Should all Police Officers be armed ?

Comparing incidents in the US and britain is not fair, since America varies
so much. Britain is equivilant in size to a state.

In the large cities, there’s a heck of a lot more gang and drug violence.
This means a lot more dead cops. In most rural areas, it never happens.
The parts of th ecountry where there is th egreatest amount of gun
ownership – the rural and suburban counties in the south and west – gun
violence is very low. Excepting drug users killing their fellow drug users,
you hear of very little violent crime. Certainly, nobody’s home gets broken
into while they’re at home. It’s sucide for criminals.
Criminals know which areas are places you don’t go to commit crime.
Places where over 90% of the homeowners own several guns are not safe
to rob. It’s a great deterrant.

In some of the big cities, like San Fancisco, they have a different culture
alltogether – they rely on the police, and abhor guns. they just passed a
ban on guns. You will see violent crime rise in San Fransisco shortly. by
March, every legal gun owner in Sanfransisco must turn in their guns, whil
the cirminals get to keep theirs…cause they ignore the law. It’s going to be
a free for all.

Sorry, but I think you guys may be mistaken. I have been under the impression that Britain most certainly is an armed society (well, at least it is a huge problem). Go to Nottingham and read their local papers. Gun fights are frequently occuring. Relatives of mine live there, and they tell me that it is so out of hand now that they want to move. Apparently Nottingham introduced its own police helicopter purely because of gun fights.

It is a problem for society, but certainly does not make Britain an armed society. For example do you carry a gun, have the necessary paperwork to own a gun, or are able to go to a gunsmiths and buy one, with or without a waiting period? Not in Britain you won’t, where only the police, the military, and a few criminals have guns.

How many police officers have been shot dead in Nottingham?

Flood

Bizzare – keep them out of the cops hands in order to keep them off the
streets. Hey, if it works over there, that’s fine. The idea that a cop could
be entrusted to enforce the law without a weapon seems a bit optimistic to
me. You’re basically trusting the criminal to not disobey the gun laws.

Again, different cultures.

Sorry, but I think you guys may be mistaken. I have been under the impression that Britain most certainly is an armed society (well, at least it is a huge problem). Go to Nottingham and read their local papers. Gun fights are frequently occuring. Relatives of mine live there, and they tell me that it is so out of hand now that they want to move. Apparently Nottingham introduced its own police helicopter purely because of gun fights.

One of the chief constables said, the other day, that the idea was to keep guns off the streets – not put more on them. It was stated that the chances were that more officers would be injured with their own weapons after they’d been taken by criminals: and that was from the same chief constable.
Not only is Britain not an armed society, but it goes against the character trait of the nation. The police in Britain are perceived as being there to help and assist, not gun people down; judges judge, the police do not execute. Despite the occasional incident like this Britain is nothing like it is portrade on television; the number of serious incidents that apparently happen to the Sun Hill cops in The Bill don’t happen to the whole of the London metropolitan force in the course of a decade – but the ordinary bobbies life is not nearly exciting enough for the TV producer so it has to be ‘sexed up’. How many new recruits joined up after watching The Sweeney, for example?:D:D:D

Dakota2, exactly how many guns did you see in your career? How many were in the hands of criminals?

But how about a comparison: how many police officers have been shot dead through the course of their duties in Britain and America (or anywhere else in the world; but please denote if that countries officers are usually armed, though) in the last, say, 10 years?

Flood

I find the idea of the majority of police being unarmed ridiculous.

America is an armed society – Britain is not.

What might be appropriate and even necessary elsewhere, may not be the thing we need here.

Here only the military and certain police units carry weapons – only a minority of criminals use weapons. When we see guns in the street, it is something out of the ordinary and long may it remain so.

I find the idea of the majority of police being unarmed ridiculous.
Criminals are, by definition, breakers of the law – why should they
be expected to have enough respect for a cop to just give up
without a fight? You have to expect them to try to resist, fight
back, or escape if possible. Especially violent felons, who have
nothign to lose, since they’re going away for a long time if they’re
caught.

If you think arming police will make criminals become more well
armed, then you’re giving in to criminals. Limiting what you do
based on how you percieve criminal’s will react – it’s ludicrous.
It’s as if you’ve prematurley capitulated to the demands of
crooks – God forbid we make them angry.

Have them react to the police, not vice versa. Keep criminals on
the defensive, NOT the men and women putting their lives on the
line for us.

Keeping police unarmed is a ruse. Who are you fooling? If the
cops are unarmed, you can maintain the fantasy that crime is less
of a threat. The moment you’ve got all your police armed with
guns, that utopian illusion of percieved safety is shattered.

As a retired Police Officer with things changing to such an extent since I was in the Force I would recommend that they now be armed.
In the late 50’s I was a Traffic Officer and we had very little problems no one ever thought of shooting us (generally) but if I was still in the force I would want to be able to protect myself by being able to shoot back if necessary. The whole scene has completely changed.

dakota

In this country all police are armed, these people are putting their life on the line every day. If someone is armed with a knife or a gun, the policeman armed with a baton or capsicum spray is at marked disadvantage. If i were on the frontline so to speak, i’d like more than a bloody baton strapped to my hip

In the press conference yesterday someone asked the question about vests. The response was that whilst there are stronger vests than the ones used by officers on the beat, these are specialist vests, and cannot be used routinely because of their weight. I have worn one before and they are extremely heavy, you certainly couldnt run in one.

I started this thread and there has been some very interesting answers to the question from a few points of view. But after reading a number of reports my question is if most of our officers are not armed why do the government not provide them with the equipment to deal with incidents like this ? I.E vests that will stop a bullet ? Is it a case of bugets on the vests and and the cheapest wins ? For me we as a country waste too much money on things that are daft and don’t address the real issues. :confused:

aj_march makes a very good point about the taser, and the uptake of this device does seem to be happening. I cant remember which force it was, but one Chief Constable volunteered to have the taser tried out on him. It was used in a similar way to a conventional gun, achieved the desired result of rendering the person totally immobile, yet the key difference was that the person survived, and in a real situation would mean they would then be able to face trial.

This to me seems a far more sensible approach to take on the issue. The only problem I can possibly envisage is the fact that the device may not be able to deliver an immediate charge in the same way as a conventional gun, but someone better qualified than me would have to make that judgement.

But then the police need to be better trained at whatever they do – everywhere. A sad fact is that (if I remembers rightly) police armed officers threatened to withdraw their services if the verdict went against them in the case of Harry Stanley, the Scotsman shot dead for sounding Irish and having a table leg in a plastic bag. The cops concerned were said to be ‘in a panic’ (http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=437&id=457282005), just as you or I would be if we thought someone was pointing a gun at us; but we’d expect armed police to be better trained than that, to be cool and calm in situations where we would be quaking like jelly. Then there is the complete c0ck up that was the shooting of an innocent man: Jean Charles de Menezes. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Charles_de_Menezes) The surveilance team tracked him and an anti terrorist team gunned him down – the kind of people who should be highly trained and totally aware of what they are doing and for whom they are doing it. Instead, this incident should make everyone aware that the police will do their utmost to cover their own backsides. Menezes was said to have vaulted the ticket barrier, to have been wearing winter clothing in warm weather, to have ignored a shouted warning from the police, that the stations CCTV system was not working. He was shot nine times over thirty seconds, eight times in the head; sounds more like a little gungho macho-ism than an attempt to subdue.

Who knows – some might say there is more danger from the police than terrorists…(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4451760.stm)

Flood

Flood,
I would like to know what experience you have of this kind of thing. i happen to know several police officers, friends and family, and as a result i know how difficult a job it is first hand.

Before people criticise police officers for shootings, we should put ourselves in their position. If an officer is told a suspect is carrying a firearm, then naturally they will be on their guard. A suspect carying something that looks like a firearm can be threatening enough, and impossible to discern from a genuine weapon. There are many immitation weapons avaliable these days, but in some circumstances even an object like a table leg can be surprisingly convincing.

So imagine this, you are an armed officer, and you are told that there is an armed man walking down the street. You reach the area and identify the man, who is uncooperative and threatening. You are obviously a little afraid, and unless you are close then it is hard to see what the suspect is carrying. In the table leg incident, it was wrapped up, and the incident happened at night – making idnetification more difficult again. If the suspect then point the ‘weapon’ towards you, what are your actions?
Give him the benefit of the doubt? After all, it might not be a gun. You have been told that he is armed, and you can’t be certain what he is carrying, so should you take the chance that the suspect is completely safe? Are you willing to bet your life, your colleage’s life and the safety members of the public as well?

And by the way, you have about a second to decide as he points it at you.

Another thing many members of the public get the wrong impression of is the way officers are prosecuted after such incidents. Take this for example, where officers threatened to go on strike if their colleagues were sent down. It sounds bad to the observer, it did to me when i first heard about it. The police have a duty to protect us. Exactly.

Officers who risk their lives to protect the public, getting criticised for doing their jobs. When they are forced to shoot someone, the bosses wash their hands of them, fearing for their own careers, and officers are used as a scapegoat. Would YOU do this job if you knew this would happen to you? Risk you life, and if you end up actually carrying out your orders, well, you go to jail.

Sorry if i seemed to rant a little, but it is a subject that is close to my heart. I am saddened as much as anyone to hear of people being killed by police accidentaly, i really am. I offer my sincere condolences. But its easy for people to point the finger at the police without knowing their side of the story, and often people do.

In Belgium all police are armed, even traffic police or the ones working on festivals. I can’t imagine it different. And I don’t think our criminals are any worse than in the UK. If policemen are under attack, they should be able to defend themselves and the people on the streets. Or what if you have to fire a warning shot.

Belgium has one of the most strict gunlaws in the world. Very few people actually own guns (legally), but the police is always armed and I don’t see why this should change.

I believe police officers should be armed, no matter where they might be! Imagine a cop trying to make an arrest on a person and the perpetrator pulls out a handgun! What’s a police officer to do? Pull out his batton and kindly ask this person to drop his gun and assume the position to get the bracelets! Likely! However, I can tell you that a person who is on the lam and doesn’t want to be caught will pull the trigger and try to kill whoever might stand in his way to freedom. Unfortunate but a likely scenario!
An officer with a handgun would have an opportunity to defend himself and maybe carry the arrest to term. Police officers are trained to use their better judgements at all times, no matter what the situation may present to them. I have several friends who are police officers here in Canada and I can guarantee that none will draw their gun until it is absolutely necessary. Not only for their safety but for the safety of others. They are trained to shoot center mass to make sure that whoever is shooting at them will be disabled immediately in a shooting match! Such an incident recently took place. Two officers responded to a public disturbance call and were met by a drunken “gentlemen” with a shotgun. A short discussion took place before the man opened fire. One of the officers was hit in his vest while a few of the buckshots broke his skin around his throat and face. His partner opened fire and double tapped the shooter with his handgun. Situation dealt with rapidly and efficiently, preventing the death of two officers, who, if they hadn’t been armed, could have been killed that night!
Being a police officer presents different situations each time they respond to a call and none of them know what will happen from one moment to the next. Having a gun makes it an even playing field in an age when outlaws simply do not care about other people. For the police officer, it gives him a fighting chance to get home to his loved one and to do his job efficiently and with a certain peace of mind! Believe me that none of them want to ever pull out their gun during a call!
My point being that I believe cops should have the right equipment for a demanding job and if that includes a sidearm than so be it!

It sounds like those guarding the Royals need to be better trained yet.
Hopefully, Bobbies aren’t as stupid (or trigger happy) as you think they are.

But then the police need to be better trained at whatever they do – everywhere. A sad fact is that (if I remembers rightly) police armed officers threatened to withdraw their services if the verdict went against them in the case of Harry Stanley, the Scotsman shot dead for sounding Irish and having a table leg in a plastic bag. The cops concerned were said to be ‘in a panic’ (http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=437&id=457282005), just as you or I would be if we thought someone was pointing a gun at us; but we’d expect armed police to be better trained than that, to be cool and calm in situations where we would be quaking like jelly. Then there is the complete c0ck up that was the shooting of an innocent man: Jean Charles de Menezes. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Charles_de_Menezes) The surveilance team tracked him and an anti terrorist team gunned him down – the kind of people who should be highly trained and totally aware of what they are doing and for whom they are doing it. Instead, this incident should make everyone aware that the police will do their utmost to cover their own backsides. Menezes was said to have vaulted the ticket barrier, to have been wearing winter clothing in warm weather, to have ignored a shouted warning from the police, that the stations CCTV system was not working. He was shot nine times over thirty seconds, eight times in the head; sounds more like a little gungho macho-ism than an attempt to subdue.

Both sides can probably make a good case for their position….but with the terrorist climate in the world today, I wonder how long the UK can maintain its stance?

Who knows – some might say there is more danger from the police than terrorists…(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4451760.stm)

Flood

The arming of our police force could only provoke criminals in to shooting officers on site believing them selves at risk.Armed response teams are always on patrol so possibly increasing those would be a help,but in my eyes bring in stiffer sentences for police murder, life means life, not ten years if your a good boy.In the criminal fraternity the death of an officer only spells trouble ,as all are pulled in to help with enquiries, so the perpetrators are disowned by their own type.

If we have people as well trained as those guarding the Royal Family accidentally discharging their weapons accidentally in a Royal Palace, what could we expect of ordinary Bobbies?
Regards,

kev35

That’s like saying no one should have cars because there are crashes in F1 or ban private flying because if someone was well trained as an RAF pilot crashes, ther’s no hope for some punter in a Moth or Cessna.

It sounds like those guarding the Royals need to be better trained yet.
Hopefully, Bobbies aren’t as stupid (or trigger happy) as you think they are.

Both sides can probably make a good case for their position….but with the terrorist climate in the world today, I wonder how long the UK can maintain its stance?

Have to agree. There simply is no reason for every Police officer to be armed. The amount of armed crimes is already the minority & where the Police face an armed person, even less.
The shooting of the officers is sad, but not widespread enough to justify the costs & risks of arming every officer. Remember; Britain is NOT America!

introduce better gun control laws.

We have that in Britain. Only armed police, the military, and criminals carry a weapon now.

Flood