangerous job. Policemen know that when they sign up and they get paid to compensate for it, the same as soldiers. They are inevitably going to get hurt in the line of duty. The number of fights my father has been in has left him fairly physically damaged. He sleeps with a machine on his face, darth vader style, because his nose has been broken so frequently it partially blocks his airways. His feet are a constant source of pain. He's had fractures to most parts of his face and he's broken a good few ribs, taken a few knife wounds and so on. But the respect he commands in the locality, even in retirement, is tremendous. The same is true of all our local police. They are not looked on with a large degree of animosity, even by dodgy types. And the public outcry when one dies is enormous. It's terrible that these officers died, but it doesn't mean policy has to change.

I'm biased, but I've always been happy that if you kill a police officer, the gak hits the fan and they drop everything to find you and put you away. We had the death penalty for killing police officers until recently, it was the only crime we had it for, and I will admit, lefty softy that I am, I was ambivalent about it being taken away.

 Frazzled wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


I'm surprised about the no tasers thing. Its a much better alternate than a stick and doesn't have the potential for permanent injury like a large object upside the head (which I happen to have).

I believe the police are trained to strike at the legs, behind the knees and not the face. You bring the suspect to the ground with minimum potential of severely harming them.

What about when the cameras aren't on?

This is the UK. The cameras are always on.