View Full Version : Armed Police?
After the fatal shooting of a Woman Police officer and the attempted murder of another this last week in Bradford, is it time to routinely arm the Police?
I don't think that arming police will diminuish violent crime, but the days of the bobby doing his local beat, knowing eveyone by name in areas where crime was limited dealing with domestic disputes or drunkeness are over. Crime has changed and the police need to change with it. You can't expect police to deal with equipped criminals on a bicycle with a trungeon in hand.
Im agree totally with Ju, can you imagine mr flat foot coming along spinning his truncheon giving it, "Ello ,Ello, Ello then, what we got going on here then", now adays he's likely to have his throat cut of shot for sticking his nose in.
No i think its a bad idea to have police officers armed all the time because that means were getting more and more like america all the time and if you start arming police all whats going to happen is the criminals are going to start carrying arms as well and then shootings will become an everyday part of life
For me anyone that gets caught supplying,having in pocession a fire arms or using a firearms weapon should get a life sentence were life means life and not 5 years later out on good behavior
I still think the best way is sticking to the way it is now and have teams of firearms officers in areas.
yes but the country needs to wake up.. remember a few years ago in bradford when the riots were really bad and the police wanted to bring in the fire brigade and use hoses on the rioters but they were not allowed to?
look at france do we want that?
No i think its a bad idea to have police officers armed all the time because that means were getting more and more like america all the time and if you start arming police all whats going to happen is the criminals are going to start carrying arms as well and then shootings will become an everyday part of life
For me anyone that gets caught supplying,having in pocession a fire arms or using a firearms weapon should get a life sentence were life means life and not 5 years later out on good behavior
I still think the best way is sticking to the way it is now and have teams of firearms officers in areas.
Most european countries have armed police men and have had them for decades. Yet they have nothing to do with what is happening in america.
When I think that the police force should be armed, I am taking for granted that they would have appropriate fire-arms training. It is not having an armed police force that will make gun crime go up. Is it fair to ask them to face armed burglars with what ammounts to a bat or a stunner?
Try watching "Bowling for Columbine". It has some very interesting insights to explain why America and Europe are so different with regard to gun related crime.
Again I agree totally with Ju, Having lived in germany for some 8yrs myself (where the police force is armed), I never heard of the disrespect shown to UK police over there, because they were either respected, or certainly new not to be messed about with. And would Paris really have got as out of hand if rather that a hose down with water, they got a hose down of 7.62mm the first night they tried it, and sorry for those that are going to say *sniff* *sniff* what about the innocents that would get killed. Sorry if your an innocent and are hearing the noise that comes with public dis-order you tend to walk the other way, not join the crowd, therefore I would assume all I saw before me to be involved in one way or another, and certainly wouldnt want him/her back the next night to be seen with a petrol bomb in their hand.
What's needed is not arming all the police officers. I think we need a tougher stance taken on criminals of all levels. Lock them up instead of paltry fines and community service and they'll maybe think twice before their criminal activity gets more violent.
Bobinovich
20-Nov-05, 20:45
What's needed is not arming all the police officers. I think we need a tougher stance taken on criminals of all levels. Lock them up instead of paltry fines and community service and they'll maybe think twice before their criminal activity gets more violent.
I have to agree. If tougher penalties were introduced, and those convicted were given sentences which reflected their crimes, then we may get somewhere. Stop all this PC nonsense and tell the do-gooders where to go.
This tougher stance should not just stop there though - the debacle over the 'temporary' walkway in Sir John's Square should have been clamped down on a long time ago and the building demolished for the good of the town. Then send the owner the bill.
I'm sure there are plenty of other such situations, I just can't think of them at present.
it makes no difference either way. Its still looking at the effect and not the cause.
remember, its not guns that kill people, it's sometimes not just people that kill people. its people with guns that kill people.
If all bobbies carried guns - then so would all the crims - then you have an escalation in unnecessary firearm associated "accidental" or otherwise deaths.
Not good.
Treat the cause - not the effect for a change.
or at least bring back the birch - or public floggings (oh we already have The Sun - sorry).
Naefearjustbeer
20-Nov-05, 23:13
How many times have you heard about someone killing or raping whilst they are out on bail or shortly after release from prison. It is shocking these crims get a ten year sentance and get out after 2 years to cause more death and destruction. Sometimes I think it would save a lot of time money and heartbreak if killers were hung by the neck or given a bullet on the scene by a police sniper. Caught red handed no shadow of a doubt about guilt bang. They wont be getting back out and doing it again. I think police should have more access to firearms as long as they are properly trained firearms officers, I dont think they should carry them on the beat. As already mentioned the crims that dont use or carry weapons will tool up to cope with the situation.
i have to agree that the judicial system is very lax here .
i understand not wanting to convict an innocnet person.. but someone that is a serial rapist ,murder, repeat offender ,habbitual criminal.. ect ect..
a lot of times they just get a slap on the hand..
i was suprised that there is not a sex offender list in this country..
no not talking about the 18 years olds that sleep with 16 years olds.. but the ones who prey on children... and destroy them.. they do not deserve rights
.. now back home a felon looses their rights.. and they cant sue everybody under the sun.
and why is it that every hardened criminal has a sob story?
dont we all?
a hard life does not change your basic charecter ..yes it makes you tough and hard nosed but how you choose to make choices is up to you..
there are exceptions to every rule.. but the majority choose to become what they are just as we choose to follow the rules or not..
porshiepoo
21-Nov-05, 10:10
Having a brother in the police force, I think I would vote for them being armed! I do understand the repercussions of arming the police force but I think they should have adequate protection against the arms on the streets today. How can a truncheon or an electric stick thingy protect them against the guns that alot of the criminals carry today as a matter of course?
Maybe the crime rate isn't quite so high up here, and armed villains aren't exactly the norm but for anyone to carry a gun they are suggesting that they are prepared to use it, and if they're prepared to use it then they're prepared to kill with it.
I don't think it's a case of bringing our police force down to a level equivalent to the criminals either, I think it's common sense!
For the family of the police constable that was killed, I really feel for them!
Karen M26a
21-Nov-05, 17:46
I don't think the police should be routinely armed.... they keep killing innocent people! That poor guy at the tube station (mistaken for a terrorist), and one man who was carrying a table leg down the street (mistaken for a rifle).
I do think however, they should be provided with bulletproof vests, and helmets to wear when on duty outwith the police station (for their personal safety).
porshiepoo
21-Nov-05, 17:56
I don't think the police should be routinely armed.... they keep killing innocent people! That poor guy at the tube station (mistaken for a terrorist), and one man who was carrying a table leg down the street (mistaken for a rifle).
I do think however, they should be provided with bulletproof vests, and helmets to wear when on duty outwith the police station (for their personal safety).
Bulletproof vests etc is all well and good and they should have access to these no matter what, but what happens when they're up against a criminal with a gun?
If that criminal knows that he's confronted with two armed officers, would he / she be less likely to use their own? Knowing you can kill one officer and get away is one thing, but to know that the second officer will most likely kill you, is something else entirely.
I think all officers should be equipped to deal with criminals in the same manner that criminals intend to deal with them. It's the only language criminals understand, and why should our police force be expected to brandish a truncheon against a gun?
lassieinfife
21-Nov-05, 20:57
Why when the police wanted armed with the stinger was there all that outcry? Now lots of people want police armed .....stinger incapacitates guns can and do kill, though I must say if I was confronted with somebody holding a gun I would prefer to be armed.
lassieinfife
21-Nov-05, 21:04
I don't think the police should be routinely armed.... they keep killing innocent people! That poor guy at the tube station (mistaken for a terrorist), and one man who was carrying a table leg down the street (mistaken for a rifle).
I do think however, they should be provided with bulletproof vests, and helmets to wear when on duty outwith the police station (for their personal safety).
Its a great pity that those 2 innocent people died but police give plenty warning that they are going to open fire.... they seem to be condemmed if they do and condemmed if they dont, but just how many innocent people have been killed by police carrying guns as opposed to innocent people killed by criminals carrying guns?
Naefearjustbeer
22-Nov-05, 02:26
It must be a difficult decision to pull the trigger, no amount of training can prepare you for that split second where you have to decide to shoot and kill somone, If you hesitate a bomb could of gone off and then you are it trouble for not acting quick enough (if you are still alive that is). Shoot and you get in trouble for being too hasty. Its not a job that I would want as you cannot win either way. Good luck to the armed police and I hope i am never looking down the wrong end of a barrel.
porshiepoo
22-Nov-05, 09:54
Unfortunately for that poor man who was innocently killed on the tube, he chose the wrong day to run from the police, and, unwittingly ran to the tube.
But, I would prefer to know that if my brother came up against that situation where there was even a slim chance of the person being a bomber because of the way the person reacted, that he could disarm or kill them before they killed him.
In alot of situations disarming them wouldn't have to mean shoot to kill, sadly in the tube situation it had to mean that because he could have had an explosive attatched to him.
The pay and conditions of a police officer is gradually getting worse. No more lodging allowance, no more permanent beats to work, more paperwork, more beaurocracy to circumvent etc etc
This will only have the effect of putting off quality candidates from applying for police roles so the Chief police officers can only pick the best out of a mediocre bunch. That thought frightens me, a gun in the hands of a trained numpty...
The pay and conditions of a police officer is gradually getting worse. No more lodging allowance, no more permanent beats to work, more paperwork, more beaurocracy to circumvent etc etc
This will only have the effect of putting off quality candidates from applying for police roles so the Chief police officers can only pick the best out of a mediocre bunch. That thought frightens me, a gun in the hands of a trained numpty...
Hmmm? Reghead are you insinuating that our Armed forces are also "trained numpties", they all get small arms training too. And not many of them have degrees in Physics or Chemstry
No Golach, I was being specific to the occasion when Chief Police officers may have no choice but to accept a poor candidate into their ranks when they would have otherwise chosen a better quality candidate. It is Hobson's choice.
I have no objection to having a numpty with a gun in HM's forces...
SandTiger
22-Nov-05, 18:47
Its a great pity that those 2 innocent people died but police give plenty warning that they are going to open fire....
Police challenge
Police initially stated that they challenged Menezes and ordered him to stop outside Stockwell station. Metropolitan Police Commissioner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commissioner_of_Police_of_the_Metropolis) Sir Ian Blair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Blair) said in a press conference that a warning was issued prior to the shooting. Lee Ruston, an eyewitness who was waiting on the platform, said the police did not identify themselves. The Times (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Times) reported "senior police sources" as saying that police policy would not require a warning to be given to a suspected suicide bomber before lethal action was taken. [29] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Charles_de_Menezes#endnote_TimesNoWarning)
The leaked IPCC documents indicated that Menezes was seated on the train carriage when the SO19 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SO19) armed unit arrived. A shout of 'police' may have been made, but the suspect never really had an opportunity to respond before he was shot. The leaked documents indicated that he was restrained by an unarmed officer before being shot.
Leaked Papers
Three surveillance officers, all white English males, codenamed Hotel 1, Hotel 3 and Hotel 9 followed Menezes onto the train. According to Hotel 3, Menezes sat down with a glass panel to his right about two seats in. Hotel 3 then took a seat on the left with about two or three persons between the surveillance officer and Menezes. When the firearms officers arrived on the platform, Hotel 3 moved to the door, blocked it from closing with their left foot, and shouted 'He's here!' to identify the suspect's location.
The firearms officers boarded the train and challenged the suspect. According to Hotel 3, Menezes then stood up and advanced towards the officers and Hotel 3, at which point Hotel 3 grabbed him, pinned his arms against his torso, and pushed him back into the seat. Although Menezes was being restrained, the body of Menezes was straight and not in a natural sitting position. After hearing a shot close to their ear, the surveillance officer was dragged away onto the floor of the carriage. Hotel 3 then shouted 'Police!' and with hands raised was dragged out of the carriage by one of the armed officers who had boarded the train. Hotel 3 then heard several gunshots while being dragged out. Two officers fired a total of eleven shots according to the number of empty shell casings found on the floor of the train afterwards. At close range, Menezes was shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder. He died at the scene.
SandTiger
22-Nov-05, 18:51
Unfortunately for that poor man who was innocently killed on the tube, he chose the wrong day to run from the police, and, unwittingly ran to the tube.
Ticket barrier
Witnesses state that up to twenty police officers in plain clothes pursued Menezes into Stockwell station, that he jumped over the ticket barrier, ran down an escalator and tried to jump onto a train. The Menezes' family were briefed by the Police that their son did not jump over the ticket barrier and may have used a Travel Card to pass through.
The pathologist's post mortem report, which was written in the presence of senior police officers five days after the shooting, recorded that Jean “vaulted over the ticket barriers” and that he “ran down the stairs of the tube station”. By this time the police knew that this version of events was incorrect.
Police initially refused to release CCTV footage while the IPCC investigation was ongoing, even to the family. It had been suggested that the man reported by eyewitnesses as jumping over the barrier, may have been one of the police officers in pursuit.
According to the leaked IPCC documents, Menezes passed through the barrier normally using his pre-paid Oyster card.
porshiepoo
22-Nov-05, 19:49
There are loads of good arguments both for and against arming the police, but personally, no matter what, I would prefer to know that my brother is armed and able to defend himself against whatever the criminals choose to use.
Does anyone know of any reports saying how police constables themselves feel about carrying guns? That would be interesting to know. I have a feeling that they'd actually be against it.
SandTiger
22-Nov-05, 20:51
There are loads of good arguments both for and against arming the police, but personally, no matter what, I would prefer to know that my brother is armed and able to defend himself against whatever the criminals choose to use.
Does anyone know of any reports saying how police constables themselves feel about carrying guns? That would be interesting to know. I have a feeling that they'd actually be against it.
"When we did a survey three years ago of all police officers, over 80% of police officers said they did not believe that every police officer should be routinely armed," Ms Blears told BBC News.
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4451640.stm
porshiepoo
25-Nov-05, 20:02
I kinda figured that would be the case sandtiger. we just get to hear about what goes on but the police officers are the ones that get to see first hand the death that arms cause so i completely understand them not wanting to be armed themselves. 3 years is a long time ago though.
Doesn't change my opinion though. I would still prefer to know that my brother is able to defend himself with a little more than a truncheon and a zapper thingy.
SandTiger
25-Nov-05, 21:42
I kinda figured that would be the case sandtiger. we just get to hear about what goes on but the police officers are the ones that get to see first hand the death that arms cause so i completely understand them not wanting to be armed themselves. 3 years is a long time ago though.
Doesn't change my opinion though. I would still prefer to know that my brother is able to defend himself with a little more than a truncheon and a zapper thingy.
If your brother carries a taser then he is firearms officer. Tasers will NOT be issued to general police on the streets and I think this is probably a prime example of why not...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4465384.stm
A man thought to have been armed with a gun has become the first person in
Scotland to be shot with a taser weapon by officers on active duty.
Strathclyde Police confirmed the weapon was used on Wednesday evening for
the first time since the force introduced the device in September.
The incident happened at a petrol station in Newmains, Lanarkshire.
The Taser fires two barbs carrying a charge of 50,000 volts, temporarily
disabling a suspect.
Hospital tests
Only trained firearms with the Strathclyde force have been permitted to use
tasers, which are seen as a less lethal option than conventional firearms.
But opponents point to deaths in the US which they claim were caused by the
gun, although none of the several lawsuits filed there for wrongful death
have yet succeeded.
A spokeswoman for Strathclyde Police said a man was taken to hospital for a
check-up after the Taser was discharged was then taken into custody.
She added that a senior officer would be carrying out an investigation into
the circumstances surrounding the incident.
I believe that police should have to undergo an exam before being handed a gun, you have to be sure if it is safe or not! I really would not approve of police being handed a gun straight out!!!
porshiepoo
27-Nov-05, 15:30
I agree with shadow that officers should obviously be trained in carrying guns if they were to carry them.
I don't personally think that more officers carrying guns will increase the guns that are carried by criminals.
No matter how much training you give the police officer in order to give them a gun is not the answer.The point is if police have guns as standard equipment for there job then more criminals will start using guns when commiting crimes and the problem will esculate.
For me the laws,sentences and fines should all be reviewed and changed to deal with crimes of 2005.And another point as well the person commiting the crime is more protected from the law than the victim which is all wrong for example if someone breaks in to your home when your there you cant touch him or if he has accident in your home he could sue the victim and will probably win.
Harry Stanley, 46, was shot dead in 1999 after police mistook a table leg he was carrying for a shotgun.
The only witnesses, as far as I know were the two officers that shot him.
A very suspicious case that has finally been re-opened, with the result that Met police threatened to turn in their firearms licenses because of the effect on the two officers??
Update: Latest inquest is reported to have found that he was shot from behind, and not as previously testified?????
I think arming of police officers has to be extremely selective.
Update: Latest inquest is reported to have found that he was shot from behind, and not as previously testified?????
That’s not a very up to date update… nor is ‘shot from behind’ a very accurate assessment of the evidence (although you get top marks for your use of emotive description).
The inquest found that two bullet-holes in the left shoulder of his jacket showed that he may have been shot as he began to turn towards the officers.
The CPS (http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/pressreleases/153_05.html) found that this could ‘reasonably permit interpretations consistent with the officers’ belief that they were acting in self defence’. The CPS will not be bringing charges against the two officers, concluding 'that the threat which they believed they faced made the use of fatal force reasonable in the circumstances as they perceived them’.
The only witnesses, as far as I know were the two officers that shot him.
Yes, there was an independent witness to the incident. She reported that she saw Mr Stanley turn to face the two police officers and that he raised one of his hands in a ‘slow and unhurried manner’ as he did so.
ur attitudes wil change if it happened to any1 of ur family members,armed police is the best idea ever,wick s bad enuf u cant walk passed sum1 without wandering if they r gona jump u or not dnt feel safe up here not alone down there,police do nothing about nething they r useless
Your attitude would change if it happened to one of your family members.
What, crime? Sorry, but I have been a victim of crime and several of my family members have been victims of crimes. My first reaction to being assaulted in the street was not 'if only there had been an armed police officer nearby to shoot that scum'.
The pay and conditions of a police officer is gradually getting worse. No more lodging allowance, no more permanent beats to work, more paperwork, more beaurocracy to circumvent etc etc
This will only have the effect of putting off quality candidates from applying for police roles so the Chief police officers can only pick the best out of a mediocre bunch. That thought frightens me, a gun in the hands of a trained numpty...
I would disagree with saying there wages are getting worse because one there probation is up there at £22 000 and it goes up £1000 a year to a maximum of £30 000 for a constable for me thats good wages and i dont think there is a lot of working familys on is high as £22 000 for a basic salary.
And as for lodging allowance why should they get a lodging allowance the only time they should get accomadation payed for is when there working away from home.When you look at there basic start of pay theres a lot of family not at £16000 a year £22 000 is a good wage especially for in caithness
I would disagree with saying there wages are getting worse because one there probation is up there at £22 000 and it goes up £1000 a year to a maximum of £30 000 for a constable for me thats good wages and i dont think there is a lot of working familys on is high as £22 000 for a basic salary.
And as for lodging allowance why should they get a lodging allowance the only time they should get accomadation payed for is when there working away from home.When you look at there basic start of pay theres a lot of family not at £16000 a year £22 000 is a good wage especially for in caithness
I was almost convinced by your self centric views on things until I thought, well what level of salary would make me persuade me to do their job?
No, I stand by my original assertion that the police have suffered in pay and conditions over recent years.
But not everthing is about money most people choose careers that there interested and why would anyone want to do a job that the hate for good pay i wouldnt u need job satisfaction in every job.
But when you look at police wages compared to the average workers there is a big difference between the to as well as general working conditions.And its also fair to say that no matter how much wages your on people will always moan that its no enough I guess thats human nature for you.
It would take a very special police man or police woman to go against an armed person while being unarmed. I certainly would not want the job.
SandTiger
28-Dec-05, 00:59
Gawd, is this one still goin'?
Right, arm the lot of them...
http://www.tribout.com/ProductImages/newyears/66014-100.jpg
Merry whatever it is you chose to celebrate :D:D
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.