Marlowe Posted June 25, 2005 Report Share Posted June 25, 2005 The comparison to cars was to remind you all of another popular use of technology which is sadly routinely abused by the police. I don't like to bash them as they do a good job, but I see many police officers in the local area abusing their position and behaving frankly like idiots, safe in the knowledge that their other pals in South Yorkshire Police will go 'oh, that's Dave's Civic Type R, better not process that ticket', and so bomb around quite happily at speeds not just illegal, but frankly genocidal. Suffice to say that popularised story of the police officer being commended for driving 120mph off duty in his new car is just the tip of an iceberg. Link to post Share on other sites
Sledge Posted June 25, 2005 Report Share Posted June 25, 2005 Everyone should be armed. Why entrust your safety to others? Link to post Share on other sites
joeking27 Posted June 25, 2005 Report Share Posted June 25, 2005 I don't see the need to arm our police. Culturally it doesn't need to happen. And while the car comparision is somewhat interesting, a gun is designed to kill, and to kill alone. With proper training, a gun is a useful tool, but so is a car. Alas, proper training isnt a requirement for passing a driving test. Anyhoo, more ARUs, just not every policeofficer with a gun. They'd all be like Razer. Link to post Share on other sites
doc_newstead Posted June 25, 2005 Report Share Posted June 25, 2005 We're getting RMP's in on the weekends now, to keep an eye on all those p*ssed-up squaddies from Bassingbourn Barracks. So police shouldn't be armed, they should just wear DPM instead And what's more, it looks like it was a trial before it goes nationwide. Which, of course, the RMP have said is total tosh... http://www.hertsessexnews.co.uk/news/mercu...ack%20crime.lpf Link to post Share on other sites
mower Posted June 25, 2005 Report Share Posted June 25, 2005 the UK is culturally very close to australia yet here there are less people less guns and no chavs and the police still carry guns! there is no need here and there is no need in the UK. The ARU's are fine maybe you need a few more of them sure but DO NOT arm the Bobbies or you'll end up like a situation we have here were the coppers are armed but unlike the USA they are not bought up in a gun culture. If you look at australias crime statistics you can see this is bad thing as we actually have a higher ratio of police killings per population than the united states and yet we have a smaller population less crime and fewer coppers! Link to post Share on other sites
Sledge Posted June 25, 2005 Report Share Posted June 25, 2005 Sorry, but that's not a helpful statistic. How many of those killings are not justified? Link to post Share on other sites
joeking27 Posted June 25, 2005 Report Share Posted June 25, 2005 Killings per population takes into account the different sizes of population... Link to post Share on other sites
Sledge Posted June 25, 2005 Report Share Posted June 25, 2005 What I'm getting at is: how many of those killings were found to be unnecessary? If the majority of incidents where the Australian police used lethal force were justified, surely that suggests they DO need to be armed? Link to post Share on other sites
mower Posted June 25, 2005 Report Share Posted June 25, 2005 Sorry, but that's not a helpful statistic. How many of those killings are not justified? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> unfortunatly many not sure of the exact number though Link to post Share on other sites
Geronimo Posted June 25, 2005 Report Share Posted June 25, 2005 Got to be honest Doc - majority of coppers I know used to wear (some still do as TA) DPM for a living. The question of arming police officers though will come down to one of the public image of the police service. The government have a thing about the approachability of the police service - people are more likely to stay away from the police if they are carrying a holstered pistol as it would cause alarm & distress (This is their term for it - hmmm same terms they now use for replicas) These thoughts are exactly what happened when the police introduced the side-handled batons (in my force area they conducted polls to see what people thought of them - they didn't like to see the police carrying them) and eventually this led to their withdrawal to be replaced with the springloaded batons they have now. I also know one copper who's mate went up for the ARU and was rejected as not being of sound mind to carry a weapon. That sounds all well and good except the PC had been a Royal Marine Weapons instructor for the last 20 years and the test the police had asked him was to name his favourite colour. I don't think that with the state of mind of our government which is more interested in being seen as Politically Correct the police would ever be forced into becoming an armed service. Link to post Share on other sites
mower Posted June 25, 2005 Report Share Posted June 25, 2005 this is all what ive been told i havent seen any statistics lol but it may not be true because it came form the university student union so go figure Link to post Share on other sites
joeking27 Posted June 25, 2005 Report Share Posted June 25, 2005 What I'm getting at is: how many of those killings were found to be unnecessary? If the majority of incidents where the Australian police used lethal force were justified, surely that suggests they DO need to be armed? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> But we don't know for sure, and its likely that those particular stats are as easily available. Especially if it makes the ozzie bobbies look like trigger happy maniacs. And as mower has posted while I mess up my compuiter, I may not be totally wrong... edit: Shouldn't it be British or even UK police, not English? Link to post Share on other sites
Sledge Posted June 25, 2005 Report Share Posted June 25, 2005 God no! You can't give the Welsh guns, they might hurt themselves! Link to post Share on other sites
Geronimo Posted June 25, 2005 Report Share Posted June 25, 2005 No that's true we might go on a shooting rampage and cause an international wool shortage. Link to post Share on other sites
xRAZERx Posted June 26, 2005 Report Share Posted June 26, 2005 Personally I just don't like the idea of ANY police force having guns as standard. It is (IMO) just too much potential for mistakes. Leave it to the armed response teams, they do a brilliant job as it is. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> But there are already three fully armed police forces in the UK as it is One argument I see a LOT is that Police Officers don't want to be armed. Sorry, but this is neither here nor there. It is an essential tool to do the job on an increasing basis. If a roofer didn't want to use a ladder, he wouldn't be able to do his job effectively! Not all Police Officers though are able, fit, or capable of using firearms safely and effectively though, and of course these individuals should not be allowed to. That's not to say they shouldn't be Police Officers though - they could be community liason officers, administrators, investigators, or custody officers. After all, you wouldn't be allowed to be an Army Infantry Officer if you were unsafe with a rifle. There are OFTEN periods where Armed Response Units are unable to attend incidents because they are already attending one. We don't have anywhere near enough ARUs to deal with the level of gun-crime we already have, and they are being swamped. I mean, 3 cars to patrol an area the size of the West Midlands is just not enough. I think that the Police should be routinely armed as long as officers who are not competent are not armed - competency can easily be measured by regular testing and evaluation. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yep I agree 100% mate. But I believe there woould be a H&S issue if the Community Officers and Investigators didn't have the chance to be armed to. Because they would also be out on operational duties and the first time one of them got shot there'd be a whole world of lawsuits.... Not a bad idea, R22 - you're suggesting something akin to the Advanced Driving courses they have to do, in order to specialise in that? I think both courses should have mandatory psychiatric testing carried out, though - I consider cars easily as dangerous as guns, and reckon neither high power patrol car nor firearms should be assigned to those who aren't of the correct 'disposition'. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> But then what do you do with those few mate? Because in effect they are no longer able to patrol, because your gun becomes part of your PPE and the rules say you can't leave the nick without your PPE... I was scared to *beep* the other day, i live is a sleepy boring as hell town where you don't get gun crime or anything, it's called haywards heath, if you heard of it or live there you know how deathly boring it is, anyway back on topic while i was working in the shop i work in at about 10 o'clock a police man walked in and he had a side arm, i was like WTF?!?!?!?! why the hell do you need a gun here, also when i go to london see them armed all the time around parliment and other places, i just think it's a no, sure it would help to combat some instances but there would be the trigger happy policemen/women who would end up shooting unarmed people, i.e. that guy who got shot for carring a wooden chairleg in a bag. I just feel unless theres a big change and we start having loads of guns in the hands of criminals we shouldn't have armed policemen patrolling, ssure there should be an armed division like there is now but standard policemen/women shouldn't be armed. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You really got scared? Why?? We're getting RMP's in on the weekends now, to keep an eye on all those p*ssed-up squaddies from Bassingbourn Barracks. So police shouldn't be armed, they should just wear DPM instead And what's more, it looks like it was a trial before it goes nationwide. Which, of course, the RMP have said is total tosh... http://www.hertsessexnews.co.uk/news/mercu...ack%20crime.lpf <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ahh the monkeys, what a great effect they have on squaddies OK I've only quickly scanned through this thread but I'll add my input. Should the police be armed? NO. There is no need, the average beat booby will hardly ever encounter a situation where the use and deployment of firearms will be required. I would like to see a greater increase in the amount of ARVs that are available and maybe more routine armed patrols in areas of known trouble (Like they do in Nottingham sometimes). But the biggest factor against armed the police would be the cost. Take a force like the MET with about 25,000 officers. If they were to get a Glock, Magazines, Training and all the other equipment that goes with being a police officer that's going to cost a hell of a lot. And then there are 42 other Home Office forces in the UK, then the BTP, and 12 or so Market and Parks constabularys. And would you want to arm them too? On the use of tasers, they are there as a less than lethal option. They are not really useable in firearms situations. If someone has a knife or a bat ect then taser them, but if someone has a gun.... Mr Glock gets to come out. Link to post Share on other sites
Chimpy Posted June 26, 2005 Report Share Posted June 26, 2005 Explain and moot? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> mootness n. Usage Note: The adjective moot is originally a legal term going back to the mid-16th century. It derives from the noun moot, in its sense of a hypothetical case argued as an exercise by law students. Consequently, a moot question is one that is arguable or open to debate. But in the mid-19th century people also began to look at the hypothetical side of moot as its essential meaning, and they started to use the word to mean “of no significance or relevance.” Thus, a moot point, however debatable, is one that has no practical value. A number of critics have objected to this use, but 59 percent of the Usage Panel accepts it in the sentence The nominee himself chastised the White House for failing to do more to support him, but his concerns became moot when a number of Republicans announced that they, too, would oppose the nomination. When using moot one should be sure that the context makes clear which sense is meant. How many incidents were there this year of Officers stumbling onto armed criminals commiting crime? How many were shot at? I'm not questioning whether the Officer has the right to defend themself (they unequivocally should) but how likely the Officer is to actually be confronted with a situation in which lethal force is the only course of action. My current understanding and belief is that it is sufficently rare that the arming of Officers as standard with a lethal force option is not required. Criminals will always be armed? Dunno but if I knew I was going to face an Officer with a gun then I'd probably carry. Carrying as a means to commit the crime (as in armed robbery) well I'd be more inclined to use the gun on someone I knew was armed. Although I'm not a criminal so don't have the proper mindset most likely! Then there is the already mentioned public image. Link to post Share on other sites
xRAZERx Posted June 26, 2005 Report Share Posted June 26, 2005 Yep, in the olden days officers would get in trouble for letting the wrist strap on their trunchon be seen.... Link to post Share on other sites
Chimpy Posted June 26, 2005 Report Share Posted June 26, 2005 But there are already three fully armed police forces in the UK as it is <{POST_SNAPBACK}> CNC, MOD Plod and? Always wondered exactly how much crime they all tackle the popular image being its a nice job for ex-squaddies to retire into drinking tea and guarding gates. Link to post Share on other sites
Ad_Enuff Posted June 26, 2005 Report Share Posted June 26, 2005 No, definately not. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I agree, simply put that if our UK Police Forces became armed, gun crime would increase dramatically. The requirement of an armed criminal to possess a real firearm would become a necessity and as a result airsoft replica's or indeed any imitation firearm would be redundant. Link to post Share on other sites
xRAZERx Posted June 26, 2005 Report Share Posted June 26, 2005 CNC, MOD Plod and? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> PSNI Link to post Share on other sites
Geronimo Posted June 26, 2005 Report Share Posted June 26, 2005 Police Service of Northern Ireland? Damn ya beat me Razer Link to post Share on other sites
xRAZERx Posted June 26, 2005 Report Share Posted June 26, 2005 Yep, they're a fully armed force. Link to post Share on other sites
Chimpy Posted June 26, 2005 Report Share Posted June 26, 2005 PSNI <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ahh, that was thick of me. Beat me in my edit as well. Thats service. Link to post Share on other sites
xRAZERx Posted June 26, 2005 Report Share Posted June 26, 2005 Always wondered exactly how much crime they all tackle the popular image being its a nice job for ex-squaddies to retire into drinking tea and guarding gates. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Pah I wish. There's loads mate, all the crime that occurs on Defece estates and then all the fraud commited against the MOD, imagaine all the peace protests at places like Fairford and the like, it's the MoD Plod who sort the policing for that. All the gate guarding is done by the MoD Guard Service and the Military Provo Guard Service Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.