Options
Police Federation seek to arm all police.
Si_Crewe
Posts: 40,202 Forum Member
✭
Just heard THIS on the news.
Apparently Steve White, the head of the police federation, has said "We need to arm all every policeman with a tazer so they can protect themselves against terrorists".
What a load of bollocks.
If he wants to suggest that every cop should be armed with a tazer because it'll help them perform their duties better, fair enough. I don't agree with it but, it'd be a reasonable assertion to make.
To invoke the spectre of "terrorists" as a means of justifying it, however, is especially pathetic.
Out of the currently-serving 120,000 cops, how many of them have actually confronted a terrorist?
And out of that fraction, how many were cops who weren't already armed with either tazers or conventional firearms?
I'd bet that, statistically, it'd be easier to justify allowing members of the public to buy tazers so they could protect themselves against terrorists.
Apparently Steve White, the head of the police federation, has said "We need to arm all every policeman with a tazer so they can protect themselves against terrorists".
What a load of bollocks.
If he wants to suggest that every cop should be armed with a tazer because it'll help them perform their duties better, fair enough. I don't agree with it but, it'd be a reasonable assertion to make.
To invoke the spectre of "terrorists" as a means of justifying it, however, is especially pathetic.
Out of the currently-serving 120,000 cops, how many of them have actually confronted a terrorist?
And out of that fraction, how many were cops who weren't already armed with either tazers or conventional firearms?
I'd bet that, statistically, it'd be easier to justify allowing members of the public to buy tazers so they could protect themselves against terrorists.
0
Comments
Insert "And here we go" Heath Ledger Joker gif here.
In countries like the U.S., Canada, France and Germany etc. policemen with sidearms look as natural as people wearing shoes.
Whenever I see a British cop with a gun I think of them as kids that never grew up, they probably stand in front of a mirror, gun in hand, saying, "Come on punk, make my day."
What's wrong with "We're the Sweeney, son, and we 'aven't 'ad our dinner"?
(Regan and Carter weren't averse to sticking a revolver up a suspect's nose.)
I'm sure I read a report that said most police officers didn't want to be armed (with handguns at least) as it puts a great deal of emotional pressure on the job. If you draw a gun you have to be prepared to kill someone.
Also, there are over 60,000,000 people in this country, I would imagine there are 0.000000000001% of UK citizens with a leaning toward Terrorism. So the "we need it to combat terrorism" argument is probably a tinsy winsy bit flawed!
Why are we not allowed Tazers and CS spray for defence?
Indeed! First we just want to have the power to look at all your internet activity (Hi there if you are reading this) and now arming the regular police.
Of course it will stop at tasers and CS spray - NOT!
And they can have defence but if we dare to carry anything entirely for defence then they instantly as an offensive weapon and do us for having it.
It's just not a level playing field.
I have to agree, they ought to be more upfront about it and simply say that they feel all officers should be armed with a taser so that it is available when it is needed, including if heaven forbid, an officer is confronted with a terrorist. That being said, tasers are not meant to be used against firearms and wouldn't be much use because they don't have much of a range, though are obviously better than nothing.
My personal view is a huge increase in the number of officers carrying taser. The visual deterrence alone is sufficient the majority of the time, and where that fails the red dot usually brings compliance. The situations where taser is actually discharged in comparison are few and far between.
Yet ironically our armed police are trained to a far higher standard than the average US officer or gendarme.
Doubtful. However terrorism has moved on and suicide bombings have become a thing of the past, it's now about Mumbai style shoot outs, as recent events have shown.
Why on earth would it need to be a level playing field? It is the police who are expected to confront armed threats, not the public. You're right it won't stop at CS and taser, it's called change, and the police have to change in response to the changes in society. Years ago a baton was sufficient, but things changed hence CS being bought in, and then taser.
As for your issue with the laws on carrying offensive weapons, you'll be better off addressing that one with your MP rather than the police.
(all views in this post are my own personal, private views)
First and foremost, my view is that ALL uniformed police officers should be issued with Taser routinely. However it's not terrorism related for me.
Taser to protect against terrorism - I'm of a mixed opinion here. If we have a Paris style attack in the UK then Taser isn't going to do a great deal for any officer close by and would probably be the last option I'd consider. Taser vs automatic and heavy weaponry when the assailant is also wearing body armour isn't going to be effective. So many reasons here, including the 21ft range, body armour and the fact that getting near anyone with such weaponry will be near impossible. However, a knife attack as we have seen in some countries or other situations of terrorism it may be an option. Let's not just focus on a Paris style attack.
So for me saying this is necessary for preventing terrorism is weakening his argument. He's right in that all cops should carry Taser on duty, but perhaps the addition of terrorism wasn't the best option.
The only way you'll increase protection against a Paris style attack is to routinely arm all front line cops with a sidearm. This won't happen for a long time and I have mixed views on this subject. But being totally honest here, if such an attack occurred in the UK the potential death toll would be much higher than it was in Paris due to this fact. Imagine for a second any one of our large shopping centres in the UK - Liverpool One, Trafford Centre, Meadowhall, Westfield, Bluewater etc. if anyone went in there with a firearm how long do you think it would take to get armed cops there? Unarmed cops aren't going to be much use in this situation sadly. It would be a massacre. If all cops were routinely armed with a sidearm then the response would be quicker and hopefully more lives would be saved. It's a horrific situation to imagine and lives will always be lost, but currently how are we geared up as a country to deal with such a situation? I was hugely impressed with France's response to the tragic recent events and thought to myself we'd struggle to get anything like that in terms of a response.
Back to Taser, it's a fantastic tool. It saves lives, despite what the media would like you to think while spinning their stories to raise public emotion and selling stories. It doesn't fit every situation and it's not a one size fits all tool, but it's saved my life on several occasions and that of the people I've been sent to protect and even those I've been to arrest.
The training for Taser is by far the best I've done since I started my career. There's no room for error, get it wrong and you're off the course.
I've been to numerous incidents where I've used Taser. I've stopped people harming members of the public with all manners of weapons, stopped them harming themselves and I've prevented people from harming me too. The issue is that I am one of a small number on my division who carry Taser and when I'm needed I have to drive very quickly under blue lights to get to locations to assist non-Taser officers. This increases the risk to myself and those around me as I travel at such speeds to protect people where I'm needed. There's also a delay here to consider if officers have to wait for my arrival. All this could be reduced by issuing Taser to all.
[/b]Also consider the vast majority of my Taser usage doesn't see me discharge it.[/b] The mere fact that I'm present at a situation and I advise the subject that I am a Taser trained officer is often enough to reduce or stop the problem. If that fails I show them the Taser. I can step it up by either arching the device in front of them, which by this point most are compliant, or I can 'red dot' them, placing a red laser dot on their body. When all else fails I can discharge the Taser, however this is actually rarer than all my other use despite working in one of the busiest areas of the country for violent crime.
The reason for my low number of discharge use is because of the way we police in the UK. We aren't like the US or any other country people look to when looking to bash Taser issues. We don't use the device in the same way. And simply producing the device, without taking the safety off or even pointing it at someone causes me paperwork to justify my actions. It's a very closely monitored tool and the device itself records activations in many ways making it very accountable. Add to that the fact I wear a body camera which records my actions and again you have a very accountable life saving tool.
Taser can seriously reduce the risk of harm to offenders too. If someone is being violent and needs stopping there are many options to consider,
1) Physical restraint - requires the officer to get up close. Can result in many injuries for both parties due to pulling, twisting, striking. Includes such risks to life as positional asphyxiation, broken bones, head injuries and so on. Often involves more than one officer to use the tactics trained to officers in an attempt to safely contain a violent individual.
2) Spray - CS or PAVA. Can affect people differently, CS especially will affect more people in an area when used including the officer deploying it. Affecting the breathing of the subject and also those around them it can cause problems and even burns depending on it's use. Spray is badly affected by wind and can also be a non-option for use in crowded situations or situations where contamination is an issue.
3) Baton - this one hurts, a lot. Get hit with a metal bar and the chance of a broken bone or ruptured artery is huge. Consider a leg strike for example, rupture the federal artery and that person is dead within minutes.
4) Taser - if I had to chose one to have used on me this would be it. Ok, it hurts, a lot, but the chance of injury from the Taser itself is in my view lower than all the above. There's still yet to be a proven case in the UK of death caused by Taser itself and the effects despite being painful are short lived. All officers trained in Taser usage are trained in aftercare as are custody staff.
Let's be honest, none of the above is nice. They all have the potential for pain or injury I won't deny that. But consider why they are there and why they are used. If you've never had to stand in front of someone armed with a knife or someone intent on harming you, someone else or themselves and wondered how on earth you're going to stop them then you're lucky. I have to do this on a regular basis. Taser is another option to consider in these situations and one that MUST be available to ALL police officers facing these issues to increase public safety, the safety of themselves and that of the subject themselves.
Those against Taser often go off press stories which are in my view subject to a bias slant against Taser and often devoid of the full facts. Those who witness their usage normally become pro Taser very quickly. They aren't a fix for every problem, but let's get up to date and offer our police and the community they protect the best way to do this by issuing Taser to all front line officers. It's not a case of terrorism for me, it's a case of protecting you lot, something many of us take pride in doing daily.
Also consider this, I've carried Taser for a long time now. I've used it many times and yet not once have you heard of me or seen me in the press. I used it this week and yet nothing, not a mention in the local or national press. It was a successful use for all involved. The reason you've not heard of me is because I am like the vast majority of UK officers who carry Taser daily. I use it properly. The press won't report it because it's not sexy enough for them, it won't sell papers or get viewers as it won't enrage their audience. Sometimes the truth is easier to ignore if you have an agenda
The police carry such items to protect the public, not just themselves. The vast majority of my use of force is to protect another person. The vast majority of injuries that I have suffered were received protecting another person. The public are not defenceless because we put ourselves in harms way to protect them.
I have a lovely bruise on my body from protecting someone in the last couple of days. Still a little sore, but that's part of the job.
Arming the public would be a horrendous mistake and would see an increase in the use of weapons nationally. Not a good situation.
I want coppers to protect the public from the bad guys, crims, nutters and terrorists, and if that requires them to carry Tasers or sidearms, then so be it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OuZ-hppEDw
Step by step it's turning into one of those old eastern European states, we even have some actual eastern Europeans for ethnic authenticity.
Ironically the Taser itself is a weapon of terror. And it would only ever be used against the general public.
I think I see where the Police Federation guy is coming from.
Interesting that you call using force as "protecting".
That's Orwellian use of language you know.
Not sure how you feel about sweeping dogs!!!!
You should thank them!!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OuZ-hppEDw
Or, me owed you????
Thing is, this guy is specifically suggesting that cops need tazers to protect themselves in the face of all this rampant terrorism that is, apparently, so common these days.
And, if that is the case, surely it's actually more likely that members of the public are going to and up being confronted by a terrorist, so why shouldn't we be just as entitled to protect ourselves as a cop is?
Let's face it, it's just more faulty logic layered on top of a fundamentally disingenuous assertion.
A weapon of terror? I've seen it used (though not discharged) to stop a colleague from being stabbed in the neck. I've seen it discharged to stop a man from slitting his own throat. I've also seen it used to stop a man with an iron bar from caving his wife's head in.
Weapon of terror my backside.
How else do you expect police to protect people from those who are violent and/or armed? Do you live in dreamland?
Having a well formed argument is one thing, but you're just talking rubbish. I bet you've even got a tinfoil hat.
What you've quoted wasn't in response to you nor the article though, it was in response to somebody else. I fully agree that the chance of a police officer needing to protect themselves from a terrorist is quite low (although there is of course an on going threat) and that taser wouldn't be much use. I think the PolFed chap has tried to make the point of routine taser carry by bringing up the current threat of terrorism and hasn't thought it through properly. He's made himself and the rest of us look quite silly.