I don't have a problem with this the amount of regulation there is I know they won't be reckless and start randomly shooting people it seems that their lives get put on hold for months after they shoot someone while people crawl over every aspect of what happened.
My main issue with this is not the routine arming but the way they just allowed what is normally a specialised unit to go out on normal patrol with very, very little potential for violence or terrorism with semi automatic guns.
There should be an open and fair debate where the police outline their case and it is agreed by democratically elected civil leaders, not crafty and arrogant police chiefs.
Cops actually do get away with murder and that is the problem.
The problem is that it could lead to a situation like you find in the states where an increase in armed police officers means an increase in armed criminals and shoot-outs between police and criminals often leaves innocent people getting caught in the crossfire.
Then you also have the problem of jumpy police officers shooting people because they decided that the game controller they are holding is a gun or they are carrying a sawn off table leg.
Why mention the States? Just about every other Police Force in the world is armed. We are the exception. Why would more armed Police encourage more armed crime that we already have? Is that happening everywhere else, other than here?
We have had armed patrol officers for many years now, and what you suggest hasn't happened.
I find it bizzare how on that article it said that 87% of police offers said they didn't want to be routinely armed. Is this because they don't feel comfortable handling a firearm, or is it that they may feel they are made more of a target because they are armed? I personally think all police officers should be armed.
I think it's because we don't need a fully armed police force.
We do need sufficient armed officers evenly spread though, and volunteers account for those numbers.
Why mention the States? Just about every other Police Force in the world is armed. We are the exception. Why would more armed Police encourage more armed crime that we already have? Is that happening everywhere else, other than here?
We have had armed patrol officers for many years now, and what you suggest hasn't happened.
The police have been reducing the number of armed officers over the past few years and as the number of armed police decreases so do the number of crimes involving firearms. What makes you think that increasing the number of armed police will not also increase the number of firearms offences?
If you start handing out guns to all police officers then there will be neither the time or resources to give them the same level of training as armed response units so they will be more prone to mistakes and less accurate when they use their firearms. The police have used their tasers over 10,000 times since they were introduced, do you think that if they are handed out guns they will not be willing to use them as well?
IIRC that's a problem that is quite big in the US where in some areas officers may only get a very small amount of time in firearms training every year, and in some instances their department may not have the budget to actually let them do enough rounds on the range in a year to cover what UK armed officers need to go through every few months (something to do with smaller departments especially getting funding for very specific things from different sources).
I've got a feeling almost all our armed officers are trained to a level that would be approaching "swat" team level in much of the states, mainly because we do have so few and their role is so specialized.
I would much rather have a small percentage of armed officers, who are all very highly (and constantly) trained and vetted, than have every officer armed.
It's probably quite telling that typically in any poll of serving police officers only ~10-15% (if that) want to be armed.
The police have been reducing the number of armed officers over the past few years and as the number of armed police decreases so do the number of crimes involving firearms. What makes you think that increasing the number of armed police will not also increase the number of firearms offences?
But we're not increasing them. We've had them for years.
The problem is that it could lead to a situation like you find in the states where an increase in armed police officers means an increase in armed criminals and shoot-outs between police and criminals often leaves innocent people getting caught in the crossfire.
The only upside of that is that it might lead to those epic chase situations which get broadcast live on the news channels, with members of the public lining roads and stood on roadbridges waving "Go, <criminal> go!" placards as it goes past.
But we're not increasing them. We've had them for years.
We have had a few highly trained firearms units whose primary job is to use firearms when needed. My argument was against a previous poster who was calling for all police officers to be armed.
We have had a few highly trained firearms units whose primary job is to use firearms when needed. My argument was against a previous poster who was calling for all police officers to be armed.
We don't need a fully armed police force, and that is reflected in the polls undertaken by officers.
We do need enough response officers with firearms, throughout the country, to be able to offer quick responses. On top of those we have the highly specialised teams. We have therefore had armed patrol officers, with other roles, for many years.
We don't need a fully armed police force, and that is reflected in the polls undertaken by officers.
We do need enough response officers with firearms, throughout the country, to be able to offer quick responses. On top of those we have the highly specialised teams. We have therefore had armed patrol officers, with other roles, for many years.
I agree, that is why I was saying that it is a bad idea to arm all police officers.
I wouldn't say I'm fine with the idea but I am resigned to it. A vague, illusory sense of safety against terrorist boogeymen seems to trump any argument when it comes to the actions of those in authority.
Tasers are another level of defence, not a replacement for firearms.
Indeed, its a good job the cop who tasered the elderly blind man because he mistook his white stick for a samurai sword wasn't equipped with a firearm!
I would like to see the proposal for armed police to have video cams fastracked and instigated, especially if armed patrols like this are going to be more commonplace.
..I can't remember if that suggestion was aimed at the Met only or UK wide though..
Thankfully the number of incidences where a police officer opens fire is relatively rare but I hate the thought of them being routinely armed instead of part of an armed response team or for high riisk terrorist alerts.
The number of instances where a taser is used is more worrying. In many cases they are not being used because of a threat but purely because a suspect is being non-compliant.
Assuming you're referring to me, to be clear I'm not advocating anything. Things work as they are, most officers aren't under enough threat enough of the time to justify having a lethal weapon. But your supposition isn't based on evidence should things go in that direction.
My original post was in reply to Centaurion who was calling for police to be armed.
They are using tazers because they are non lethal and allow the officer to stay well clear of things like knives while still subduing a suspect. It's safer for them than running in with CS or a baton, that should be self evident. I've no idea why you think they'd use a gun instead of a tazer if they had it in those situations.
But taser was sold to us by the police as a none lethal alternative to conventional firearms. That has now morphed into an alternative to the use of batons and incapacitant spray, how did that happen?
Also it has not been made clear on here that taser is a firearm falling under Schedule 6 of The Firearms Act 1968 and at the last count more than 14,000 officers have been trained to use it.
But taser was sold to us by the police as a none lethal alternative to conventional firearms. That has now morphed into an alternative to the use of batons and incapacitant spray, how did that happen?
Also it has not been made clear on here that taser is a firearm falling under Schedule 6 of The Firearms Act 1968 and at the last count more than 14,000 officers have been trained to use it.
Was it really? I don't recall that. I do recall it being introduced as a different level of response, to go with the others already in place.
Thankfully the number of incidences where a police officer opens fire is relatively rare but I hate the thought of them being routinely armed instead of part of an armed response team or for high riisk terrorist alerts.
The number of instances where a taser is used is more worrying. In many cases they are not being used because of a threat but purely because a suspect is being non-compliant.
If someone is non compliant, and a threat, then a taser offers a way of making the person compliant, without the likely outcome of injury to the person, and the officer.
We don't need routine arming, but it is common place around the world, and no one bats an eyelid about it.
Indeed, its a good job the cop who tasered the elderly blind man because he mistook his white stick for a samurai sword wasn't equipped with a firearm!
I would like to see the proposal for armed police to have video cams fastracked and instigated, especially if armed patrols like this are going to be more commonplace.
..I can't remember if that suggestion was aimed at the Met only or UK wide though..
There will always be a story out there to show where something went wrong, and I'm sure that is the case worldwide.
There are also cases where procedures went wrong before tasers, and there will be in the future.
We have to do all we can to reduce such risks, but you cant plan policies, and the issue of equipment based on a worst case scenario.
These tasers, and other protective items have been used properly far more often, and have saved many people from injury.
Taser use is another story completely, this is about the introduction of armed response units being deployed on routine policing. This is sneaky and designed to go under the public scrutiny radar.
BTW this story is now number 1 in the BBC news hit parade - so just by posting it here someone has noticed.
Comments
has this policy failed ?
The statistics showing that would be interesting.
Tasers are another level of defence, not a replacement for firearms.
Why mention the States? Just about every other Police Force in the world is armed. We are the exception. Why would more armed Police encourage more armed crime that we already have? Is that happening everywhere else, other than here?
We have had armed patrol officers for many years now, and what you suggest hasn't happened.
I think it's because we don't need a fully armed police force.
We do need sufficient armed officers evenly spread though, and volunteers account for those numbers.
My apologies.
The officers I see in London were armed with a semi automatic Heckler & Koch MP5s.
More likely to enforce and for punitive means, defence.... don't make me laugh.
The police have been reducing the number of armed officers over the past few years and as the number of armed police decreases so do the number of crimes involving firearms. What makes you think that increasing the number of armed police will not also increase the number of firearms offences?
IIRC that's a problem that is quite big in the US where in some areas officers may only get a very small amount of time in firearms training every year, and in some instances their department may not have the budget to actually let them do enough rounds on the range in a year to cover what UK armed officers need to go through every few months (something to do with smaller departments especially getting funding for very specific things from different sources).
I've got a feeling almost all our armed officers are trained to a level that would be approaching "swat" team level in much of the states, mainly because we do have so few and their role is so specialized.
I would much rather have a small percentage of armed officers, who are all very highly (and constantly) trained and vetted, than have every officer armed.
It's probably quite telling that typically in any poll of serving police officers only ~10-15% (if that) want to be armed.
But we're not increasing them. We've had them for years.
The regulations stipulate how the use of force can be applied. Using tasers as you suggest isn't in it.
The only upside of that is that it might lead to those epic chase situations which get broadcast live on the news channels, with members of the public lining roads and stood on roadbridges waving "Go, <criminal> go!" placards as it goes past.
We have had a few highly trained firearms units whose primary job is to use firearms when needed. My argument was against a previous poster who was calling for all police officers to be armed.
We don't need a fully armed police force, and that is reflected in the polls undertaken by officers.
We do need enough response officers with firearms, throughout the country, to be able to offer quick responses. On top of those we have the highly specialised teams. We have therefore had armed patrol officers, with other roles, for many years.
I agree, that is why I was saying that it is a bad idea to arm all police officers.
Indeed, its a good job the cop who tasered the elderly blind man because he mistook his white stick for a samurai sword wasn't equipped with a firearm!
I would like to see the proposal for armed police to have video cams fastracked and instigated, especially if armed patrols like this are going to be more commonplace.
..I can't remember if that suggestion was aimed at the Met only or UK wide though..
The number of instances where a taser is used is more worrying. In many cases they are not being used because of a threat but purely because a suspect is being non-compliant.
My original post was in reply to Centaurion who was calling for police to be armed.
But taser was sold to us by the police as a none lethal alternative to conventional firearms. That has now morphed into an alternative to the use of batons and incapacitant spray, how did that happen?
Also it has not been made clear on here that taser is a firearm falling under Schedule 6 of The Firearms Act 1968 and at the last count more than 14,000 officers have been trained to use it.
Was it really? I don't recall that. I do recall it being introduced as a different level of response, to go with the others already in place.
If someone is non compliant, and a threat, then a taser offers a way of making the person compliant, without the likely outcome of injury to the person, and the officer.
We don't need routine arming, but it is common place around the world, and no one bats an eyelid about it.
There will always be a story out there to show where something went wrong, and I'm sure that is the case worldwide.
There are also cases where procedures went wrong before tasers, and there will be in the future.
We have to do all we can to reduce such risks, but you cant plan policies, and the issue of equipment based on a worst case scenario.
These tasers, and other protective items have been used properly far more often, and have saved many people from injury.
BTW this story is now number 1 in the BBC news hit parade - so just by posting it here someone has noticed.