Scully Posted May 20, 2016 Report Share Posted May 20, 2016 Typical Scully venom and as ussual meaning nothing, as for me and ill informed i just read it thats all. Regular police with guns on a routene bassic has more of a chance of closing the gap on these figures than leaving them with tazers. http://www.voice-online.co.uk/article/us-had-more-police-shootings-24-days-uk-24-years You can call it venom if it suits; I simply find it annoying when posters posting on here make all manner of exaggerated idiotic statements which serve no purpose at all other than to whip up hysteria amongst the unknowledgeable and easily impressed. It's like reading The Sun. The post of yours I quoted and am referring to was full of nothing more than rabid personal opinion, with the exception of the link you have posted above, which incidentally, sites one single case of an armed US cop shooting a fleeing suspect, and the shooting by UK cops of ( unless I'm mistaken ) a known criminal. Unless you give us a breakdown of each incident and whether the shootings in those incidents were justified or not ( both in the US and UK ) then it was a deliberate attempt to prove your point with a sweeping statement regardless of the details within and is therefore meaningless. I don't mind anyone having a point of view or an argument, but unless it has its basis in fact then it's just a ramble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TONY R Posted May 20, 2016 Report Share Posted May 20, 2016 You can call it venom if it suits; I simply find it annoying when posters posting on here make all manner of exaggerated idiotic statements which serve no purpose at all other than to whip up hysteria amongst the unknowledgeable and easily impressed. It's like reading The Sun. The post of yours I quoted and am referring to was full of nothing more than rabid personal opinion, with the exception of the link you have posted above, which incidentally, sites one single case of an armed US cop shooting a fleeing suspect, and the shooting by UK cops of ( unless I'm mistaken ) a known criminal. Unless you give us a breakdown of each incident and whether the shootings in those incidents were justified or not ( both in the US and UK ) then it was a deliberate attempt to prove your point with a sweeping statement regardless of the details within and is therefore meaningless. I don't mind anyone having a point of view or an argument, but unless it has its basis in fact then it's just a ramble. So what your saying is everyone but you is an idiot and ill informed in Scully world HQ. Look i am far from the first person on this thread to try to point out to you a few home truths about your good self, and i fear i will not be the last. It is with regret however i know your drivel will just keep on coming, history as shown this to be the case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent Posted May 20, 2016 Report Share Posted May 20, 2016 Post us a link to this 'extensive' HO 'research' then. Do you realise when the riots I am talking of are as a time period? Link? It would be like finding the missing link! I will search out in print as I have it referenced some place here You realise why the massive recruitment drive would be required? It mainly because most coppers will refuse and many will be deemed unsuitable Greatest respect for the police but some coulnt be let loose with a spud gun and I have known quite a few ex- forces and sport shooters who refuse to carry or use But as has been touched on they do shoot a few of thier own and totally innocent persons Your in lancs? You not remember the blind old guy with hearing difficulties the lancs officer shot in the back with a tazor. Thinking his white stick was a samori sword! Well he failed to comply ( because of his deafness and looking the other way) I have been told ( by a gap copper) tazor training is harder to pass than firearms - that's one scarey thought The guy with the coffee table leg in a carrier bag. Waldorf shooting and pistol whipping for driving the car of the ex girlfriend of a Crook If covers here carry most will be shot by thier own guns not those of criminals hence the move to signature firearms Unfortunately I can see the road ahead with all the uncontrolled immigration and increased terror threats but it's perhaps better we don't consider arming our current mob or even regular arming of coppers at all My grandfather on my mother's side was a copper ( armed) and also served on the diplomatic protection group and guarded the Queen a number of times on special secondment btw Today's protection duty officers are really good but sorry a totally different cut of person to pc plod and job swaps would be a disaster at both ends. It's not just training There is a little bit more knowledge I can't disclose here but trust me coppers don't generally want to be armed and it's a bad idea - presently and yes I know some on a very personal level that will walk in a heartbeat if it came in Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
storm in a teacup Posted May 20, 2016 Report Share Posted May 20, 2016 (edited) Deleted by me Edited May 20, 2016 by storm in a teacup Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TONY R Posted May 20, 2016 Report Share Posted May 20, 2016 That is not the slightest bit true, Taser training is loads easier that firearms training. I have taught both for the last decade. Who is your enployer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
storm in a teacup Posted May 20, 2016 Report Share Posted May 20, 2016 The police Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TONY R Posted May 20, 2016 Report Share Posted May 20, 2016 The police So you should have no problem in explaining exactly how tazer training is so much eassier than firarms training by explaining each in clear detail should you. We are all ears. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
storm in a teacup Posted May 20, 2016 Report Share Posted May 20, 2016 Not really as most of it is not something you could put on an open forum due to the government marking restrictions. But Taser training takes a few days, firearms training takes between 4-6 weeks for the standard AFO. And that's me out! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TONY R Posted May 20, 2016 Report Share Posted May 20, 2016 Not really as most of it is not something you could put on an open forum due to the government marking restrictions. But Taser training takes a few days, firearms training takes between 4-6 weeks for the standard AFO. And that's me out! Exactly so it might have been more prudent to refrain from comenting dont you think, rather than throwing out a loaded response to Kents post you knew you could not back up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ph5172 Posted May 20, 2016 Report Share Posted May 20, 2016 Exactly so it might have been more prudent to refrain from comenting dont you think, rather than throwing out a loaded response to Kents post you knew you could not back up. I think he was commenting on the authority that he teaches both and has done so for some time, thus has a valid input to directly answer the point by virtue of knowing exactly how long each discipline takes, and what is required. It would never be a response you could back up in black and white, and if it was there would be uproar that it had been posted - as such either response would have caused a fall onto the sharp side of a sword. Was it a valid response? - Yes On a side note there appears to be a lot of responses that cannot be backed up - even those that claim to have the information from the public domain Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danger-Mouse Posted May 20, 2016 Report Share Posted May 20, 2016 (edited) Exactly so it might have been more prudent to refrain from comenting dont you think, rather than throwing out a loaded response to Kents post you knew you could not back up. There is a little bit more knowledge I can't disclose here Why is Storm`s post any less valid for admitting he can`t post certain details because of "government marking restrictions", than kent`s who does exactly the same but without putting a reason why he can`t/won`t post his information? Would you perhaps expect Storm to risk his job just to satisfy your curiosity or simply to prove a point? Edited May 20, 2016 by Danger-Mouse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TONY R Posted May 20, 2016 Report Share Posted May 20, 2016 I think he was commenting on the authority that he teaches both and has done so for some time, thus has a valid input to directly answer the point by virtue of knowing exactly how long each discipline takes, and what is required. It would never be a response you could back up in black and white, and if it was there would be uproar that it had been posted - as such either response would have caused a fall onto the sharp side of a sword. Was it a valid response? - Yes On a side note there appears to be a lot of responses that cannot be backed up - even those that claim to have the information from the public domain Then as i said before would it not be more prudent to not respond at all, as you so eliquently put in your post here attached he is not in a possition to back it up either is he so why respond to kents post. He clearly knew what he could divulge before he posted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TONY R Posted May 20, 2016 Report Share Posted May 20, 2016 Why is Storm`s post any less valid for admitting he can`t post certain details because of "government marking restrictions", than kent`s who does exactly the same but without putting a reason why he can`t/won`t post his information? Kent may not have had chance yet did you concider that before you posted this.? We need to try and stay on track here not throw out gauntlets with just enough info to help bend a inhane point and then, when questioned run and hide behind protocol we knew existed before we threw it down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toontastic Posted May 20, 2016 Report Share Posted May 20, 2016 What do I want for the police, I'd like them to be able to uphold the law and protect lives as efficiently and safely as possible. If that means being armed and wearing body armour then so be it, if it means wearing a pink tutu and carrying a tickling stick then that's what they should be given. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12gauge82 Posted May 20, 2016 Report Share Posted May 20, 2016 So what your saying is everyone but you is an idiot and ill informed in Scully world HQ. Look i am far from the first person on this thread to try to point out to you a few home truths about your good self, and i fear i will not be the last. It is with regret however i know your drivel will just keep on coming, history as shown this to be the case. Well I find scullys posts are usaully well informed, interesting and usaully based on a great deal of common sense, as do many others on here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danger-Mouse Posted May 20, 2016 Report Share Posted May 20, 2016 Kent may not have had chance yet did you concider that before you posted this.? We need to try and stay on track here not throw out gauntlets with just enough info to help bend a inhane point and then, when questioned run and hide behind protocol we knew existed before we threw it down. He had the chance when he first posted it. He could have said, there and then, why he could not reveal the information. However he chose to go all "secret squirrel". At least that`s how it appears. He may not have had chance that`s true, and he may have equally valid reasons, but in truth my criticism is not of his post, it`s of yours, for the reasons already stated. Storm on the other hand was very direct. He commented, then answered who he worked for, and then gave a very valid reason why he couldn`t give details. I see no reason to doubt what he has said. I have a mate in the police force. He works in some kind of "cyber division", part of the work he does is related to anti terrorism. He rarely discusses work and if he does it is about closed cases and details are rarely specific. This is a guy I`ve known for over 25 years. He knows I`m not a security risk but at the same time he takes his job seriously and doesn`t want to risk losing it. Storm not wishing to divulge information on an open forum is therefore perfectly understandable. Kent`s reasons may also be equally valid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TONY R Posted May 20, 2016 Report Share Posted May 20, 2016 He had the chance when he first posted it. He could have said, there and then, why he could not reveal the information. However he chose to go all "secret squirrel". At least that`s how it appears. He may not have had chance that`s true, and he may have equally valid reasons, but in truth my criticism is not of his post, it`s of yours, for the reasons already stated. Storm on the other hand was very direct. He commented, then answered who he worked for, and then gave a very valid reason why he couldn`t give details. I see no reason to doubt what he has said. I have a mate in the police force. He works in some kind of "cyber division", part of the work he does is related to anti terrorism. He rarely discusses work and if he does it is about closed cases and details are rarely specific. This is a guy I`ve known for over 25 years. He knows I`m not a security risk but at the same time he takes his job seriously and doesn`t want to risk losing it. Storm not wishing to divulge information on an open forum is therefore perfectly understandable. Kent`s reasons may also be equally valid. Again it might be better to wait then hey. ? Well I find scullys posts are usaully well informed, interesting and usaully based on a great deal of common sense, as do many others on here. Well bully for you . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12gauge82 Posted May 20, 2016 Report Share Posted May 20, 2016 Again it might be better to wait then hey. ? Well bully for you . Just pointing out that you dont speak for everyone when you put his posts down, everyone has got opinions right or wrong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TONY R Posted May 20, 2016 Report Share Posted May 20, 2016 (edited) One thing i must say is there seems to be a kind of gung ho attitude by more members on here than i personaly am comfortable with to all police officers having guns. Its not that police officers do not use firearms they have we are led to believe dedicated teams of highly traind and sellected officers can be fielded should the need for ulltimate force be required, to arm all officers has a distinct and dissturbing possibility that events like this one could happen at the tessco station near you. Sorry but i do not feel we have got to the level yet where we need on the bbeat police armed on our streets. Just pointing out that you dont speak for everyone when you put his posts down, everyone has got opinions right or wrong Thank you very much for pointing out the obvious here. Edited May 20, 2016 by TONY R Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12gauge82 Posted May 20, 2016 Report Share Posted May 20, 2016 One thing i must say is there seems to be a kind of gung ho attitude by more members on here than i personaly am comfortable with to all police officers having guns. Its not that police officers do not use firearms they have we are led to believe dedicated teams of highly traind and sellected officers can be fielded should the need for ulltimate force be required, to arm all officers has a distinct and dissturbing possibility that events like this one could happen at the tessco station near you. Sorry but i do not feel we have got to the level yet where we need on the bbeat police armed on our streets. https://youtu.be/-XFYTtgZAlE Thank you very much for pointing out the obvious here. Well judging by your strange views on our dedicated and professional police force I figured you probably needed the obvious pointed out to you, you don't seem to be able to grasp other obvious facts. I do however agree that we shouldn't have all police armed but the rest of your views regarding the police are in my opinion tripe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TONY R Posted May 20, 2016 Report Share Posted May 20, 2016 Well judging by your strange views on our dedicated and professional police force I figured you probably needed the obvious pointed out to you, you don't seem to be able to grasp other obvious facts. I do however agree that we shouldn't have all police armed but the rest of your views regarding the police are in my opinion tripe. When have i ever decried the police ever? And as for the obvious facts well that needs ratification in full or retraction, neither of these i expect from you or your soul mate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluebarrels Posted May 20, 2016 Report Share Posted May 20, 2016 I give this thread 2 more pages until it's locked, BB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
storm in a teacup Posted May 20, 2016 Report Share Posted May 20, 2016 All, This is truly my final post on the subject, what I stated is true. However some of the posters are right and I am not going to post information which my jepodise either my job or people's safety to prove a point on the Internet. Tony r is correct that I shouldn't have posted my comment as I knew that I would be unable to give the specifics that people want. Tony r my post seems to have offended you and for that I am truly sorry. I spend my life dealing with confrontation and I try to happy go lucky life while out of work. I do not go out of my way to upset anyone and I have some how seemed to have upset you. Again I am sorry and I will try to delete my offending post. All the best Storm in a teacup Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TONY R Posted May 20, 2016 Report Share Posted May 20, 2016 I give this thread 2 more pages until it's locked, BB Nah! It will never get that far. Too dellicate a subject for the illustrious PW massive. very cassual on armed police or the more vocal amongst them are any way. Praise god it will never happen, the police are doing a good job as it is, and whats even stranger they have guns available any way now. beat coppers dont need guns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salop Matt Posted May 20, 2016 Report Share Posted May 20, 2016 News just going out on media, a bloke has gone on a bit of a stabbing spree in the London area stabbing 4 women. Police have made an arrest, this with knives seems to be escalating far worse than guns from terrorism. Only yesterday in the US an innocent bystander was hit by a round that had passed threw a knife wielding nutter after an officer opened fire. I would sure like to see more officers with tasers and that includes the shotgun type giving a stand off ability. Am pretty sure the red laser would be intimidating enough to bring most things to a halt, officer and public safety have to come first. ATB Matt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.