Police Scotland - Officers routinely carrying guns.
Discussion
La Liga said:
Undesirable to one is perfectly acceptable to another. You only need to look at this thread to see there are at least as many who aren't bothered / welcome it - perhaps they think that 275 officers in the whole of Scotland doesn't mean that much.
Certainly, though I suspect it appears less balanced in this thread if you exclude posters who are serving or former officers and those whose careers depend upon them - even if we should consider their opinion on it, they're over represented in this forum.
ooo000ooo said:
PSNI officers are always armed, do you English/welsh/scots visitors notice it or think its a bit over the top? I've been working with a load of people from different parts of the mainland over the last few months, some of them had never been here before, none of them has mentioned it.
As it's been the case here since I was a kid It's just part of the uniform now.
I visited NI once and was very uncomfortable. To the extent that I do not consider it a destination of choice.As it's been the case here since I was a kid It's just part of the uniform now.
La Liga said:
GC8 said:
Oh come on! Half-arsed law which included gas and electrical discharge devices along with prohibited firearms does not make those items firearms.
Every police officer does not carry 'firearms' (they carry a rest of EU-legal gas canister) and it is a MASSIVE jump between this and carrying a self loading pistol or patrolling with a sub-machine gun, or an assault rifle (calling either of the latter 'carbine' doesnt make them any more cuddly, irrespective of current thinking).
I agree with the OP and the Police's apparent arrogance with regards to public concern and opinion is disturbing. We don't live in a police state yet, and they would do well to remember that.
A little irony being critical for him apparently 'hamming-up' CS into a firearm, yet you do the same with something that occurs in most places anyway by mellow-dramatically linking it to a "police state". Every police officer does not carry 'firearms' (they carry a rest of EU-legal gas canister) and it is a MASSIVE jump between this and carrying a self loading pistol or patrolling with a sub-machine gun, or an assault rifle (calling either of the latter 'carbine' doesnt make them any more cuddly, irrespective of current thinking).
I agree with the OP and the Police's apparent arrogance with regards to public concern and opinion is disturbing. We don't live in a police state yet, and they would do well to remember that.
GC8 said:
I will accept that. My comments referred more to the apparent attitudes of senior officers, than the fact that police officers are armed, though.
It's important senior officers make their justification clear when there's public interest and 'engage in the debate' rather than just saying "this is the policy this is how it is". Part of the misinformation may be down to them not doing this well enough. 0000 said:
Certainly, though I suspect it appears less balanced in this thread if you exclude posters who are serving or former officers and those whose careers depend upon them - even if we should consider their opinion on it, they're over represented in this forum.
You're probably right, it's hard to judge the balance. The opportunism and distortion is what's annoying. The Scottish media are doing a good job with this. For example, when they've reported officers getting food. What do they want? Them to remove their weapon, make it safe, put it in the safe, get their food, get the weapon out of the safe and re-arm it again?
Practically, what presents the biggest risk? It's that sequence of events. The firearm isn't going to discharge sat on someone's hip. You are much more likely to have an accident / negligent discharge when handling it and making it safe / live. It's more safe to load and holster the weapon in the police armoury, and the do the reverse when finishing their shift.
What's the alternative? To leave all weapons in the safe from start to finish? That again requires extra handling of the weapon rather than the two times in the police armoury (which is what nearly all shifts will be).
jdw100 said:
Out of interest does anyone know if any Police travel around with concealed firearms?
Are all firearms ops carried out by uniformed officers or is it possible that a UK plain-clothes cop could whip out a pistol from under his jacket - as per American films/tv series?
Various forces have an armed surveillance capability. A number of preplanned firearms operations will involve armed officers out of uniforms. These are all very targeted, and very unlikely for the public ever to know what's going on, unless they're present during a strike. Are all firearms ops carried out by uniformed officers or is it possible that a UK plain-clothes cop could whip out a pistol from under his jacket - as per American films/tv series?
One of the criticisms - rightly - of the Azelle Rodney shooting is that the stop took place in an area where there were a large number of members of public present. The strike should have been put in elsewhere. The officers involved in this incident were not in uniform.
Carnage said:
Various forces have an armed surveillance capability. A number of preplanned firearms operations will involve armed officers out of uniforms. These are all very targeted, and very unlikely for the public ever to know what's going on, unless they're present during a strike.
One of the criticisms - rightly - of the Azelle Rodney shooting is that the stop took place in an area where there were a large number of members of public present. The strike should have been put in elsewhere. The officers involved in this incident were not in uniform.
That's very interesting, thanks!One of the criticisms - rightly - of the Azelle Rodney shooting is that the stop took place in an area where there were a large number of members of public present. The strike should have been put in elsewhere. The officers involved in this incident were not in uniform.
I find it absolutely madness that people are on their high horse about Police being armed.
The Police are there to protect us. If some fanny starts waving a knife about the high street, would you not rather the officer's were armed? What do you want them to do instead? Throw cans of irnbru at the said individual?
The Police are there to protect us. If some fanny starts waving a knife about the high street, would you not rather the officer's were armed? What do you want them to do instead? Throw cans of irnbru at the said individual?
Mk3Spitfire said:
No one was really on their high horse. It's just different opinions and different ways of thinking. Your way of thinking isn't necessarily "right", and neither is mine, or Liga's, or anyone else's.
Maybe not on here. But the general public being up in arms because Officers are armed. IMO of course, people are so caught up in the whole safety aspect of life these days. Officers are armed for a reason.
I would have absolutely no problems walking past an Office armed. I would feel safer if anything.
Mr Trophy said:
Maybe not on here. But the general public being up in arms because Officers are armed.
The thing is the General Public aren't. This is a completely manufactured story because someone took a photo of two AFOs helping out during a minor incident outside a pub. Some Politicians then decided to demonstrate their unbelievable ignorance and kick up a storm about 'routine arming of Police'. One prospective Labour MP has stated it's clear evidence of Police wanting to shoot people (I think he must be related to Rovingtroll)It's utter dross. I work in the Police and rarely see an armed Officer.
In my force (as I suspect in many others) firearms officers, dog handlers and traffic are all now "extra" resources. We don't have a dedicated motorway unit any more as there were reduced numbers of response officers so specialist officers were aligned to immediate response teams. They are just as likely now to be sent to a domestic/shoplifter/Facebook dispute/criminal damage/Saturday night pub brawl as a panda driver.
AFOs have routinely carried sidearms for a number of years where I work. The public are more likely to see them now as they are now deployed to the more routine incidents to bolster the front line. They are police officers first, specialists second.
There was a similar outcry when patrol officers wee issued rigid handcuffs, side handled batons and body armour. Massive non event.
AFOs have routinely carried sidearms for a number of years where I work. The public are more likely to see them now as they are now deployed to the more routine incidents to bolster the front line. They are police officers first, specialists second.
There was a similar outcry when patrol officers wee issued rigid handcuffs, side handled batons and body armour. Massive non event.
Dibble said:
In my force (as I suspect in many others) firearms officers, dog handlers and traffic are all now "extra" resources. We don't have a dedicated motorway unit any more as there were reduced numbers of response officers so specialist officers were aligned to immediate response teams. They are just as likely now to be sent to a domestic/shoplifter/Facebook dispute/criminal damage/Saturday night pub brawl as a panda driver.
AFOs have routinely carried sidearms for a number of years where I work. The public are more likely to see them now as they are now deployed to the more routine incidents to bolster the front line. They are police officers first, specialists second.
There was a similar outcry when patrol officers wee issued rigid handcuffs, side handled batons and body armour. Massive non event.
This.AFOs have routinely carried sidearms for a number of years where I work. The public are more likely to see them now as they are now deployed to the more routine incidents to bolster the front line. They are police officers first, specialists second.
There was a similar outcry when patrol officers wee issued rigid handcuffs, side handled batons and body armour. Massive non event.
Speaking from the other end of the spectrum, it's amazing how quickly an incident diffuses as soon as an ARV officer rocks up on scene. Last year, we had a chap who was incredibly unpredictable and off his face on a cocktail of alcohol and heroin. Inevitably, a struggle ensued, and as two PCSOs with no PPE whatsoever, it got a little bit interesting. A force-approved wristlock will only take you so far with someone who's 6ft5, solidly built and not in the mood to go quietly. As soon as an ARV officer turned up (bloody quickly, I might add), the DP immediately started behaving.
Our ARV units are frequently to be found patrolling. We are based in a large city, where a significant number of criminals are known to carry knives and potentially firearms. Knowing we've got them round the corner to deal with incidents, no matter how routine, is comforting. People whining about police officers carrying guns does not change the fact that there are a lot of incredibly dangerous people out there, who are more than happy to use their weapons on the general public for whatever reason.
Certain officers on routine patrol have been carrying Tasers for a while. Not many, but enough, and they've proven to be very effective. Is this going to be a huge issue too?
I also think that we will never have that normalisation. It's not like America, where guns are seen as a God-given right.
I saw three in Costco the other day.
Paraboots, overalls, utility belts.
I miss the old days of wool tunics, white shirts and pointy hats.
They looked smart and British.
But times change.
I'm not going to blame the police for having to change.
If you're going to chasing criminals through mud you want good boots.
If you're getting covered in grime you don't want a wool tunic and white shirt.
If you're going up against lunatics with shotguns, knives, swords etc then you want to be armed.
It's not a problem with the police.
It's a problem with society.
Paraboots, overalls, utility belts.
I miss the old days of wool tunics, white shirts and pointy hats.
They looked smart and British.
But times change.
I'm not going to blame the police for having to change.
If you're going to chasing criminals through mud you want good boots.
If you're getting covered in grime you don't want a wool tunic and white shirt.
If you're going up against lunatics with shotguns, knives, swords etc then you want to be armed.
It's not a problem with the police.
It's a problem with society.
Snowboy said:
I saw three in Costco the other day.
Paraboots, overalls, utility belts.
I miss the old days of wool tunics, white shirts and pointy hats.
They looked smart and British.
But times change.
I'm not going to blame the police for having to change.
If you're going to chasing criminals through mud you want good boots.
If you're getting covered in grime you don't want a wool tunic and white shirt.
If you're going up against lunatics with shotguns, knives, swords etc then you want to be armed.
It's not a problem with the police.
It's a problem with society.
Wasn't in Coventry was it by any chance?Paraboots, overalls, utility belts.
I miss the old days of wool tunics, white shirts and pointy hats.
They looked smart and British.
But times change.
I'm not going to blame the police for having to change.
If you're going to chasing criminals through mud you want good boots.
If you're getting covered in grime you don't want a wool tunic and white shirt.
If you're going up against lunatics with shotguns, knives, swords etc then you want to be armed.
It's not a problem with the police.
It's a problem with society.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff