Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Flipside on November 21, 2005, 04:45:07 am
-
Ok, those of us i the UK know of the recent shooting of a WPC in Bradford during an armed raid on a Travel Agent.
This, for some unknown reason, has started off this whole discussion regarding arming Police officers again, noting that this Officer was shot whilst getting out of her car, and even if she had been armed, a bullket proof vest would have been far more useful than a gun. Theres also talk of re-introducing the death sentence.
Is it me or has this country suddenly gone utterly paranoid? For crying out loud, more officers were shot in New York in 2003 than have been shot for the last 20 years in the UK, and the number of people caught and killed in crossfires between gangs and Police is terrifying.
I see that the current Labour 'Kneejerk' reaction is contaigous :(
So, what do you guys think? Considering out Police has always focussed their actions on community relations, that would change massively if guns were introduced, Police would not be as approachable, nor welcomed as they were before, and I think using the stick instead of the carrot would do far far more harm than good. It's a terrible crime that this woman was shot, but I think it would be a worse crime if we allowed her death to destroy everything she was representing at the time.
-
Ok, those of us i the UK know of the recent shooting of a WPC in Bradford during an armed raid on a Travel Agent.
This, for some unknown reason, has started off this whole discussion regarding arming Police officers again, noting that this Officer was shot whilst getting out of her car, and even if she had been armed, a bullket proof vest would have been far more useful than a gun. Theres also talk of re-introducing the death sentence.
Is it me or has this country suddenly gone utterly paranoid? For crying out loud, more officers were shot in New York in 2003 than have been shot for the last 20 years in the UK, and the number of people caught and killed in crossfires between gangs and Police is terrifying.
I see that the current Labour 'Kneejerk' reaction is contaigous :(
So, what do you guys think? Considering out Police has always focussed their actions on community relations, that would change massively if guns were introduced, Police would not be as approachable, nor welcomed as they were before, and I think using the stick instead of the carrot would do far far more harm than good. It's a terrible crime that this woman was shot, but I think it would be a worse crime if we allowed her death to destroy everything she was representing at the time.
I agree absolutely with you. All this kneejerk response is focusing on sticking plaster solutions based on the idea of doing something different rather than doing something right. Arming officers would only increase the likelihood of shootings (not to mention the costs of training), and it's been pointed out a number of times IIRC that a truly bulletproof vest is far too heavy for use in (for example) beat policing. Even if we could afford all that hardware for the police, when we can't even afford it for the army!
-
Arrrgh! Someone on the BBC Website is blaming video games! Someone hold me back! :/
When I was aged around 8+ I ran around with plastic imitation cap-guns (took these tiny little gunpowder 'dots' on a roll that went bang), owned hundreds of toy soldiers, built spaceships with Lego and then blew them up, built WW2 Airfix kits etc. Why can't these people figure out that nothing has changed the toys are different, but the games are identical.
-
Arming officers would only increase the likelihood of shootings (not to mention the costs of training),
Police are armed in Finland. And thought we are a smaller country than UK with less police, we are not as wealthy as UK.
And though police are armed here, we likely have less shootings in a year than in UK. Generally our cops deal with drunken people who do not need shooting at. :)
It's a culture thing. You people can't comprehend an armed police officer. On the other hand I think that a british police is a unarmed guy/gal in a funny costume.
To us armed police is not menacing. It is a person with the authority and ability to uphold the law and public order.
I figure the police officers are still the same people, are they carrying a piece or not. And should be capable of solving situations without using it as well as before. But I guess it's not as simple to you in UK since you aren't used of seeing guns...
Generally a gun is leathal if it is pointed at someone and fired. Even then the shooter must have at least some skill or he'll likely miss. But again it's a cultural thing and you people in UK likely disagree with that.
Arrrgh! Someone on the BBC Website is blaming video games! Someone hold me back! :/
Sadly there are some people who don't see the difference in shooting a computer generated image with a mouse and shooting a real person with a real gun. They are stubborn people and not much can be done about them. Other than pray they don't multiply...
-
Thing is Prophet, with the state of our Police force at the moment, I wouldn't trust them. Earlier this year an officer was sacked because an Asian boy recording him spouting racist comments on his phone (though I do personally feel the officer was egged on before the recording starts, but that doesn't count.) The problems with training Police officers properly is a massive one, the multi-cultural gap here is a large one.
The Police Commisioner is pushing for all he is worth to put the Police in the position of almost being a personal Army. The no-guns rule DOES work, nearly every incident involving guns in the UK has been resolved without the use of firearms, mainly because they weren't there. If you make Firearms an option, then there will always be officers who use that as their first, and favourite one, regardless of whether it is needed or not.
Also, if a criminal is cornered and faced with being caught and being given the Death sentence or even being locked up for the rest of their natural life, running and being shot and killed, or going out in a blaze of glory like a gangster movie, taking as many people with them as they can, I'm very very worried about which option he/she would pick.
-
Actually, Finland does have more shooting deaths per capita; in finland 0.86 deaths per 100,000 are to guns, in Scotland it's 0.19 and in England and Wales it is 0.11. (from http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html, actually a pro-arms site). But it is of course worth noting the massive variances in things like culture too, anyways. Certainly I wouldn't say arming police increases crime, just that it can risk changing the nature of it.
But the issue for me is really a) do police need to be armed and b) will it improve policing. I would say no to both; it's the extraordinary rarity of a police shooting that makes this news story so high profile, after all. Partly due to cost; you'd need to intensively train every officer to use a weapon responsibly and that would take money away from other places (without any pressing need for all officers to be armed).
Although we do have armed police, and it's scarcely seen as menacing or incomprehensible. (Not just in special deployments, but also sometimes patrolling the likes of Heathrow airport; although never AFAIK in public such as on the streets) It's simply that armed police are - rightly - seen as a last resort, used in situations where lethal force may be required, and the more frequent use of them would seem to indicate (rightly or wrongly) that society was going downhill and becoming dangerous, more dangerous than it actually is. People don't get worried by armed police because they carry weapons, it's because they are usually only seen when the **** has hit the fan.
My other concern, of course, is that armed police encourage criminals to buy and use guns in a sort of arms race type affair. I think we've seen that - to an exaggerated effect - in the US, with criminals using assault rifles. Also once you get into the mentality of arming yourself i think you risk losing sight of the other aspects of policing by augmenting your police force to be more 'aggressive' in appearance.
-
While it's great that the UK does not have armed police officers, what happens to them if the situation arises? Being an American, I guess I'm used to seeing officers with guns, so I don't see how British gun crime would increase if only the officers were armed. I'm not saying it won't, I just don't see how it would.
-
While it's great that the UK does not have armed police officers, what happens to them if the situation arises? Being an American, I guess I'm used to seeing officers with guns, so I don't see how British gun crime would increase if only the officers were armed. I'm not saying it won't, I just don't see how it would.
They call out SO19 (http://www.met.police.uk/so19/), who are specialised armed officers.
The idea that gun crime would increase, is that criminals would obtain guns to 'compete' with the increased possibility of being shot. I'm not sure if this can be proven statistically, it must be said; it's just a gut instinct I have.
-
Well, my take on the thing is firstly, the 'no way out' situation, where the options available to someone holding a gun is reduced to 'kill or die'.
Secondly, this would, most likely, lead to armed shootouts betweens gangs and police, instead of between gangs ( a very rare act atm, but it does happen). This means yet another set of bullets flying back and forth. Thus increasing the odds of a bystander getting killed by at least 33%, not to mention the increased 'glamour' aspect of having a movie-type shootout with Police would actually increase the odds of it happening.
Rather than making guns 'cooler' and more accepted by arming the Police etc, we should be looking at how these guns are entering the country and a way of destroying their rep as status symbols.
-
Seems like the UK unarmed police best be left the way they are. If they get buns, body armor, etc. criminals will one up them.. as it is, there is very little gun violence it seems from your statistics. If the murder and shooting rate were to climb drastically, then the police would have no choice. But as it is, they seem to be able to handle everyday situations on the streets without a weapon.
-
Actually, Finland does have more shooting deaths per capita; in finland 0.86 deaths per 100,000 are to guns, in Scotland it's 0.19 and in England and Wales it is 0.11. (from http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html, actually a pro-arms site). But it is of course worth noting the massive variances in things like culture too, anyways.
It's indeed a cultural thing, as sadly booze+guns is a bit too common combination in Finland. That's partially why I support police carrying firearms, properly trained in their use of course. I have a pretty high trust to our police force and fully support Prophet's view.
-
The problems with training Police officers properly is a massive one, the multi-cultural gap here is a large one.
Seems to me that it's not training them to use firearms, but training them to be a public servant is the challenge here...
The no-guns rule DOES work, nearly every incident involving guns in the UK has been resolved without the use of firearms, mainly because they weren't there.
What? I understand that guns weren't used if no one had them, so how were the guns involved then if no one had them...???
If you make Firearms an option, then there will always be officers who use that as their first, and favourite one, regardless of whether it is needed or not.
That is likely yes... As in every police force in the world that uses firearms. But really, is that person fit to be a police officer? And if he is prone to use a gun when facing adversary, then is't he just as prone to use his other weaponry if the gun is denied from him? Thought I guess its better to be beaten than shot...
Also, if a criminal is cornered and faced with being caught and being given the Death sentence or even being locked up for the rest of their natural life, running and being shot and killed, or going out in a blaze of glory like a gangster movie, taking as many people with them as they can, I'm very very worried about which option he/she would pick.
What? Just for the record let me first say that I don't really like the idea of death sentence....
But any average (or even not so average) criminal would seriously consider surrendering, even with death sentence. A person has to be seriously ****ed up if he drives his car in to a building hoping to kill dozens of people,including himself, rather than goes to jail...
Well, my take on the thing is firstly, the 'no way out' situation, where the options available to someone holding a gun is reduced to 'kill or die'.
Secondly, this would, most likely, lead to armed shootouts betweens gangs and police, instead of between gangs ( a very rare act atm, but it does happen). This means yet another set of bullets flying back and forth. Thus increasing the odds of a bystander getting killed by at least 33%, not to mention the increased 'glamour' aspect of having a movie-type shootout with Police would actually increase the odds of it happening.
Rather than making guns 'cooler' and more accepted by arming the Police etc, we should be looking at how these guns are entering the country and a way of destroying their rep as status symbols.
Are we talking about UK or Irak? At least half of Finnish homes have at least a shotgun, often a couple of rifles too. For hunting and stuff. Either you are being way too worried, or there is some weird people in UK...
-
Given that even the highly trained officers get it wrong some times (read: shooting innocent brazilians 8 times in the head) then I really wouldn't trust Strathclyde's finest with a firearm. Hell I wouldn't trust them with a tazer.
-
Incidentally, Lord Brian Mackenzie - former president of the Superintendents' Association of England and Wales - is against arming police, citing evidence from the FBI of when suspects have turned officers guns upon them (http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4451640.stm).
-
Seems to me that it's not training them to use firearms, but training them to be a public servant is the challenge here...
- To a certain degree, yes, however, being multi-cultural with a gun is a lot lot harder because you are no longer consulting, you've changed the carrot for a stick.
What? I understand that guns weren't used if no one had them, so how were the guns involved then if no one had them...???
- Guns do appear in the UK, usually smuggled in from abroad, there IS gun-crime in the UK, however, those incidents have almost always been resolved without a single shot being fired.
That is likely yes... As in every police force in the world that uses firearms. But really, is that person fit to be a police officer? And if he is prone to use a gun when facing adversary, then is't he just as prone to use his other weaponry if the gun is denied from him? Thought I guess its better to be beaten than shot...
- Beating with Batons does happen, but all you need is one copper who gets that rush of power from having a gun and had an argument with his girlfriend that morning etc. This has always been my problem with armed police, it brings authority from a consensus thing to 'I've got the gun'.
What? Just for the record let me first say that I don't really like the idea of death sentence....
But any average (or even not so average) criminal would seriously consider surrendering, even with death sentence. A person has to be seriously ****ed up if he drives his car in to a building hoping to kill dozens of people,including himself, rather than goes to jail...
- You'd be surprised. This happens a lot in the US states with death penalties. He doesn't need to drive his car into anything, just try and do a Bruce Willis, leaping out all guns blazing and not aiming in particular.
Are we talking about UK or Irak? At least half of Finnish homes have at least a shotgun, often a couple of rifles too. For hunting and stuff. Either you are being way too worried, or there is some weird people in UK...
- UK. Most UK residents have airguns or swords in their house, simply because the Police turn a blind-eye to burglary (not completely there fault, it's a policy thing). However, the UK has a history of arresting people for using those weapons, even as a threat, to defend their home or family. There is one famous case of a woman who is now dying of cancer in jail because she dared to stand up to a gang of youths who were vandalising her car and defacing her house, after several requests and complaints being ignored by the local Police, she bought out an airgun and threatened them and got 5 years. The youths got nothing. Yes, there are some wierd people in the UK, and some of them make the rules.
-
I think you're basing your dire predictions on false assumptions here...
First of all most petty (90%+) criminals are opportunistic cowards, but rational ones. They're not willing to risk themselves in unfavourable odds unless the potential return is incredibly high. If you make the odds less favourable to the criminals - i.e. put guns in the hands of police officers - they're going to be less likely to resist arrest or run, and especially less likely to carry a gun, because it very much increases the odds of the officer opening fire if he sees one. You're just not going to see people who don't have the intent to kill or maim arm themselves if the police do.
Flip, you mention gang shootings with police. Why? People in these groups may have a dislike for officers of the law, but there's no personal hatred between them like there is between different gangs. If the prospect of going down in history in a shootout with police was so appealing, then you'd already have them targeting police on the streets. What better way to provoke an armed response, after all? It's sensationalist Hollywood nonsense.
-
I worked as an Administrative Assistant in a Police Station in London for 2 years. I can assure you that most criminals are not rational. The moment Police appear with guns, it justifies criminals using theirs to their eyes. Police would never consider carrying knives because they consider them barbaric, however, pointing a tube at someone and being able to execute them without trial is ok.
A lot of the people who were arrested at Islington for possesion of weapons were often so high on drugs that they were not even aware that they could be killed, or possibly even that they'd been arrested, they would spit, bite and make murder threats to all and sundry all the way between the vans and the holding cells.
I'm not talking about those who choose not to arm themselves, I'm talking about those who do arm themselves, and will see the armament of the Police as justification.
Shootouts between gangs and Police will happen because it is 'cool', it happens in the movies, as much as people argue about this, I believe most people live in a mental 'movie' in which they are the star. It's all about 'having the right attitude', 'adopting the right pose' and 'Getting Respek' If you have bragging rights of a shootout with the Police, it adds social 'weight' to your reputation. Whilst the UK does have it's run-down and poor areas, I personally feel this is a lot more about image than crime in desperation. There are people who no more see Police officers as human beings as the members of the public they commit crimes against.
That is why I think it would happen, most people aren't actually aware that they are mortal until the moment before they die.
-
After all, people will still try and get away from persuing police cars - and helicopters - on the roads, despite the obvious futility of it.......
-
Shootouts between gangs and Police will happen because it is 'cool', it happens in the movies, as much as people argue about this, I believe most people live in a mental 'movie' in which they are the star. It's all about 'having the right attitude', 'adopting the right pose' and 'Getting Respek' If you have bragging rights of a shootout with the Police, it adds social 'weight' to your reputation. Whilst the UK does have it's run-down and poor areas, I personally feel this is a lot more about image than crime in desperation. There are people who no more see Police officers as human beings as the members of the public they commit crimes against.
No, I don't think that is true at all. At leas not around this country...
That is why I think it would happen, most people aren't actually aware that they are mortal until the moment before they die.
After all, people will still try and get away from persuing police cars - and helicopters - on the roads, despite the obvious futility of it.......
Most people aren't actually aware that they are mortal unless they have a minute to think about it. Then most of those realize that they might be doing something stupid, and then slow down/drop the knife and calm down. The rest worry about their own ass and then do something stupid. And a small minority just don't care, about anything at all.
-
As someone who was recently told to stay in his house because a gang from the Inner city had turned up near the local school wielding guns, knives etc looking for a pupil who had 'dissed' them, I'm afraid I must disagree. It can and does happen in the UK. The Police response was simply to follow them around with four Police vans till they got bored an left without commiting a crime. Had several armed officers jumped out and levelled weapons at them, things would have gone downhill very very fast indeed.
Admittedly, I was a bit annoyed that no attempt was made to arrest them, however, this was school closing time, and I can promise that the Police most likely have some lovely mugshots, assuming they weren't wearing masks etc.
Edit : Apparently they were trying to 'help a mate'... http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/display.var.589725.0.0.php
-
After all, people will still try and get away from persuing police cars - and helicopters - on the roads, despite the obvious futility of it.......
Most people aren't actually aware that they are mortal unless they have a minute to think about it. Then most of those realize that they might be doing something stupid, and then slow down/drop the knife and calm down. The rest worry about their own ass and then do something stupid. And a small minority just don't care, about anything at all.
Which is why the police don't use - or need to use - firearms but talk to criminals. Pointing a gun at someone is inherently an offensive act, and as such it means they may respond in kind; you risk creating a standoff situation where the most immediately apparent solution is just to shoot. Also, it's worth noting that in this country at least, the criminals with guns are usually either the most die hard, or the most idiotic; that is, the people who are least inclined to either consider their mortality (particularly in the idiocy column) or accept the possibility of jail. If someone arms themselves, it's usually because they want to be able to (to paraphrase somewhat) shoot themselves out of trouble; in that occasion you need specialists to contain the situation, like SO19, and that's something which the ordinary bobby would have trouble doing (simple because the first respondents would only be one or two people) - whether armed or not.
-
This, for some unknown reason, has started off this whole discussion regarding arming Police officers again, noting that this Officer was shot whilst getting out of her car, and even if she had been armed, a bullket proof vest would have been far more useful than a gun. Theres also talk of re-introducing the death sentence.
I think you guys are getting yet another wonderful export of the US: Paranoia. :p
-
Take a look at Northern Ireland's police force. Until the last few years it wasn't too strange to see a landrover full of assualt rifle toting squaddies to be seen backing up the police.
It is awfully disconcerting though.
Obviously having a 'nationalist' name made me more wary, but to see people who are supposed to be protecting the public, heavily armed (mp5's being the norm), really does make most people nervous. Now the army presence has been scaled back and the police are riding around in more conventional vehicles, it's gone a long way towards making the police seem more like public servants and less like enforcers.
Sectarian crime aside it might be interesting to see how many shooting incidents happened over here compared to mainland UK given that police have always been armed.
-
Arm all Police. Prevention is better than cure. ALthough if i was in charge, Martial law would be an everyday thing, The army would be the arm of the law and it would be a police state, Capital punishment worked before, it can work again.
BTW im 23, ex soldier and i highly abhor disrispect of moral and social standards of living.
Max offensive action towards crime will stamp it out !!
The do-gooders ruined our country and i for one would (and have) layed happy-slappers out cold for messing about on the same bus as me.
-
Well, I'm very glad you're not in charge.
-
Indeed!
I think 'beat the crap out of people who offend you' is quite possibly the worst idea of the lot, after all, it's that mentality that leads to a lot of gang-fights in the first place.
-
At this point I wish to remind you of two things...
First. Keep in mind that an armed police officer does not mean a armored commando carrying assaultrifle and bazooka (unless something serious is going on).
Take a look how much crap cops carry on their belts. A pistol would seem only another black object next the rubber-tree branch or maze or whatever they carry in your country.
Secondly. Arming a police officer does not automatically mean criminals will be shot. This is where our opinions collide. I don't actually remember any incident where a police officer would have been found shooting criminals without a very, very good reason, in here I mean. And trust me, the media here would quickly turn any kind of police brutality in to a national emergency (they like to enlarge issues).
But we have smaller police force than many other countries, and thus there is less chance that a gunfreak psychopath could get a badge. It is also noteworthy that our "crime culture" is propably much different from UK. Hence I see nothing wrong in an armed police officer, because it works here. In UK you have more people = more weirdoes = more crime.
I do not know what would happen in UK should the police be armed. But remember that guns don't kill people, people do...
-
No not at all, firstly i insist Police are armed for the safety above all else. Living in south east london "Happy Slappers" were peaking out this time last year. Imagine my surprise when a fifteen year old tried to slap me down on the 136 fom peckham to grove park. Imagine his surprise when i broke his nose. This was not unprovoked assault this was self defense. I deflected his initial assault, Then retaliated when he didn't lay off. qoute "Wha no, me gwahn a get bloods down on yo 'Ed piece". Cue said ASBO rearing back for a punch/slap to my head. Enter my fist from stage left.
The above example is just to demonstrate, Force is not there to be applied, It should be there as an option to put down a similarly offensive negative force. Should the police encounter a criminal element willing to use extreme physical/illegal means, The option to lay it down on them in a defensive/suppressive mannar should be open to them.
-
And it is, through SO19 and armed response vehicle teams. They are trained to deal with "extreme", ie heavily armed criminals. What you don't want is the first beat cops who arrive to get all aggressive, which means the bad guys start shooting the place up in response, getting themselves and other people killed, when the situation can usually be resolved peacefully.
-
Defending yourself from personal attack is one thing. Going around armed, however, is anticipating attack, not defending from it. Anyone arrested in possesion of a weapon says it's because 'someone might attack me'. Having the weapon encourages the use of it. You punched the guy, good, he deserved it, but what if it was just some normal untrained civvy on the bus who carried a knife because he was scared? Would things have gone as smoothly? And who is to blame?
We've already had one person die because of badly transmitted info and panic-reactions from armed police. I think working ourselves up into a frenzy of how terrible the UK has become lately is severe over-reacting. Paedophilia is a perfect example. In the 1950's more children were dissapearing never to be seen again than are now. We are merely more aware of it through media etc. So what we think is a Paedophile craze on the rise is far from true, it's always been there, we've just never been aware of it. Same to a large degree with rape, child/wife/husband beating etc etc.
Also, it should be noted that the whole death penalty thing that was suggested was only for cop-killers, it's illegal under our entry to the EU anyway, but it still narked me.
Whilst I'm all for justice, I think our law is pathetically weak to criminals, we need to be less yielding, however, arming the Police because one WPC was shot, no matter how terrible the crime, still strikes me as a kneejerk reaction, and it would hurt the Police and the communities far far more than it would help them.
-
What you don't want is the first beat cops who arrive to get all aggressive, which means the bad guys start shooting the place up in response, getting themselves and other people killed, when the situation can usually be resolved peacefully.
Yeah right. They have many Rambo fans in your country? No reasonable "beat cop" would never go in to a hostile situation with an armed group of criminals. Special units are reserved just for that, special cases.
A cop who thinks he's John Wayne when he gets himself a piece is a bad cop.
A cop who shoots first and asks questions later isn't even a cop.
Perhaps it is better that british cops remain unarmed. Seeing as the puplic doesn't trust the police. You know them better than I do.
-
Bottom line: Police are trained in the use of restraint in both the United States and the UK, not in the use of force. They have it etched into their skulls in the academies. Giving them firearms does not change this. If anything it increases it, since that's one more thing they're trained to use with restraint.
And you're drawing an odd conclusion here Flip. Cops carrying guns do so for the same reason as the military. They are placed in situations where there is a very real possiblity they might need the gun to stay alive and accomplish their job. Firearms for them are a tool, something that they might need at some point. Simple statistics on the US and most other Western countries with armed police forces show that the vast majority of officers never fire their weapon outside of a shooting range. This is something that most people here in the US know, even if they don't actually acknowledge it. Even if a cop is pointing a gun at you, the odds are excellent you won't get shot.
Your presentation however seems to be extending into the reason that (unfortunately) some private citizens carry guns: because they like the power. Those kind of people are a danger to everyone around them. They exist, for the most part, because they don't really grasp what it means to use a firearm on another individual. Cops do know. It's training. It's practical experience. Even in the UK, police come in contact with people (dead or alive) who have been shot on a fairly regular basis. They know what pulling that trigger will do, they understand the consequences.
As to the belief that the criminals will arm themselves in response, and will start gunfights, that's ludcrious. Weapons have an irrational effect on people, but one rather different from what you're assuming. Consider: if threatened with a knife, most people will do what they are told even if it places them in severe danger, even if they outnumber the person(s) doing the threatening greatly, even if they could unquestionably subdue the threatener(s) and probably do so without sustaining any serious injury. Arguably criminals are less apt to be frightened then normal citizens, but certainly a firearm is a considerably more frightening weapon. A single man with a loaded pistol carrying only seven shots can hold a hundred people at bay. The saying that you do not argue with someone holding a gun is a much greater truism then you give it credit for. Many, many people with loaded firearms are arrested by the police without incident. It happens daily. Perhaps they got the weapon because the cops were armed (this is highly debateable; those arrested while carrying firearms almost always have them to protect themselves against other criminals, or to use them against the same or innocents), but when it comes right down to it, they are not willing to use their firearm against a police officer. The vast majority of criminals realize that there is no defense against the police save not being found, and the thought of shooting it out doesn't even enter their minds. Yet because the UK police themselves are mostly unarmed, then surely there are a few who see their advantage over the street cop and make use of it; a few that would not do so were they faced with a loaded weapon. To make matters worse, once you have injured/killed a cop, you can expect little in the way of leniancy (at the very least, your time while remanded to custody and awaiting trial is going to be a living hell). Those who see the advantage and make use of it, when confronted by armed officers from SO19 or some other group, may well keep fighting. There will always be a few who, from foolishness or insanity, insist on fighting the police no matter what, but they are not the only problem.
The main reason the UK gets away with an unarmed police force is because the criminals are largely unarmed too. But that's changing, has perhaps already changed as you've illustrated by your story about the gang. Such an event is not particularly common here in the US, and when it does happen, while there is alarm, people in nearby neighborhoods aren't told to get inside and lock their doors. They don't have to be, because the police can and will prevent anything from happening to them. They can do this because the police are armed, and it does not take too much in the way of firepower to bring a group of people to a screeching halt. Once that task is accomplished the situation is effectively over; whatever else happens is mere punctation of the point. Yet, as your story illustrates, the police in the UK, largely unarmed, at the least do not believe they are capable of the same thing: in point of fact they probably aren't.
As you say, arming the police in the UK in response to this one incident is a kneejerk reaction. But that does not prove the conclusion that they need to be armed unsound. At the very least, the time has come for the UK to start issuing bulletproof vests on a wide scale.
-
Guns are just tools with no inherent values or morality. They need someone to pull the trigger, and any moral restrain, judgement and values therefore rise from the users and their respective values.
-
Thing is Ngt, cops aren't there to do the same job as the army, that is why the two are kept seperate. The prime role of the Police is to 'Keep the peace'. If Mr X and Mrs Y are having an argument of who is supposed to trim a hedge between the two houses, it's not the Police's job to say whether Mr X or Mrs Y is right. Their job is to stop that argument from spilling over.
If Mrs Y then takes the pruning shears and creates forensic history on Mr X, the Police's job is to clear up and and see to it that Mrs Y is bought before justice.
Arming Police officers is not conducive to keeping the peace. Even if a Policeman does not shoot first does not mean that the fact the Policeman is carrying a gun is not seen as justification to shoot the Policeman. This is actually the reason why most Policeman don't even want to carry guns.
Placing guns in common Police use, to me, suddenly moves the Police into the position of, as one of our more sensationalist papers stated 'Judge Dredds', enforcing, sentencing and executing, which is NOT the job of the Police, that is why the court system etc is kept seperate and distant, because justice is blind, not blind fear.
I do believe there are far far too many racial stereotypes among the Police and too many people looking for reasons to say 'We're being persecuted!' for this to work in the UK.
As for not arguing with people with guns, that's half the problem. You don't argue with gangsters with guns, you don't argue with Police with guns, it's control based on intimidation, not respect, and a slippery slope.
Actually, ever since WWII the British police have been dealing with a pretty large number of bombs, guns etc in the criminal element. We managed to deal with the IRA cells in the UK without using armed Police, they simply called in the army when needed. I don't have a problem with armed Police existing. I have a problem with all Police being armed. The theory that the number of guns in the UK is increasing is one I would actually have to look at closely, since we have had Yardies, Gangsters etc for a long long time, I have a feeling it is more a 'resurge' than an actual increase.
As for people not using guns on Police, all I'll say is more Police officers were shot in New York last year than in the UK in the last 20, so it certainly appears to me that it is the increased proliferation of guns that is causing those statistics.
It should also be bourne in mind that, whilst 13 officers have been shot in the last 20 years, nearly 5 times as many civilians have been killed by being hit by Police cars, shot by accident or from wounds injuries during arrest.
I'm not saying people would arm themselves if the Police did, most people are already armed, my problem is with this particular reaction, in the US you are made aware from a very young age of the danger of guns, you are taken to shooting ranges, you are shown images of homicides etc. In the UK, guns are still considered 'status toys' to a lot of people.
-
A cop who shoots first and asks questions later isn't even a cop.
Bottom line: Police are trained in the use of restraint in both the United States and the UK, not in the use of force
When I was living in the US, the police there would often "shoot first and ask questions later". The Portland police had a reputation for being very "trigger happy".
-
And a small minority just don't care, about anything at all.
That's me...
-
Placing guns in common Police use, to me, suddenly moves the Police into the position of, as one of our more sensationalist papers stated 'Judge Dredds', enforcing, sentencing and executing, which is NOT the job of the Police, that is why the court system etc is kept seperate and distant, because justice is blind, not blind fear.
So you think that if you are talking to your friendly unarmed "beat cop" on the street. Then I appear and give the cop a gun. He just shoots you five times in the face right there because maybe you had a rock in your pocket that, to the outside, looked like a hand granade.
Or that the police set up beach chairs on the streets. And when they are nice and confortable, they start shooting jaywalkers with a rifle 'cos it's easier than to ticket them...
Guns will not change UK in to a police state. Belive me on that. Unless...
I do believe there are far far too many racial stereotypes among the Police and too many people looking for reasons to say 'We're being persecuted!' for this to work in the UK.
...
As for not arguing with people with guns, that's half the problem. You don't argue with gangsters with guns, you don't argue with Police with guns, it's control based on intimidation, not respect, and a slippery slope.
... You really think that armed police force will turn your country in to a forced labor camp?
Actually, ever since WWII the British police have been dealing with a pretty large number of bombs, guns etc in the criminal element. We managed to deal with the IRA cells in the UK without using armed Police, they simply called in the army when needed.
...
cops aren't there to do the same job as the army, that is why the two are kept seperate. The prime role of the Police is to 'Keep the peace'.
That is true, yes. But what if the police is unable to do its job (to keep the peace), and at the same time sufficently protect themselves (and others) against dangerous criminals? You are more confortable with the army patrolling your streets rather than armed police officers?
I really, really, do not belive that people in your country are so evil and blood thirsty, that armed police force will cause the country to turn in to a warzone.
-
1 : The first quote is actually quite poignant, since we have recently had someone shot dead for carrying a chairleg because Police thought it was a gun, so yes to No 1 ;) Not to mention the Brazillian shot dead on the underground recently.
2 : I don't think that is the intention, but yes, I do not trust our current Police selection enough to believe that these weapons would be used responsibly by enough people to make it worth while.
3 : The fact of the matter is that Guns aren't needed to do their job. Our Police actually maintain the peace pretty well, it is only in moments of kneejerk panic that they suddenly remember them.
At the moment, the Police are perfectly capable of doing their job, what convinces more than anything that they shouldn't have guns is the fact that they are silent about it for months, and sometimes years whilst people are burgled, assaulted, raped and abused and the Police are accused of being almost nonchalant about it, yet the same day as an officer gets shot, the Commissioner starts saying they need to arm the Police. I don't trust that kind of thinking.
They spent a long time giving mixed messages to people about defending their own property and wellbeing, never actually saying you were allowed to defend yourself and never giving guidelines as to what level that self-defence can go to. But once again that fog amazingly clears when it's one of their own.
The crime was a terrible one and the people deserve to be punished, but I honestly don't have enough faith in our current Police forces attitude or approach to believe that guns would help.
-
I see... :rolleyes:
Then we shall continiue this discussion after you have kicked your cops in to the channel and rented some new ones from abroad. Yes?
-
Or possibly once they've been trained a little better and convinced the public that they actually need more guns than their current SO19 setup.
-
Arm all Police. Prevention is better than cure. ALthough if i was in charge, Martial law would be an everyday thing, The army would be the arm of the law and it would be a police state, Capital punishment worked before, it can work again.
BTW im 23, ex soldier and i highly abhor disrispect of moral and social standards of living.
Max offensive action towards crime will stamp it out !!
The do-gooders ruined our country and i for one would (and have) layed happy-slappers out cold for messing about on the same bus as me.
Hi stalin, I thought you were dead?
-
[q]You really think that armed police force will turn your country in to a forced labor camp?[/q]
You haven't seen Tony Blair, have you?
-
I have heard of him... He's that Bush wannabe, isn't he? :ick:
-
Has the shooting of that Brazilian guy (sory, forget his name) even been resolved ?
-
"Whoops" seems to be about the size of it. I'm not aware of anyone being charged yet...
-
It seems pretty clear it was one of the most stupid, ****ed up uses of a weapon by a policement in British, nay world history, but there's been no official action.
Some of the information from the impartial investigation was leaked, though. It included;
- the 'suspect' was wearing a denim jacket (you can assume '' around suspect from now on....)
- the suspect was observed leaving a block of flat under surveillance, by an officer who only caught a brief glimpse because he was taking a piss
- the suspect was followed, and they watched him get onto a bus without reacting to it.
- the suspect was actually in the 'custody' of a civillian security guard (I forget the exact job this guy idd, may have been transport police or somesuch), who was actually pinning him (in response to the police calling on him to surrender)
- the suspect was not only shot in the head about 6 times point blank, but they actually missed him twice. **** knows what they train police marksmen with nowadays, water pistols?
- the chief of the Met tried to block / hold up the investigation until he was reminded it was a legal necessitity to have an independent investigation every time an armed officer killed someone
When this first happened, I remember saying we should wait to find out what happened before judging. Well, we have a fair idea now, and it was supremely ****ed up.
-
and to makes things worse they tried to cover it up by lying about the details. I wouldn't trust those guys with a spud gun.
-
It's all about training...
We also happen to be the only unarmed police force in Europe....
The airport police ARE armed, with MP5s no less, and nobody blinks at that, so why not give the coppers pistols? (and decent protective clothing)
Also, heh.. bring back hanging! for a select few anyway...
-
LOL, i'm not stalin,
Its hard for me to express intent and feeling through text, I admit in hindsight my view comes across as hard. But anyone who lives around south london (Brixton/Lewisham/Peckham/Catford/Camberwell) and goes out at night can at least empaphise the the situation. Maybe not my view but the context of an emotion that manifests itself in certain circumstances.
-
It's all about training...
We also happen to be the only unarmed police force in Europe....
The airport police ARE armed, with MP5s no less, and nobody blinks at that, so why not give the coppers pistols? (and decent protective clothing)
Because they don't need pistols. Protective clothing maybe, but bulletproof vests have a downside for regular policing in weight and bulk.
-
So.. let me get this straight, you actually WANT the murdering scum to get off scot-free and have the advantage over the police in every confrontation? These people are VERMIN, and should be caught as soon as possible and put away for life, or if they refuse to surrender, be put down like the bottom-feeding scum-suckers that they are. Anyone who kills a policeman should be hanged, anyone who kills a policewoman should be thrown in an acid bath...
-
So.. let me get this straight, you actually WANT the murdering scum to get off scot-free and have the advantage over the police in every confrontation? These people are VERMIN, and should be caught as soon as possible and put away for life, or if they refuse to surrender, be put down like the bottom-feeding scum-suckers that they are. Anyone who kills a policeman should be hanged, anyone who kills a policewoman should be thrown in an acid bath...
If you're inferring that from me not wanting police to be armed, then you're talking out your arse.
-
So.. let me get this straight, you actually WANT the murdering scum to get off scot-free and have the advantage over the police in every confrontation? These people are VERMIN, and should be caught as soon as possible and put away for life, or if they refuse to surrender, be put down like the bottom-feeding scum-suckers that they are. Anyone who kills a policeman should be hanged, anyone who kills a policewoman should be thrown in an acid bath...
wow that's some nasty stuff there dood
-
So.. let me get this straight, you actually WANT the murdering scum to get off scot-free and have the advantage over the police in every confrontation? These people are VERMIN, and should be caught as soon as possible and put away for life, or if they refuse to surrender, be put down like the bottom-feeding scum-suckers that they are. Anyone who kills a policeman should be hanged, anyone who kills a policewoman should be thrown in an acid bath...
And no-one is saying the Police shouldn't be armed, the discussion is about whether your average Bobby on the beat should carry a gun. I don't believe they should. If a Policeman shots a civilian in mistaken belief he/she is commiting a crime, should we hang him then? Or drop WPC's in an acid bath?
It's like the 90 day thing, everyone is going 'Yay! 90 days didn't get through!', when in fact, they still managed to increase the incarceration time to longer than some people get for Causing Death by Drunk Driving. When the Police wanted Tazers, everyone was going 'Oh no! If you have a pacemaker it might kill you!!11!'. All of a sudden something that is far far more dangerous is fine.
-
Eh, I'm just in a bad mood - cutting back on sugar makes me angry, but having too much will probably kill me...
Realistically speaking - the average bobby needs to be trained better, and then maybe they could have guns...
But I still stand by capital punishment for first-degree murder especially for the police - they of all people should know better.
It's pretty simple - if you kill and then get killed by the State, then you don't get the chance to kill again.
-
But what if it later emerged that you didn't in fact kill anyone? That's the big problem with the death penalty....
-
That is down to burden of proof... If there is any doubt whatsoever, then the death penalty must not be applied.
-
That is down to burden of proof... If there is any doubt whatsoever, then the death penalty must not be applied.
Sounds great in theory, but in reality it isn't quite that clean.
-
Especially with emotive cases.