Police Scotland - Officers routinely carrying guns.

[Devil2575]

jith said:

Yes, but they're not all routinely armed. That is the whole issue. What would happen if every police officer carried a visible firearm?

J

I don't know? I don't have a crystal ball but then neither do you. However the lack of availability of guns in the UK might suggest that we wouldn't suddenly become the US if they did.

Also i'd argue that it isn't the whole issue because the Police are not routinely armed despite what certain people seem to be trying to suggest. This is a non story being used by Politicians to suit their agenda.

[AndrewEH1]

jith said:

Yes, but they're not all routinely armed. That is the whole issue. What would happen if every police officer carried a visible firearm?

J

That will never happen. There are around 275 armed officers in Scotland. Divided by the number of shift patterns, 4, gives us around 70 on shift for the whole of Scotland at any one time.

Edited by AndrewEH1 on Friday 6th March 12:47

[jith]

TheBear said:

jith said:

I can sympathise with any officer attending an incident where they are suddenly confronted with someone armed with a gun when they are not. The problem in dealing with this is the aspect of how villains would react to knowing every police officer is carrying a firearm. Would it act as a deterrent or have the reverse effect and escalate shoot-outs in the streets, just as is the case in the States?

Personally the other doubt I have over this emanates from a desperately awful experience I had with a traffic cop on Loch Lomond side several years ago. Without going into great detail this resulted in a complaint to the CCs office and a second complaint to the Fiscal after he produced a statement that was so totally out of order it was clearly false.

I have no doubt that, had he been armed he would have pulled a gun on me at the scene and god knows what would have happened then. My crime? I swerved across a double white line to avoid an idiot in a Land Rover with partially inflated tyres towing a badly loaded trailer with an unsecure load.

The problem with guns and out of control tempers is that it is so easy to kill someone, just the press of a trigger and it's all over. We have to think very, very seriously about that.

J

Someone, several years ago, who wasn't armed, would definitely have pulled a gun on you, which he wasn't carrying, at the side of the road and god knows what would have happened?

Wow.

What were your injuries?

RIIIGGHHHT! Maybe I need to explain this to you in joined up writing in the hope you can grasp the concept. This officer was quite frankly a rude, aggressive ignoramous who was totally out of order in the way he handled the situation. Within seconds of addressing me he escaltated the situation to the point where I warned him if he put his hands on me I would retaliate. His colleague who said absolutely nothing up until this point restrained him and calmed the situation down.

This man's temper was out of control and all over an alleged minor traffic offence! In England of course, the chances are he would have been single crewed in a traffic car and there would heve been no colleague to calm him down. What do you think would have happened then?

Had he attacked me I could have defended myself. Had he been armed I would have had a real problem. It is this scenario that gives the greatest rise for concern. It just takes this kind of copper having a bad day and it can go very wrong. I find it difficult to believe you can't see that as a possibility; I know that several serving officers at the moment do.

J

[anonymous-user]

jaf01uk said:

What everyone seems to be forgetting is the public perception of these incidents, up till now we know there have been armed cops going about but nobody ever saw them openly carrying guns in public (usually historically in this area in Traffic cars locked in safe in the boot, if they were called to an incident they would "arm up" and go, took a minute or so at most) they certainly didn't stand in the queue at McDonalds waiting for their big mac (like they did in Inverness which kicked off the debate) In our area we probably have a larger proportion of armed cops due to Balmoral and it is this openly carrying guns that some people have a problem with, makes it seem like we have gone from a (largely) unarmed police service to an armed one, we can argue till the cows come home regards whether this is a good idea or not but it is not the Chief Constables decision on his own to allow routine patrols carrying guns and his arrogance on the subject is why the politicians have been getting riled

But you haven't gone from a largely unarmed force to an armed one. I bet the proportions are the same pre and post merge. I know you're talking about perception, but we're talking about the realities of dealing with incidents and risk to the police and public. Only a rational conclusions and deployments will do.

It's a good enough system for England and Wales, it's good enough for Scotland.

jaf01uk said:

Yes, but they're not all routinely armed. That is the whole issue. What would happen if every police officer carried a visible firearm?

J

No it isn't the issue at all. That's completely wrong. It's not about how many officers are armed (every Constabulary has armed officers carrying weapons 24/7), it's about WHAT they do when at work.

jith said:

It just takes this kind of copper having a bad day and it can go very wrong. I find it difficult to believe you can't see that as a possibility; I know that several serving officers at the moment do.

J

What a really concerning scenario you present. I withdraw my support for ARVs to operate as most in the UK do. Being stopped by an ARV (for a non-armed deployment) that turns into a shootout with the person stopped.

Amazingly never happened once.

[AndrewEH1]

jith said:

RIIIGGHHHT! Maybe I need to explain this to you in joined up writing in the hope you can grasp the concept. This officer was quite frankly a rude, aggressive ignoramous who was totally out of order in the way he handled the situation. Within seconds of addressing me he escaltated the situation to the point where I warned him if he put his hands on me I would retaliate. His colleague who said absolutely nothing up until this point restrained him and calmed the situation down.

This man's temper was out of control and all over an alleged minor traffic offence! In England of course, the chances are he would have been single crewed in a traffic car and there would heve been no colleague to calm him down. What do you think would have happened then?

Had he attacked me I could have defended myself. Had he been armed I would have had a real problem. It is this scenario that gives the greatest rise for concern. It just takes this kind of copper having a bad day and it can go very wrong. I find it difficult to believe you can't see that as a possibility; I know that several serving officers at the moment do.

J

What happened to the compaint?

To be honest they way you write and the fact you said that if he attacked you, you would 'retaliate' you strike me as someone who would fail the attitude test with flying colours...

[TheBear]

jith said:

TheBear said:

jith said:

I can sympathise with any officer attending an incident where they are suddenly confronted with someone armed with a gun when they are not. The problem in dealing with this is the aspect of how villains would react to knowing every police officer is carrying a firearm. Would it act as a deterrent or have the reverse effect and escalate shoot-outs in the streets, just as is the case in the States?

Personally the other doubt I have over this emanates from a desperately awful experience I had with a traffic cop on Loch Lomond side several years ago. Without going into great detail this resulted in a complaint to the CCs office and a second complaint to the Fiscal after he produced a statement that was so totally out of order it was clearly false.

I have no doubt that, had he been armed he would have pulled a gun on me at the scene and god knows what would have happened then. My crime? I swerved across a double white line to avoid an idiot in a Land Rover with partially inflated tyres towing a badly loaded trailer with an unsecure load.

The problem with guns and out of control tempers is that it is so easy to kill someone, just the press of a trigger and it's all over. We have to think very, very seriously about that.

J

Someone, several years ago, who wasn't armed, would definitely have pulled a gun on you, which he wasn't carrying, at the side of the road and god knows what would have happened?

Wow.

What were your injuries?

RIIIGGHHHT! Maybe I need to explain this to you in joined up writing in the hope you can grasp the concept. This officer was quite frankly a rude, aggressive ignoramous who was totally out of order in the way he handled the situation. Within seconds of addressing me he escaltated the situation to the point where I warned him if he put his hands on me I would retaliate. His colleague who said absolutely nothing up until this point restrained him and calmed the situation down.

This man's temper was out of control and all over an alleged minor traffic offence! In England of course, the chances are he would have been single crewed in a traffic car and there would heve been no colleague to calm him down. What do you think would have happened then?

Had he attacked me I could have defended myself. Had he been armed I would have had a real problem. It is this scenario that gives the greatest rise for concern. It just takes this kind of copper having a bad day and it can go very wrong. I find it difficult to believe you can't see that as a possibility; I know that several serving officers at the moment do.

J

RIIIIGGGGHHHTTT!

What has that got to do with armed officers attending routine incidents? Nothing is the answer.

You're making a point about all regular officers being armed and the danger of it and getting into a tizzy about it.

A completely different subject on which you won't find any police officer with the opinion that everyone should be armed.

Just to re-iterate this is a discussion about AFO's attending regular incidents, not angry police officers who don't have the temperament to carry guns getting upset.

[jith]

AndrewEH1 said:

jith said:

RIIIGGHHHT! Maybe I need to explain this to you in joined up writing in the hope you can grasp the concept. This officer was quite frankly a rude, aggressive ignoramous who was totally out of order in the way he handled the situation. Within seconds of addressing me he escaltated the situation to the point where I warned him if he put his hands on me I would retaliate. His colleague who said absolutely nothing up until this point restrained him and calmed the situation down.

This man's temper was out of control and all over an alleged minor traffic offence! In England of course, the chances are he would have been single crewed in a traffic car and there would heve been no colleague to calm him down. What do you think would have happened then?

Had he attacked me I could have defended myself. Had he been armed I would have had a real problem. It is this scenario that gives the greatest rise for concern. It just takes this kind of copper having a bad day and it can go very wrong. I find it difficult to believe you can't see that as a possibility; I know that several serving officers at the moment do.

J

What happened to the compaint?

To be honest they way you write and the fact you said that if he attacked you, you would 'retaliate' you strike me as someone who would fail the attitude test with flying colours...

The complaint was upheld and he apologised. There is a huge difference between an officer legitimately using force to make an arrest when it's warranted and someone losing his temper and attacking you. Just because he's in a police uniform doesn't make it justified or excusable. Would you let someone attack or assault you without defending yourself?

I find your remark about the attitude test revealing. Had you been there you would have had no doubt as to who failed the attitude test; and it sure as hell wasn't me. Incidentally, he made the mistake of doing this in front of a witness which is why he was compelled to apologise.

"The way you write" Explain. I'm genuinely interested.

J

[Cat]

jith said:

I have no doubt that, had he been armed he would have pulled a gun on me at the scene and god knows what would have happened then.

Did he try and use his baton or CS on you? If not what makes you think that he would have pulled a gun if he had access to one?

Cat

[mph1977]

Cat said:

jith said:

I have no doubt that, had he been armed he would have pulled a gun on me at the scene and god knows what would have happened then.

Did he try and use his baton or CS on you? If not what makes you think that he would have pulled a gun if he had access to one?

Cat

never mind the truth , it ruins a good fairytale ...

[AndrewEH1]

jith said:

"The way you write" Explain. I'm genuinely interested.

J

As you wish...just a few examples.

jith said:

RIIIGGHHHT!

jith said:

Maybe I need to explain this to you in joined up writing in the hope you can grasp the concept.

jith said:

aggressive ignoramous

jith said:

I warned him if he put his hands on me I would retaliate

I'm not saying that all Police officers in Scotland are perfect, much like the general population there will always be a percentage of aholes. I've been in contact with at least one of them professionally. It's good the complaint was upheld and the officer in question apologised.

As for the thought that if he was an armed officer you would have been shot is complete conjecture. Becoming an armed officer in Scotland required a further level of training, interviews and investigation on the officer. They have to be recommended by their superior officers before they are even interviewed.

[jith]

AndrewEH1 said:

jith said:

"The way you write" Explain. I'm genuinely interested.

J

As you wish...just a few examples.

jith said:

RIIIGGHHHT!

jith said:

Maybe I need to explain this to you in joined up writing in the hope you can grasp the concept.

jith said:

aggressive ignoramous

jith said:

I warned him if he put his hands on me I would retaliate

I'm not saying that all Police officers in Scotland are perfect, much like the general population there will always be a percentage of aholes. I've been in contact with at least one of them professionally. It's good the complaint was upheld and the officer in question apologised.

As for the thought that if he was an armed officer you would have been shot is complete conjecture. Becoming an armed officer in Scotland required a further level of training, interviews and investigation on the officer. They have to be recommended by their superior officers before they are even interviewed.

I see you're just a lad Andrew, so your experience in this will be limited by virtue of your age. I've worked with dozens of them over many years. I know exactly what training they get. Please explain to me where I said, and I quote you, "if he was an armed officer you would have been shot".

I did not say that. I was making the point that if he had been armed the outcome of the incident could have been very different.

I make absolutely no apologies for what I write. I don't lie and I don't exaggerate. Sorry if you don't like it; nobody's forcing you to read it. Any responses you think are sarcastic are simply in response to a similar attitude.

J

[AndrewEH1]

jith said:

I see you're just a lad Andrew, so your experience in this will be limited by virtue of your age. I've worked with dozens of them over many years. I know exactly what training they get. Please explain to me where I said, and I quote you, "if he was an armed officer you would have been shot".

I did not say that. I was making the point that if he had been armed the outcome of the incident could have been very different.

I make absolutely no apologies for what I write. I don't lie and I don't exaggerate. Sorry if you don't like it; nobody's forcing you to read it. Any responses you think are sarcastic are simply in response to a similar attitude.

J

Thanks for being patronising, yes I'm only 25 but I've done Part A and B of Police training and OST in Scotland and done shifts in st parts of town.

Although I realised after a year that I wanted to take my career path elsewhere and turned down becoming a regular.


I'll admit you didn't direct say you would have been shot but what other outcome were you referring to? Maybe a little taze or some CS to the face (or is it PAVA in Scotland now?)?

jith said:

Had he been armed I would have had a real problem. It is this scenario that gives the greatest rise for concern. It just takes this kind of copper having a bad day and it can go very wrong.

jith said:

I have no doubt that, had he been armed he would have pulled a gun on me at the scene and god knows what would have happened then.

Edited by AndrewEH1 on Friday 6th March 15:44

[FurtiveFreddy]

jith said:

RIIIGGHHHT! Maybe I need to explain this to you in joined up writing in the hope you can grasp the concept. This officer was quite frankly a rude, aggressive ignoramous who was totally out of order in the way he handled the situation. Within seconds of addressing me he escaltated the situation to the point where I warned him if he put his hands on me I would retaliate. His colleague who said absolutely nothing up until this point restrained him and calmed the situation down.

This man's temper was out of control and all over an alleged minor traffic offence! In England of course, the chances are he would have been single crewed in a traffic car and there would heve been no colleague to calm him down. What do you think would have happened then?

Had he attacked me I could have defended myself. Had he been armed I would have had a real problem. It is this scenario that gives the greatest rise for concern. It just takes this kind of copper having a bad day and it can go very wrong. I find it difficult to believe you can't see that as a possibility; I know that several serving officers at the moment do.

J

You're making the same assumption many people do when discussing civilian gun control - that people with access to guns will automatically use them when they get into a dispute or are angered for some reason. There isn't enough evidence to support this, even in the U.S.

Presumably this officer had a baton or something about his person he could have pulled out and hit you with, so why didn't he?

This thread is all about the gun paranoia we suffer from in the UK which stems from a lack of education on and exposure to firearms.

[jaf01uk]

Elroy Blue said:

jaf01uk said:

but it is not the Chief Constables decision on his own to allow routine patrols carrying guns and his arrogance on the subject is why the politicians have been getting riled

Armed Officers have been overtly carrying sidearms for years.

This was a cheap. opportunistic attempt to slur the Police by Politicians and Journalists. The latest spat is because Armed Officers have continued to stop drink drivers and deal with other spontaneous events. What are they supposed to do, ignore the pissed up driver in front of them.

It's pathetic. Truly pathetic.

It has NOT been the case in Scotland which is where the issue being discussed is happening, it might have been the case that they have overtly carried guns down south but it is a major policy change in Scotland hence the discussion, not as pathetic as you seem to think I would suggest?

[carinaman]

Where does it sit with the other changes within Police Scotland?:

1. The single force replacing all the smaller constabularies? Has that resulted into a 'Metropolitanisation' of Police Scotland?

Is the tick box and target culture now more prevalent?

2. Routinely searching 12 year old kids? Where does that sit with Theresa May at the Tory Conference at Brum having a young black man from Warwick University on stage with her saying how often he used to get stopped and searched?

Are 12 year olds routinely running drugs or Buckie in Scotland?

I guess the officers doing the searching are multitasking as the responsible adult too?

It's to show them who's boss at an early age? Get them primed for knowing their place and not do anything that may cause a police officer to give them a second look in future?

3. Someone accidently 'deleted' all the stop and search records of 12 year old kids? Oops! My bad.


Should a police force that can't be that disciplined that they do basic routine stuff like doing back ups of IT records be trusted to be routinely armed on the street?

You give respect, you get respect. Are the police in Scotland giving enough respect to the public, or are they just taking liberties? 'Give 'em an inch, they'll take a mile.....

[Mk3Spitfire]

That's better. Couldnt sleep so came on here....the above has done the trick...

[Cat]

jaf01uk said:

It has NOT been the case in Scotland which is where the issue being discussed is happening, it might have been the case that they have overtly carried guns down south but it is a major policy change in Scotland hence the discussion, not as pathetic as you seem to think I would suggest?

It was the case for some of Scotland. ARV crews in Strathclyde. Tayside and Northern all overly carried sidearms and attended routine incidents prior to Police Scotland.

Cat

[jaf01uk]

Cat said:

It was the case for some of Scotland. ARV crews in Strathclyde. Tayside and Northern all overly carried sidearms and attended routine incidents prior to Police Scotland.

Cat

I'll bow to your superior knowledge on the other areas but I do know that Grampian did not (airports aside obviously), I'm still slightly suspicious regarding Highland considering it was Inverness incidents that highlighted the change in policy? Surely if Invernesians were used to seeing routinely armed cops this wouldn't have happened? House seems to think he is robocop and answerable to no one all the same!

[anonymous-user]

He needs to be accountable and justify his actions, but he's there to make quality independent decisions, not bow to agenda-driven politics from people who don't even understand what he's doing.

[Cat]

jaf01uk said:

I'll bow to your superior knowledge on the other areas but I do know that Grampian did not (airports aside obviously), I'm still slightly suspicious regarding Highland considering it was Inverness incidents that highlighted the change in policy? Surely if Invernesians were used to seeing routinely armed cops this wouldn't have happened? House seems to think he is robocop and answerable to no one all the same!

Strathclyde started overtly carrying sidearms in 2008, Tayside in 2009, Northern was early 2013, just prior to Police Scotland. The point I was trying to make was the routine arming of some officers in Scotland has been the norm for a number of years. It was not the unprecedented paradigm shift that the have media tried to portray.

Cat