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.

Nah, I think that's not the case everywhere.

I don't see how keeping the peace earns the displeasure of the public, either. But maybe I count as police

 Testify wrote:

 Mr. Burning wrote:

The police need our respect and they have to earn it.

You've never met a police officer have you?

Granted it's probably a case of a few bad apples, but I have no sympathy at all for the police.

.

Met by, interviewed and charged by the police sonny jim! It's all very polite and amicable if you arent a complete 'tard.

All in all coppers do a good job and I dont understand the animosity most have, my experience muts have been a good (bad) one.

I generally have a good opinion of the Po-Po. That opinion plummets the second I get a speeding ticket, but then comes back up to positive as time passes.

Also, I like to watch Cops. Some of the jerk-wads they have to deal with need a thump-un!

Funnily enough I think a lot of negagtivity comes from heresay from criminals and their friends and families, especially those who are convicted more than once.

Ir jaded at law enforcement from TV news and what not

"I are jaded" you what? Edit: It seems the auto correct fixes the "r" to be "are".

Anyway, all experiences with police officers have been good for me.

I'm amused at the most vocal people I know who dislike the police do so because they were caught speeding and were forced to pay a fine. Yawn.

Da Boss wrote:
Nah, I think that's not the case everywhere.

I don't see how keeping the peace earns the displeasure of the public, either. But maybe I count as police

In much of the world its not just disdain, its terror.

I think it's just that the British complain about everything, it a proud national tradition. Also historically the british police have operated on a policy of enforcement through consent of the people rather than enforcement by strength.

Police should be armed. Period. There is no debate to be had here. You cannot put an officer on the street without a weapon unless you want a big painted bullseye on em too.

 Surtur wrote:
Police should be armed. Period. There is no debate to be had here. You cannot put an officer on the street without a weapon unless you want a big painted bullseye on em too.

Or you could realize that different cultures have different social contracts and arming bobbies would violate the trust of the people they are there to serve

Ex copper here.

Arming police does not necessarily lead to an armed criminal element. If those criminals were able to easily get guns, they would already have them regardless of the armed nature of the police. The exception is large organised groups of criminals who are planning a special event that they feel requires some extra 'punch' like the North Hollywood shoutout, but again the types and volumes of firearms those people have will not be dictated by the street copper. The street copper will only be a token presence at an event like that, as the force response unit will be present.

Also, a gun is an appropriate response to any situation that presents a reasonable immediate danger to life, or a reasonable and immediate threat of serious injury. Obviously not something like a car accident or falling off a cliff. Don't be stupid. But if someone comes at you with a knife, a gun is an appropriate response. If they come at you with a lump of wood, similarly a gun is an appropriate response.

Let me give you a real life example: Two crooks are on a bus. They do something wrong and the local police are called. This is a small one-man station, so the lone police officer responds and puts the two crooks in the back seat of his sedan. This is a no-no, as police sedans in Australia are not suitable for prisoner transport. We use vans for that. But this copper has been in the job for a while and thinks himself a good judge of character. He doesn't think these two crooks are going to give him a hard time.

He is wrong.

Half-way back to the station, one of the crooks produces a small pocket knife, reaches forward from the back seat, and stabs the cop in the neck. The cop manages to stop the car and get out, drawing his gun. But he's bleeding heavily. He's miles from no where, and there's no traffic on the road. He's about to lose consciousness, and there's two criminals still sitting in the back seat who have already demonstrated they're happy to kill him.

They currently present no threat. They know they can't get out of the car without him shooting them.

Luckily a civilian happened along the road and the copper was able to get a lift into town with them, leaving the crooks in the car. But had that car not happened along, that copper would have been justified in shooting and killing those crooks because even though they were just sitting in the back seat at the time, he had a reasonable belief that were he to pass out, they would finish the job.

IMO, Police need firearms to protect themselves in certain situations. An armed response unit simply isn't sufficient. And while being armed may not have saved the two women recently murdered in Britain, if they'd been armed perhaps this crook would not have even attempted to ambush them. We'll never know.

Why did the officer in you scenario not frisk the suspects, why were they not cuffed, why did the officer not wait for a van. You can't use an officer who didn't do his job properly as an example of why every officer needs a gun. In addition, in your scenario the officer would not be in the right to shoot the suspects just because they might present a danger in the future, he could shoot them if they attempted to exit the vehicle and attack him but if they were already detained in the back of the car and did';t present an immediate danger to himself or others then that's murder pure and simple

 youbedead wrote:
Why did the officer in you scenario not frisk the suspects, why were they not cuffed, why did the officer not wait for a van. You can't use an officer who didn't do his job properly as an example of why every officer needs a gun.

Because he was too long in the job, over-confident and set in his ways. It happens. My point with the story wasn't to support the theory that every copper needs a gun, but that the situations when using a gun is reasonable are wide and varied. He'd probably done the same thing a hundred times with local crooks.

In addition, in your scenario the officer would not be in the right to shoot the suspects just because they might present a danger in the future, he could shoot them if they attempted to exit the vehicle and attack him but if they were already detained in the back of the car and did';t present an immediate danger to himself or others then that's murder pure and simple

They'd displayed their intent through overt actions. It was perfectly reasonable to assume that, had the officer lost consciousness, that they would murder him. Given that reasonable belief, he would have been shooting them to protect his own life.

Complacent.

 youbedead wrote:

 Surtur wrote:
Police should be armed. Period. There is no debate to be had here. You cannot put an officer on the street without a weapon unless you want a big painted bullseye on em too.

Or you could realize that different cultures have different social contracts and arming bobbies would violate the trust of the people they are there to serve

The trust is that the people are going to be protected and officers who abuse that are disciplined. Taking away tools from an officer isn't helping.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dI6hzeOfpBI

Police over zealousness is often greatly over exaggerated by the media. Yes they do screw up. But more often than not, the 15 seconds of video or the picture you see is not enough to judge what is going on in a situation or what led up to it.

And in the cases where police are abusing their power, its usually not with a gun. usually its with their batons, pepper spray, and good ol' fisticuffs.

 Grey Templar wrote:
And in the cases where police are abusing their power, its usually not with a gun. usually its with their batons, pepper spray, and good ol' fisticuffs.

Like this abuse?


Being pepper spray'ed aint no joke...

That was a case of the media running wild.

You should see the unedited version of the tape.

 Grey Templar wrote:
That was a case of the media running wild.

You should see the unedited version of the tape.

Yeah I know...

I just don't understand why they can't just pick them up, put 'em in the wagon and dump 'em in the cell.

Pepper spraying is a bit "much".

From the video it was clearly not an effective deterrent.

I say that policemen that respond to riots and protests should switch to bear spray. pepper spray is ok for beatwork, but people that are wipped up with Mob Mentality can resist it fairly consistantly.

It is quite difficult to explain the British mentality of policing to Americans, but as I said before the british mentality of policing through consent were police serve the public rather than the state is different to the US.

Im sure this was posted previosly but just read this

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19641398

I don't see how its any different to us. We have given consent for an armed police force, not only that we have decided its a requirement they be armed.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I don't see how its any different to us. We have given consent for an armed police force, not only that we have decided its a requirement they be armed.

Because in the US the police are viewed as working for the state and not the public. When the met first started they made great efforts to distance themselves as much as possible from the army and the government, it's actually a pretty american concept if you think about it.

 youbedead wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I don't see how its any different to us. We have given consent for an armed police force, not only that we have decided its a requirement they be armed.

Because in the US the police are viewed as working for the state and not the public. When the met first started they made great efforts to distance themselves as much as possible from the army and the government, it's actually a pretty american concept if you think about it.

Really?

I consider them working for the public... like Fire Depts...

State and Federal police maybe, but local police are definitly viewed as public servants. I view all police as public servants personally.

 Grey Templar wrote:
State and Federal police maybe, but local police are definitly viewed as public servants. I view all police as public servants personally.

Me too...

Maybe because I friends with one of them?? When he talks about his job, always phrase it in a way that his job serves the public...

Every cop I've met has been a real nice guy.

And the Highway Patrol are real cool. They're the CA Governor's bodyguards.

Huh... didn't know that.

That's cool.

See Britons? They're people too!

 Jihadin wrote:
Complacent.

How about this scenario? They stab him in the neck and then take his gun and car. Now you've armed the criminals.

This was the argument for arming police? To give them some protection if they become lax about procedure? Yeah, that's exactly the responsible individual we want to give a gun.

I think that a gun would clash considerably with the downright adorable appearance that bobbies are clearly going for. The checkered hat band, the Mini Cooper or similar Euro economy car, the British accent...