Arming the Police

mamba80

Should our Police be routinely armed?
i ask as there is a review on police protection in light of the recent attacks in france/belgium and the threat to the jewish community, apparently Chief constables are looking at a wider use of Tazers? :roll:

Obviously this cannot be done over night and i d like see tougher standards esp the physical side before anyone can join the Police force but i do think we cannot have our heads in the sand over this.

rick_chasey

Best thing about UK police is that bobbies don't have guns.

Police have plenty of guns. They're used by real specialists and using or even threatening to use deadly force is only used in exceptional circumstances. Principally that's because it has to be a big deal to get them out. It means police will only escalate when they have to, rather than because they can. 99% of the time that's a good thing.

So keep things as they are in that respect.

pblakeney

I heard an interview with an ex-policeman from somewhere that uses guns (I cannot recall where from).
His point was that once you have a gun then in every fight the primary concern is not to lose that gun so it is prudent to pull the gun and threaten to use it. As a minimum.

Manc33

If criminals have guns, cops need guns.
If cops have guns, criminals need guns.

The chances of me emigrating get more likely every year.

JayKosta

It depends on what effect police are expected (desired) to have on an active (current or potential) dangerous person.
And how much personal injury risk they accept doing so.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

ballysmate

I don't think that the police should be routinely armed, it truly is a specialised role. That said, I believe that armed support should be readily available, necessitating more ARVs and suitably trained officers. Not cheap though.

frisbee

No, they shouldn't be routinely armed.

Guns change the whole dynamic, it sets the police apart from society and they end up at "war" with it.

team47b

Manc33 wrote:

If criminals have guns, cops need guns.
If cops have guns, criminals need guns.

The chances of me emigrating get more likely every year.

I live in a country where the police are all armed, including the ones sent out to give out parking tickets

An actual case that I know about...CCTV footage showed a gang of crims robbing a shop at night, the police arrived and waited until they left. The reason...the police could see that the crims had bigger guns! :roll:

meanredspider

I think, when surveyed, the majority of the police don't want to be routinely armed. Personally, I can't see a good reason to change this.

Somebody also made a point once that our police service serve the public not the government and, in that role, weapons don't make sense.

As has been pointed out, it only makes real sense to arm the police if it gives them superiority over the criminals. As was clearly seen in the Paris shootings, the police were ineffective faced with heavily armed criminals - even the police car blocking their way cleared off (sensibly). On the downside, the US is facing particular challenges over the shooting of unarmed people. One of the cases there, the officer was (apparently) worried he was going to be shot with his own weapon.

plowmar

I believe that police in France and Belgium are routinely armed, and that didn't stop the atrocities in those countries.

As said before ordinary plods should not be armed, with offensive weapons.

mamba80

interesting responses and of course cs spray and tasers are offensive weapons and eaths have occured with their use.
personally i think the quality of the avg policeman is country is poor and i wouldnt trust many of them with a tesar let alone a gun but i think we need to accept that fundamentalist terrosim is here to stay and given the massive public service cuts we are all experiencing, i think that giving out electric stun guns to protect the avg bobby from some heavily armed is nt a great idea.
the idea of having far more specialist armed units would be a great idea but it isnt one i ve heard the government espouse.

finchy

There have been very few deaths in this country due to Islamic fundamentalists (more people will be killed in the next fortnight on the roads than the number of victims of Islamic terrorism in the last 10 years) and armed police would have been unable to prevent a single one of those deaths anyway, so I would say that no, giving up a part of our way of life and changing the relationship between the ordinary public and the police force just to deal with this threat (and let's face it, the terrorists would quickly adapt tactics anyway) is just not worth it.

bikes`n`guns

For me it would be too much of a change from the police "upholding" the law towards them "enforcing" the law.

Plus, the ones I`ve met shouldn`t be trusted with guns. I routinely use firearms and the average copper that I`ve dealtwith would need extensive training to be competent with them.
Plus, I have come across too many who are simply indoctrinated with that arrogant attitude that the police encourage, and that's a bad thing to have when armed.

Mike Healey

Just a couple of thoughts:

1. 1 in 7 US police officers who are shot in the line of duty are shot with their own weapon
2. August '12 or '13 (can't remember which) some New Yorker went US postal and was shot by the police. 7 passersby injured - all by ricochets or masonry fragments from police bullets

napoleond

Interesting to hear some of these comments.

Sad to see a low opinion of the police in this country. Dread to think what that makes other countries' police services like as I like to think ours are pretty much up there with the best.

rick_chasey

NapoleonD wrote:

Interesting to hear some of these comments.

Sad to see a low opinion of the police in this country. Dread to think what that makes other countries' police services like as I like to think ours are pretty much up there with the best.

Tbh my experience of other police in other nations has been poor - it's one thing my foreign friends comment on: how police here are a lot more polite etc and that rings true to me too.

But ultimately stuff in the news like plebgate, Charles de Menezes makes me uneasy. I very rarely come into contact with police but I do the news so that colours my view. Finally my indirect experience through a black friend are rather disappointing. Have said it before - him getting stopped every night we all went out - never anyone else (white) in the group etc.

So you're probably right - UK police seem to be better than others I've seen.

Doesn't mean they could do more to regain some lost trust from the public they serve...

tangled_metal

Expensive to train them to the level they'd need to go up against the likes of the Paris terrorists. If you only train to use basic hand gun they'll be outgunned. A lot of modern terrorists have been trained to a fairly sophisticated level apparently. That was something I heard from a security expert on the news.

Thinking guns for all police for what could happen is a good idea when it's unlikely the community Bobby for Nether Wallop will encounter the terrorists just smacks of desperation. We have armed and highly trained police right now. In some areas I think you'd be surprised at just how many are armed. I once saw something on a news programme with an ex senior police officer who stated that metropolitan areas often had significant numbers. However the difference between here and other countries is the majority aren't routinely armed and we've not had that many terrorist attacks that guns would have stopped. The UK is probably a big target for Islamic terrorists I reckon so something is working.

One of our advantages is republican terrorism. A lot of people lived through the period of mainland bombing campaigns. This gives UK a large proportion of the population who's more aware of potential suspicious circumstances. An aware population can be the real difference with terrorism.

Can I just add that the arming of the police comes up routinely. Always straight after a terrorist attack somewhere in the west. It never happens, why is that? The terrorist attacks promote fear which drives thoughts to armed police. In the cold light of day, when things have calmed down, the powers that be analyze it and it never happens. People don't have the appetite for armed police, neither do the police and the politicians. Not our culture to universally arm police, they're just not set up for it.

finchy

NapoleonD wrote:

Interesting to hear some of these comments.

Sad to see a low opinion of the police in this country. Dread to think what that makes other countries' police services like as I like to think ours are pretty much up there with the best.

When I was living in Slovakia, the mafia openly held meetings in restaurants in the town centre in broad daylight and put armed guards (guns just about showing) on the front door to stop anyone else going in. The police turned a blind eye.

I taught an ex-police detective in Slovenia and he told me that he quit the force out of boredom. Crime levels are so low there that he had virtually nothing to do. So probably you're better than them as well as you at least have some serious crimes to solve.

France - fascists with badges.

Hungary - I never really had to deal with the police there, but Hungarians tell me that one of the pleasant things about coming to England is that you can actually ask the police for help.

So that's British police forces 4 - Johnny Foreigner police 0.

meanredspider

I come back to the point that the police themselves don't want to be armed. Surely we should give the people actually doing the job some credit for knowing what they need in order to be effective?

MountainMonster

As an American who has dealt with police in both the UK and the US (traffic violations) I would guess my opinion and experience may matter somewhat. The biggest difference between the US and the UK in terms of the police needing guns is the population there is much more armed than here in the UK, which drives the need forward. If guns were more common place here, it would maybe necessitate police officers being armed.

But luckily, I don't see the need for it. I shoot shotguns regularly with my wife at our local gun club, and many others do too, but that is about as far as it gets here.

I would be very disappointed if the UK switched over to guns, as that will drive the criminals and no-gooders to buy bigger ones to keep a step, which only promotes a vicious circle.

rick_chasey

MountainMonster wrote:

I would guess my opinion and experience may matter somewhat.

Not really.

It's an internet forum mate!

Manc33

Remember when that guy drove a Jeep into the side of a Scottish airport terminal and it caught fire? Thats about the only act of actual terrorism I can point to that wasn't some sort of setup or false flag.

Everything else, all the main ones, have all been false flag attacks, rabble rousing, lies.

When police intelligence analyst Tony Farrell came up with that conclusion - he was fired after 12 years in the job.

So you can tell the truth if you want, but you'll end up without a career. If you become a cop, don't do any real investigating whatever you do.

In the US they even don't hire people as cops if their IQ is above a certain amount. If you don't believe me, look it up. It was reported by mainstream news outlets, not some guy sat in his basement in his Y-fronts. Same with Tony Farrell. He isn't some guy sat in his basement in his Y-fronts! He was doing his job properly. You can't do that.

If I became a cop the first thing to investigate would be pedophile rings in Westminster.

pblakeney

Manc33 wrote:

Remember when that guy drove a Jeep into the side of a Scottish airport terminal and it caught fire? Thats about the only act of actual terrorism I can point to that wasn't some sort of setup or false flag.

Everything else, all the main ones, have all been false flag attacks, rabble rousing, lies.

Eh?
Even July 7th 2005? :?

Yellow Peril

Routine arming of the police in the UK would be disastrous. Not everyone is cut out to handle a gun whether they are a police officer or not.

In a big force such as GMP firearms training was (and I'm sure still is) quite rigorous. You have to pass a psychometric test to ensure you don't go postal and if you pass that then undergo a fairly intensive firearms course which required if memory serves me right 80% accuracy over the course of the classification.

It isn't like on telly where you just see some guy casually popping away at a target at a range. The drills and positions required in each shoot are designed to put you under extreme stress. If you passed well done but you had to do it all over again in a re-class every few weeks.

Logistically and financially it would be impossible in general to ensure that thousands of police are trained and refreshed in such a manner. However, I know every time I see an armed cop in Britain and most certainly in the GMP that he knows what he is doing with it due to the extremely high standard to which he has been trained.

Manc33

PBlakeney wrote:

Even July 7th 2005? :?

Yep.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKvkhe3rqtc

Peter Power running a drill of the same thing happening at the same time, anyone gets caught its OK "its just a drill". Its pretty clever how its done and it was the same with 911 (FEMA based around the towers around that time).

The John Loftus clip where he talks about Haroon Rashid Aswat is another notable clip...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoxPY3H5EqA

Its hard to argue with either of those.

I think the same was true of the Madrid bombing in 2005 (running a drill there) but its harder to find info on that since I can't speak Spanish.

We're all having our bellies tickled. :roll:

The odds of running one drill at one place at the same time an actual terrorist attack is taking place are millions to one, but in three places (New York, London, Madrid) it pretty much can't happen unless it is setup that way. You're talking a 1 with 41 zero's after it.

I stopped watching TV years ago, only watch it now to see what they are lying about this week.

rick_chasey

Manc33

Always easier to post a silly pic than to actually deal with issues like this.

Nice counter argument against what Peter Power and John Loftus said.

Don't forget to check under the bed for Islamic extremists tonight.

Peter Power also features in the (now removed from the archives) Panorama programme that was aired about one year before the 7/7 bombings. Guess what the programme was about. If you watch 7/7 Ripple Effect you would know.

I can't believe people still ignore this stuff but there it is. We're not relying on people in their basement sat in their Y-fronts anymore, we have people like Tony Farrell that worked in intelligence for 12 years coming out telling everyone the truth, John Loftus the long time intelligence expert, Peter Power telling us directly himself about the drills.

I'm not the one with the tin foil hat, I am pointing out facts and you don't want to care, but I understand that. There's far more to it than I can type here, what about Larry Silverstein saying lets "pull" building 7?

One anomaly OK fair enough, coincidences can happen, but not dozens of anomalies, nope, there you have what we call... a case.

None of these people would or could go to jail because no investigations are ever done, or are headed by corrupt liars. Its all there. Why would NIST not mention building 7 at all in their report? Because they can't answer certain questions. Is that right that there's stuff they can't even answer or explain? Why is it acceptable to allow these outfits to cover stuff up? Why are people like Danny Jowenko the controlled demolition expert dying in car crashes?

It depends if you research this stuff for 10 minutes, or 10 years. Try digging deep and you'll just find what Tony Farrell or John Loftus found. What makes me laugh is when you have to start applying the tin foil hat insult to intelligence experts that are going to know what they are talking about a lot more than you or I do.

Some astronaut comes out and says there's aliens, people would just call him a crank, despite him having been there and done it! When we are living in a world that ignorant, its no wonder intelligence agencies can do anything they want, its child's play. Even when they get caught they don't get caught.

meanredspider

Manc33 wrote:

Nice counter argument against what Peter Power ..... said.

You've lost me entirely on this one. So next time somebody rehearses for an event (like a fire drill or a terrorist dirty bomb) and it actually happens, they're the ones that did it......???

Manc33

meanredspider wrote:

Manc33 wrote:

Nice counter argument against what Peter Power ..... said.

You've lost me entirely on this one. So next time somebody rehearses for an event (like a fire drill or a terrorist dirty bomb) and it actually happens, they're the ones that did it......???

If it is taking place at the exact same time, plus it happened in Madrid and on 9/11, almost certainly. Its a repeating occurrence.

They are helping to provide an alibi, whether they are in the know about it or not, Peter Power didn't need to know there's a real event. He probably regrets telling the story he told about the drills and probably got a right bollocking for it, demoted, or however the "brotherhood" deals with people that slip up like that.

Its so the poor Arabs that got roped into it don't blow the whole thing - they themselves think it is a drill, they have to. Who in their right mind would willingly blow themselves up... so they were simply told its a drill too. They bought return tickets.

If a bomb went off inside a train carriage, how can the floor of the carriage be pushed upwards?

No point me mentioning any of this stuff, people have to find out for themselves, its all there if you look.

All I know is when I see Alistair Steward prattling on about "Islamic extremism" I just change channels, he's lying! What extremism? Let me know when another country actually invades the UK mainland, then I might believe we're under the kosh from terrorism, but until then its all just hot air. At the time you think it is terrorists, but 5 years after, 10 years after, come on, endless experts have come out to say look this is just a controlled demolition on 911, sorry it has to be this way.

Sorry to say this but we are the terrorists ourselves if we don't even question why we are going to war or call people "theorists" that are pointing out facts. It is hard to take this stuff in at first.

meanredspider

Manc33 wrote:

If it is taking place at the exact same time, almost certainly.

Its so the poor Arabs that got roped into it don't blow the whole thing - they themselves think it is a drill, they have to. Who in their right mind would willingly blow themselves up... so they were simply told its a drill too. They bought return tickets.

If a bomb went off inside a train carriage, how can the floor of the carriage be pushed upwards?

There are so many drills for all sorts of things - it's bound to happen at some point - it's called coincidence: but it's great for conspiracy theorists (and for people who want to make money selling books to conspiracy theorists...)

Who knows what the pressure waves are doing in a tunnel when a bomb goes off. If I learned anything from studying fluid dynamics an university (especially at supersonic speeds), things don't behave in the way you expect. But, again, it's great for conspiracy theorists.

Manc33

It seems to usually involve a lot of "mental gymnastics" to believe the official story, once you know enough information about it from sources other than the TV.

There was a classic one with my dad one time:

Me: "How did building 7 collapse on 911 then?"
Dad: "I don't know anything about it"

I rest my case. He didn't know anything about building 7 but he still did argue about how it can't be an inside job.

It depends if you watch Coronation Street every night, or you find out what's really happening in the world.