Police Scotland - Officers routinely carrying guns.

[Rovinghawk]

carpetsoiler said:

where a significant number of criminals are known to carry knives and potentially firearms.

If they're known to be carrying knives, why not stop, search & arrest them?

[Greendubber]

Rovinghawk said:

If they're known to be carrying knives, why not stop, search & arrest them?

I think the comment you quoted is more that people are known to be carrying them, not that any particular person is but I'm sure you knew that.

If the police know someone is carrying a gun then they will stop them, search them and arrest using armed officers, naturally.

[carpetsoiler]

Greendubber said:

Rovinghawk said:

If they're known to be carrying knives, why not stop, search & arrest them?

I think the comment you quoted is more that people are known to be carrying them, not that any particular person is but I'm sure you knew that.

If the police know someone is carrying a gun then they will stop them, search them and arrest using armed officers, naturally.

Thank you Greendubber... and 'wot he said'.

You can't just frivolously stop search people because they 'might' have a knife on them. Absolutely cast-iron, concrete, reliable intelligence surrounding such matters is very rare. You have to have these things called 'grounds' and 'justification'. Stop searching people because you feel like it is not only a massive abuse of your powers, but also not really what it's there for.

[Rovinghawk]

carpetsoiler said:

You can't just frivolously stop search people because they 'might' have a knife on them.

Sorry- when you said they're known to be carrying knives I thought you meant that you knew they were carrying knives. I now realise that when you said you knew, you meant that you didn't know.

Apologies for the misunderstanding and thanks for the clarification.

[carpetsoiler]

Rovinghawk said:

carpetsoiler said:

You can't just frivolously stop search people because they 'might' have a knife on them.

Sorry- when you said they're known to be carrying knives I thought you meant that you knew they were carrying knives. I now realise that when you said you knew, you meant that you didn't know.

Apologies for the misunderstanding and thanks for the clarification.

Previously, they may have been stopped with a knife.

Previously, they may have been stopped without a knife.

On that day that you randomly search them because you think they've got a knife, and they don't, then that'll be a slight egg-on-face moment.

Have fun with that.

[Rovinghawk]

You claim to need firearms as they're known to carry knives.

When you then admit to not actually knowing what you've just claimed to know, it tends to diminish your previous claim, doesn't it?

[Red Devil]

telecat said:

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.

And the RUC before them. The reason is obvious: the IRA.

I can remember as if it was yesterday the shock of seeing for the first time an armed policeman in the UK. It was during the Border Campaign.
I was 9 years old. My schoolmate who was a native of Ulster never thought to warn me, because for him it was nothing untoward.

It is everything to do with perception. We do not expect to see officers carrying side arms because Great Britain has a tradition of not doing so (unlike mainland Europe where the police have historically been a much more para-military force). Over here it suggests an uncomfortable level of threat to our daily lives which I don't believe yet exists in most parts of the country.

[carpetsoiler]

Rovinghawk said:

You claim to need firearms as they're known to carry knives.

When you then admit to not actually knowing what you've just claimed to know, it tends to diminish your previous claim, doesn't it?

Are you actually this stupid, or is this an elaborate facade?

Allow me to make this extremely clear. I will type it once, and once more only.

Firstly, have a scenario:

Criminal X was stopped in 2007 due to being a suspect in a knifepoint robbery by an armed response unit. At that time, he was stopped and searched because he matched description from the aggrieved and two eyewitnesses. Lo and behold, upon a search, he's discovered to have a purse that doesn't belong to him and a knife that is most definitely his. Criminal X is then arrested, charged with armed robbery and sent to prison for a while.

In 2011, Criminal X is released due to good behaviour and returns to the streets, keeping his nose clean and generally trying to be a better citizen. Later in the year, another robbery is reported in the area that he is known to operate in, and he is seen in that area not long after the robbery by local police units, who search him. They find his own wallet and no knife.

In 2012, Criminal X is noted to be improving dramatically. He's stayed out of trouble, he has managed to get an apprenticeship at a local garage and appears to be turning his life around. When caught in the company of two of his friends smoking cannabis, a stop search reveals no controlled substances or a weapon. However, the weapon marker remains on his file... just in case.

In 2013, Criminal X is seen absconding from the scene of an armed robbery in a different area. His attempt to be a good citizen may well have failed and he's returned to robbing people of their hard earned cash, or he could be just out for a pleasant jog. A local officer gives chase on foot, and backs Criminal X into a corner, at which point Criminal X pulls a knife on the officer. Due to Criminal X being highlighted as a potential offender, a local ARV unit have decided to head towards. They get there and neutralise the situation. Criminal X is arrested and brought to justice.

Now... to return to my first point, which you've pulled apart due to the construction of the wording. Allow me to reiterate:

Some criminals are known to carry knives. They may not carry knives all the time, but in the past they have been caught with knives on them.

I'm not "admitting to not actually knowing what I've just claimed to know", you know full well what was meant by the first statement. If you didn't... even with your apparently limited mental acuity, you should now be able to understand what I meant. Greendubber managed fine.

We know that certain criminals will carry knives some of the time. Due to the uncertainty of knowing when, it's nice to have an ARV patrol around the corner.

[Greendubber]

carpetsoiler said:

Are you actually this stupid, or is this an elaborate facade?

Allow me to make this extremely clear. I will type it once, and once more only.

Firstly, have a scenario:

Criminal X was stopped in 2007 due to being a suspect in a knifepoint robbery by an armed response unit. At that time, he was stopped and searched because he matched description from the aggrieved and two eyewitnesses. Lo and behold, upon a search, he's discovered to have a purse that doesn't belong to him and a knife that is most definitely his. Criminal X is then arrested, charged with armed robbery and sent to prison for a while.

In 2011, Criminal X is released due to good behaviour and returns to the streets, keeping his nose clean and generally trying to be a better citizen. Later in the year, another robbery is reported in the area that he is known to operate in, and he is seen in that area not long after the robbery by local police units, who search him. They find his own wallet and no knife.

In 2012, Criminal X is noted to be improving dramatically. He's stayed out of trouble, he has managed to get an apprenticeship at a local garage and appears to be turning his life around. When caught in the company of two of his friends smoking cannabis, a stop search reveals no controlled substances or a weapon. However, the weapon marker remains on his file... just in case.

In 2013, Criminal X is seen absconding from the scene of an armed robbery in a different area. His attempt to be a good citizen may well have failed and he's returned to robbing people of their hard earned cash, or he could be just out for a pleasant jog. A local officer gives chase on foot, and backs Criminal X into a corner, at which point Criminal X pulls a knife on the officer. Due to Criminal X being highlighted as a potential offender, a local ARV unit have decided to head towards. They get there and neutralise the situation. Criminal X is arrested and brought to justice.

Now... to return to my first point, which you've pulled apart due to the construction of the wording. Allow me to reiterate:

Some criminals are known to carry knives. They may not carry knives all the time, but in the past they have been caught with knives on them.

I'm not "admitting to not actually knowing what I've just claimed to know", you know full well what was meant by the first statement. If you didn't... even with your apparently limited mental acuity, you should now be able to understand what I meant. Greendubber managed fine.

We know that certain criminals will carry knives some of the time. Due to the uncertainty of knowing when, it's nice to have an ARV patrol around the corner.

Wasting your time, he'll quote one sentence that he can portray incorrectly to suit hhis argument. ..which will be incorrect of course.

[carpetsoiler]

Greendubber said:

Wasting your time, he'll quote one sentence that he can portray incorrectly to suit hhis argument. ..which will be incorrect of course.

Cheers dude. Was starting to consider turning my badge in and passing it on to Rovinghawk, as they clearly know the job I do better than I ever could.

[jimbop1]

Mk3Spitfire said:

It's the image. It makes people feel unsafe, and gives the impression that we are turning into an American-esque country. Which we're not. Yet.

bks! If anything it would make people feel safe. The only people I can see not liking it are those hippy, tosser types you see on you tube sticking a camera in a police mans face and telling them it's a free country.

[jimbop1]

carpetsoiler said:

Thank you Greendubber... and 'wot he said'.

You can't just frivolously stop search people because they 'might' have a knife on them.

But then one day they stab you or a member of your family. You kick off massively because you find out the police thought they 'might' have a knife and did absolutely nothing about it.

That would be abit funny

[Elroy Blue]

Greendubber said:

Wasting your time, he'll quote one sentence that he can portray incorrectly to suit hhis argument. ..which will be incorrect of course.

Has he accused you of insulting him yet (I never read the tripe he posts). Being the hypocrite he is, he usually does, after he's finished throwing insults.

(Unfortunately, after typing this I looked on another thread and inadvertently read one of his posts....and he's insulting someone. )

Edited by Elroy Blue on Saturday 9th August 09:52

[carpetsoiler]

jimbop1 said:

But then one day they stab you or a member of your family. You kick off massively because you find out the police thought they 'might' have a knife and did absolutely nothing about it.

That would be abit funny

1) if I got stabbed whilst on duty, then unfortunately that's a risk I accept with the job.
2) no, because as previously mentioned, you don't just randomly search people because they could have a weapon on them. You need grounds that are relevant, necessary, proportionate and lawful. It is unacceptable to infringe someone's human rights on a whim of your own. Seriously, what's so difficult about this to understand?
3) glad you'd find it so amusing. I wouldn't, but then again, neither would I find it terribly funny if you were stabbed. I guess we now know who's the nicer person out of the two of us.

[jimbop1]

carpetsoiler said:

1) if I got stabbed whilst on duty, then unfortunately that's a risk I accept with the job.
2) no, because as previously mentioned, you don't just randomly search people because they could have a weapon on them. You need grounds that are relevant, necessary, proportionate and lawful. It is unacceptable to infringe someone's human rights on a whim of your own. Seriously, what's so difficult about this to understand?
3) glad you'd find it so amusing. I wouldn't, but then again, neither would I find it terribly funny if you were stabbed. I guess we now know who's the nicer person out of the two of us.

Sorry, are you saying you are in the police? If so you're probably the reason our police force is becoming so incapable and st.

Ignore what the newspapers tell you about not offending black criminals with knifes on their possession and just use abit of common sense.

Yes, you probably are a nicer person than me.

[anonymous-user]

jimbop1 said:

Sorry, are you saying you are in the police? If so you're probably the reason our police force is becoming so incapable and st.

Define incapable and st. Is this it?

jimbop1 said:

Ignore what the newspapers tell you about not offending black criminals with knifes on their possession and just use abit of common sense.

Stop and search data shows searches are at least in line with offending disproportionality across ethnicities.

[Bigends]

carpetsoiler said:

jimbop1 said:

But then one day they stab you or a member of your family. You kick off massively because you find out the police thought they 'might' have a knife and did absolutely nothing about it.

That would be abit funny

1) if I got stabbed whilst on duty, then unfortunately that's a risk I accept with the job.
2) no, because as previously mentioned, you don't just randomly search people because they could have a weapon on them. You need grounds that are relevant, necessary, proportionate and lawful. It is unacceptable to infringe someone's human rights on a whim of your own. Seriously, what's so difficult about this to understand?
3) glad you'd find it so amusing. I wouldn't, but then again, neither would I find it terribly funny if you were stabbed. I guess we now know who's the nicer person out of the two of us.

Carpetsoiler is absolutely bang on the money here! I'm in the 41st year with my force - 30yrs front line prior to retiring. Accepted whatever risks there were as they came along and not be terrified that evry job you go to will result in a knife or gun being drawn -its simply NOT the case. Many Police assaults I see recorded occur down in the cell block and not outside and very few from outside involve a weapon of any sort - cant recall the last one that did.
You CANT just randomly search anyone you want to EVEN if theyve got previous for carrying drugs or knives or have a PNC weapons/violence/drugs marker - You HAVE to have grounds for the search and reasonable suspicion they have a knife/drugs on them at the time of the stop. The fact they may have had one on them years before isnt grounds for a search. Had a long chat with a recently retired front line Sgt about exactly this the on Wednesday morning. He conceded that, if he had probed deeper into a number of searches that resulted in arrests for drugs and other items found on arrested persons - a large number of them would probably have been unlawful with no initial grounds for the search being justified. Of course public should reasonably comply with officers when they have powers and grounds to search or detain. However this must work the other way round as well - and where officers have no powers, act accordingly and dont bully or con people into being searched with the veiled threat of arrest if they dont comply.

Edited by Bigends on Saturday 9th August 12:11

Edited by Bigends on Saturday 9th August 13:11

[Red 4]

jimbop1 said:

Sorry, are you saying you are in the police? If so you're probably the reason our police force is becoming so incapable and st.

Ignore what the newspapers tell you about not offending black criminals with knifes on their possession and just use abit of common sense.

Yes, you probably are a nicer person than me.

Wow. You need to have a word with Theresa May because she seems to think police powers are being abused when it comes to stopping and searching young black men.

The power to search requires reasonable grounds for suspicion (as Bigends says) unless there is a Section 60 in force in the area at that time.

Are you suggesting the police should act unlawfully ?

[carpetsoiler]

jimbop1 said:

Sorry, are you saying you are in the police? If so you're probably the reason our police force is becoming so incapable and st.

Thanks for your input- I'll cry myself to sleep surrounded by my many letters of commendation from my Chief Inspector and Superintendent for my work surrounding catching drug dealers, saving people's lives and various community projects to make life slightly nicer for the people I look after.

jimbop1 said:

Ignore what the newspapers tell you about not offending black criminals with knifes on their possession and just use abit of common sense.

Funnily enough, I ignore what the newspapers say, I get on and do my job according to my local knowledge, relevant evidence and input from superiors. When you get some stripes, pips or a crown on your shoulder, then please feel free to tell me how to do my job. Until then, keep your nasty, racist remarks to yourself. For what it's worth, I have no qualms about upsetting anyone of a criminal disposition, regardless of their skin colour, and have had the race card levelled at me countless times. But ultimately, because I've done my job properly I've never come under scrutiny for being selective with my stop checks. You'll find a common denominator in all the stop checks I've recorded- cast-iron grounds for a search. Everything else is extraneous.

jimbop1 said:

Yes, you probably are a nicer person than me.

I think if there was any doubt previously, there's certainly none now! Luckily being a nasty person isn't relevant grounds for a search... maybe it would be if you were in charge. And what a lovely police state that would be.

[anonymous-user]

It's not gone well for him.