arm our police or not

[spanj]

Yes, it's time for the UK to arm its police officers.

 

I note your location and IMO this should preclude you from voicing your opinion on english affairs..............

[gazzthompson]

I'm all for outside perspective, they just need to consider cultural differences.

[utectok]

Not! It would be a big mistake.

[four-wheel-drive]

Its like herding cats trying to get a consensus on anything on this forum if it was not funny it would make you cry.

[Vince Green]

do you mean Harry Stanley?

 

the man who sat in a pub and told a small crowd he had a sawn off shotgun in his bag and then showed them a carrier bag wrapped around a chair leg but insisted it was a shotgun and didn't unwrap the carrier bag, then put it back in his holdall and left......one of the crowd rang the old bill,

 

when the two armed officers tried to stop him he pulled the carrier bag wrapped chair leg out and levelled it at the officers as you would a shotgun shooting from the hip.

 

I wonder why he got shot?

And almost everything you have said is contradicted by witnesses at the scene. The harry stanley case is one of the most worrying cases of the police mis-information machine going into overdrive and spreading all sorts of inaccuracies.

 

He had only just come out of hospital after an operation for bowel cancer. The only witness to the shooting a mother with her child insists he was approached from behind and shot from behind. The bullet entered behind his ear. He did not turn, probably couldn't and the inquest had to be reheld because the police version of events was shown to be way off the mark. Oh yes, and why did the police never release the original phone call from the pub? or even a transcript?

 

Harry Stanley was a low point in police credibility. The same techniques of misinformation was used very much (and by the same people) in the shooting of Charles De Menensis "he was wearing a bulky jacket" "he ran from police" "he jumped the barrier" "the cameras in the station weren't working"

Edited June 19, 2012 by Vince Green

[Greymaster]

Being armed might have stopped this young peeler from being possibly crippled....

 

http://inspectorgadget.wordpress.com/2012/06/18/in-the-hands-of-the-darkest-most-cynical-and-sinister-devils/

 

"Police were called in the early hours of 12 March 2011 to reports of a man being chased by a group of youths who were armed with a knife on Hemlock Road, in the W12 area. On arrival officers found a man being assaulted, who they attempted to help at which point they were set upon by a number of men including the three convicted men.

 

PC Tucker was kicked, punched and thrown across a front garden where he hit his head and was knocked unconscious. PC Guillibaud called for urgent assistance and more officers arrived. They were forced to use CS spray to stop the violence and defend themselves."

 

"Michael Luke and Paul Luke were sentenced to 12 months each for affray. James King was sentenced to 18 months for affray and actual bodily harm against 27-year-old PC Sean Tucker. They all pleaded guilty to the offences on Tuesday 8 May at the same court."

 

"He’s had surgery, needed an artificial ligament, still isn’t back to full duties but they charged with ABH?!

18 months (probably serving 6 or 7) is hardly a deterrent for a mob attacking police and hospitalising (and possibly permanently crippling) a young officer."

 

 

When the courts are handing out 'punishment' like that it's no wonder they're losing the 'respect' of the criminal underclass.

 

 

Nial.

 

 

So the Court decided the tariff was 12-18 months, but if armed the plods would have decided the death penalty at their discretion.

 

It is not the role of the police to determine whether someone lives or dies, but they do have a defence if they act to preserve life, their own included. They lived. Hence the Judge determined the sentence.

 

By the way, every serving plod has volunteered for the job knowing that they will put themselves in danger to protect the public and to catch criminals.

 

By the way, unarmed plods kill more pedestrians by dangerous driving in unnecessary car chases than crazed gunmen.

 

I lived for a time in Oz where the police are routinely armed. When I asked a constable if they were expecting trouble as they were gathered at a ferry terminal, one put his hand on his revolver and said "I do hope so!".

 

You only have to witness the arrogance of ARU's to realise how unsufferable regular plod would be packing a piece.

[Zulu]

Well there seems to be a fair few on this forum who dont think the police should be armed and are generally unsuited to firearms , any suggestions as to who can provide a professional armed response when required and are less likely to make decisions that have led to unarmed people being shot ? , or how the existing selection /training of armed officer could be improved ?

[kdubya]

Well there seems to be a fair few on this forum who dont think the police should be armed and are generally unsuited to firearms , any suggestions as to who can provide a professional armed response when required and are less likely to make decisions that have led to unarmed people being shot ? , or how the existing selection /training of armed officer could be improved ?

 

an intelligence test would be a start

 

KW

[kent]

Well there seems to be a fair few on this forum who dont think the police should be armed and are generally unsuited to firearms , any suggestions as to who can provide a professional armed response when required and are less likely to make decisions that have led to unarmed people being shot ? , or how the existing selection /training of armed officer could be improved ?

 

Well its a bit of a catch 22 coz i think recruit from those who are used to guns, problem is out of the coppers i know who shoot and have grown up with guns most of them understand very fully its not like John Wayne films and dont want to do it. To a great degree those who have come from a full military service in the appropriate areas tend not to start a second career as a copper. Most police firearms training has become quite secretive nowadays, so suggestions can only be " improve" deaths in training like in the incedent with GMP are totally unacceptable

 

an intelligence test would be a start

 

KW

well thats blown it then

[Vince Green]

Its not just in the UK that there have been a lot of controversial police shootings. Certainly America and Canada have had their share. Some of the American SWAT teams virtually never bring out a live prisoner. Its the nature of the situation and our police generally are better trained and have a better attitude. But who would choose to do it as a job?

[compo90]

And almost everything you have said is contradicted by witnesses at the scene. The harry stanley case is one of the most worrying cases of the police mis-information machine going into overdrive and spreading all sorts of inaccuracies.

 

He had only just come out of hospital after an operation for bowel cancer. The only witness to the shooting a mother with her child insists he was approached from behind and shot from behind. The bullet entered behind his ear. He did not turn, probably couldn't and the inquest had to be reheld because the police version of events was shown to be way off the mark. Oh yes, and why did the police never release the original phone call from the pub? or even a transcript?

 

Harry Stanley was a low point in police credibility. The same techniques of misinformation was used very much (and by the same people) in the shooting of Charles De Menensis "he was wearing a bulky jacket" "he ran from police" "he jumped the barrier" "the cameras in the station weren't working"

 

 

sorry i only quote what i know and what i am told, i indirectly know one of the witnesses from the pub (a friend of a friend) and i am sure that i painted an accurate picture of the events in the pub.

 

jean chales De menzes classic .......i am sure you have an opinion on illegal immigrants, regardless of the fact he wasn't a terrorist he was an illegal immigrant and may account for his reluctance to stop.......and as other more forgiving members of this forum have stated, they would have been damned if they didn't, imagine if he had been the suspect they had been watching (for your info the police were watching the suspects in a flat, the officer watching went for a ****, and then see's Jean Charles leaving the block and mistakenly believed he was one of the terrorists - dark skinned and rushing to a tube from the suspect block of flats)

 

what would you rather they had done? left the suspect and he turned out to be one of the terrorists and he exploded himself on a tube containing several hundred innocent people on their way to school, work etc....or taken out the suspect (do you ask a suicide bomber to surrender and allow them chance to pull the pin and blow everyone up anyway? including you) it was a very hard call in the circumstances and having been one of the people chasing the suspects from warren street tube station the day that they failed to successfully detonate themselves then, i know how paranoid it makes you and how hard it is to not suspect the worst. I think that if the mistake hadn't been made at the observation point then this would all be a mute point, but it did happen, due to resources being even more stretched in the days after the second attempt to mass murder a load of people in our capital.

[compo90]

And almost everything you have said is contradicted by witnesses at the scene. The harry stanley case is one of the most worrying cases of the police mis-information machine going into overdrive and spreading all sorts of inaccuracies.

 

He had only just come out of hospital after an operation for bowel cancer. The only witness to the shooting a mother with her child insists he was approached from behind and shot from behind. The bullet entered behind his ear. He did not turn, probably couldn't and the inquest had to be reheld because the police version of events was shown to be way off the mark. Oh yes, and why did the police never release the original phone call from the pub? or even a transcript?

 

Harry Stanley was a low point in police credibility. The same techniques of misinformation was used very much (and by the same people) in the shooting of Charles De Menensis "he was wearing a bulky jacket" "he ran from police" "he jumped the barrier" "the cameras in the station weren't working"

 

 

sorry i only quote what i know and what i am told, i indirectly know one of the witnesses from the pub (a friend of a friend) and i am sure that i painted an accurate picture of the events in the pub.

 

jean chales De menzes classic .......i am sure you have an opinion on illegal immigrants, regardless of the fact he wasn't a terrorist he was an illegal immigrant and may account for his reluctance to stop.......and as other more forgiving members of this forum have stated, they would have been damned if they didn't, imagine if he had been the suspect they had been watching (for your info the police were watching the suspects in a flat, the officer watching went for a ****, and then see's Jean Charles leaving the block and mistakenly believed he was one of the terrorists - dark skinned and rushing to a tube from the suspect block of flats)

 

what would you rather they had done? left the suspect and he turned out to be one of the terrorists and he exploded himself on a tube containing several hundred innocent people on their way to school, work etc....or taken out the suspect (do you ask a suicide bomber to surrender and allow them chance to pull the pin and blow everyone up anyway? including you) it was a very hard call in the circumstances and having been one of the people chasing the suspects from warren street tube station the day that they failed to successfully detonate themselves then, i know how paranoid it makes you and how hard it is to not suspect the worst. I think that if the mistake hadn't been made at the observation point then this would all be a mute point, but it did happen, due to resources being even more stretched in the days after the second attempt to mass murder a load of people in our capital.

[compo90]

So the Court decided the tariff was 12-18 months, but if armed the plods would have decided the death penalty at their discretion.

 

It is not the role of the police to determine whether someone lives or dies, but they do have a defence if they act to preserve life, their own included. They lived. Hence the Judge determined the sentence.

 

By the way, every serving plod has volunteered for the job knowing that they will put themselves in danger to protect the public and to catch criminals.

 

By the way, unarmed plods kill more pedestrians by dangerous driving in unnecessary car chases than crazed gunmen.

 

I lived for a time in Oz where the police are routinely armed. When I asked a constable if they were expecting trouble as they were gathered at a ferry terminal, one put his hand on his revolver and said "I do hope so!".

 

You only have to witness the arrogance of ARU's to realise how unsufferable regular plod would be packing a piece.

 

no the point he was making it wouldn't have ended up in a fist fight, it would have been weapons drawn, everyone stops and the bad guys get arrested without being harmed..........i am lucky i am big strong and good in a fist fight, not all coppers are, and a pistol would be a good equaliser when some young copper is facing 12 big strong violent men fighting

[four-wheel-drive]

I say we should just ban all guns if the police cannot be trusted with them then the rest of us cannot be trusted with them.

[Dr_Scholl]

I'm all for outside perspective, they just need to consider cultural differences.

 

I realize there's a cultural difference and the British have a general hatred of firearms. But I believe that in this day and age, routinely arming all police officers is a necessary evil.

 

Even Germany and France, who have lower homicide and violent crime rates than Britain, arm all of their officers. The UK is the exception, not the rule.

[Zapp]

I note your location and IMO this should preclude you from voicing your opinion on english affairs..............

 

Why should it? Aside from the fact that Dr Scholl lives in a coutry where the Police are routinely armed, and can therefore speak from experience we may not have, he is just as much a member of PW as you are, and should be allowed his say without insinuations that his nationality makes his input unwelcome.

[kent]

no the point he was making it wouldn't have ended up in a fist fight, it would have been weapons drawn, everyone stops and the bad guys get arrested without being harmed..........i am lucky i am big strong and good in a fist fight, not all coppers are, and a pistol would be a good equaliser when some young copper is facing 12 big strong violent men fighting

 

i doubt that under these circumstances a firearm would help he should stay clear untill adequate support arrives and observe and liase with his control. If he was armed theres a fair chance he would be shot with his own gun and for him to use the weapon would not be justified. Any fool who wades into 12 handy blokes is gonna get one serious beating no matter how good he thinks he is

[compo90]

i doubt that under these circumstances a firearm would help he should stay clear untill adequate support arrives and observe and liase with his control. If he was armed theres a fair chance he would be shot with his own gun and for him to use the weapon would not be justified. Any fool who wades into 12 handy blokes is gonna get one serious beating no matter how good he thinks he is

 

 

if your referring to me I KNOW how handy i am, and street fighting is a long way from a dojo or gym ........what i am getting at is that a group fighting are more likely to listen to the copper if he is armed as they wont want to get shot, so weapon drawn and loud voice engaged STOP OR I'LL SHOOT.........and they will then stop.

 

the biggest problem we have is that this country has become too liberal and against the establishment, and too prepared to believe the best of the criminals and the worst of the authorities

[compo90]

Why should it? Aside from the fact that Dr Scholl lives in a coutry where the Police are routinely armed, and can therefore speak from experience we may not have, he is just as much a member of PW as you are, and should be allowed his say without insinuations that his nationality makes his input unwelcome.

 

 

you could argue his is the only valid argument here....Dr Scholl lives with what we are discussing, we are all surmising He LIVES in a country with ARMED police.and he made a very valid point about france and germany (in fact all of europe) having armed officers and less violent crime than the UK.

[kent]

if your referring to me I KNOW how handy i am, and street fighting is a long way from a dojo or gym ........what i am getting at is that a group fighting are more likely to listen to the copper if he is armed as they wont want to get shot, so weapon drawn and loud voice engaged STOP OR I'LL SHOOT.........and they will then stop.

 

the biggest problem we have is that this country has become too liberal and against the establishment, and too prepared to believe the best of the criminals and the worst of the authorities

 

with out sounding a ****, child or walt, i have done this many times. Never underestimate a mob and never ever, ever pull a weapon you wont use in a heartbeat or it will very likely be turned against you

[wyatt]

Arm them with tasers as minimum with pistols and bigger weapons being available in all vehicles. A aluminum tube is no match for a machete when being attacked, with more and more police being single crewed/ on their own at an incident they need some form of protection.

 

Yes there are a lot of people who I wouldn't trust with firearms but they also served next to me in the Armed Forces and there were no problems. Firearms don't have to be used to have an effect, their presence enough is often good enough.

[Nial]

i doubt that under these circumstances a firearm would help he should stay clear untill adequate support arrives and observe and liase with his control.

 

.....

 

Any fool who wades into 12 handy blokes is gonna get one serious beating no matter how good he thinks he is

 

 

I don't think that guy got stuck in because he thought he was 'good' but because a member of the public was getting a possibly

lethal beating and they bravely did their best to help him.

 

They should be given the tools to do this without risking their own lives.

 

Whether that's handguns, or shotguns with beanbags as someone else posted, I don't know what's best.

 

 

Nial

[Nial]

By the way, every serving plod has volunteered for the job knowing that they will put themselves in danger to protect the public and to catch criminals.

 

Should they have to risk their lives to save a member of the public who's getting a beating by 12 men?

 

As respect for the police wanes (after sentences like that discussed) this is likely to become more of a problem for them.

 

 

You only have to witness the arrogance of ARU's to realise how unsufferable regular plod would be packing a piece.

 

Perhaps because that's because they consider themselves 'special' (speshul perhaps).

 

I spent my first 30 years in Belfast where this attitude didn't prevail. As a student I was pulled in my (ratty as hell but

solid and safe) mini plenty of times with numerous producers. All the peelers I ever delt with were civil enough (given

they were manning roadblocks in cold wet Belfast).

 

 

Most of those who have posted here having grown up where the police are armed seem to think it's a good idea.

 

 

Nial.

[Greymaster]

Read how over 100 armed police mutinied over the coroners verdict of unlawful killing of Harry Stanley.

 

Having taken an oath to execute their duties without fear or favour they then mutiny and threaten to hand in their arms in support of their two colleagues responsible for the unlawful killing of Harry Stanley.

 

"02 Nov 2004: More than 100 Scotland Yard firearms officers threatened to down their weapons in protest at the suspension of their two colleagues over the death of Mr Stanley. Scotland Yard Commissioner Sir John Stevens personally took over negotiations to avert a potentially devastating "strike" by armed police. "

 

These rebels should have been sacked and forfeited their pensions for such disgraceful conduct. For those who suggest a backlash of blame had Jean Charles triggered a bomb on the tube. Imagine if their had been a major public safety incident while the rebels had been breaking their oath and been striking, in itself an illegal act.

 

http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/the-long-fight-to-win-justice-for-harry-1-560996

Edited June 20, 2012 by Greymaster

[Rushjob]

Read how over 100 armed police mutinied over the coroners verdict of unlawful killing of Harry Stanley.

 

Having taken an oath to execute their duties without fear or favour they then mutiny and threaten to hand in their arms in support of their two colleagues responsible for the unlawful killing of Harry Stanley.

 

"02 Nov 2004: More than 100 Scotland Yard firearms officers threatened to down their weapons in protest at the suspension of their two colleagues over the death of Mr Stanley. Scotland Yard Commissioner Sir John Stevens personally took over negotiations to avert a potentially devastating "strike" by armed police. "

 

These rebels should have been sacked and forfeited their pensions for such disgraceful conduct. For those who suggest a backlash of blame had Jean Charles triggered a bomb on the tube. Imagine if their had been a major public safety incident while the rebels had been breaking their oath and been striking, in itself an illegal act.

 

http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/the-long-fight-to-win-justice-for-harry-1-560996

 

All AFO's are volunteers and carry out armed duties in the hope that should they ultimately do the job they are trained to do, they will get a fair crack of the whip in the investigation.

 

What you are referring to is the suspension of two officers five years after the incident and a very badly handled repeat enquiry by another force.

 

What their colleagues were actually considering handing in their Authorisations over was to quote their Fed Rep at the time

 

" The officers are very concerned that the tactics they are trained in, as a consequence of the verdict, are now in doubt. "

 

That and a lack of support and direction from Command as to how to deal with a similar scenario ( they buried their heads in the proverbial sand and said follow your training....... )

 

It wasn't a strike, it wasn't a mutiny and at the time I was in a similar situation and watched the whole thing develop with a great deal of interest.

 

Oh, and they were later exonerated.

 

But don't let the truth get in the way of a good story.....