Reasonable force?
Discussion
creampuff said:
LoonR1 said:
This is like a Micky Flanagan sketch
Are you armed armed, or just armed?
I'm armed armed
Right, armed armed, not armed
This works overseas. Most or all ordinary police are armed; if there is a specific incident then they call up what are now in the UK the smaller number of specialist armed police. It's not rocket science.Are you armed armed, or just armed?
I'm armed armed
Right, armed armed, not armed
The definition of armed police is they carry firearms. Therefore give an ordinary copper a gun and he becomes armed, therefore he is now armed police. It really is that simple. I'd rather not see police carrying guns as an everyday occurrence. I find it quite disturbing and whilst far from a liberal hippy, I can foresee those guns being used for non terrorist situations fairly easily.
Why you seem to think that there is a distinction in the definition of armed police based on what type of guns they carry is beyond me.
^Loon, you haven't read anything. Police forces having routinely armed police and in addition having specialist (SWAT in the US venacular) more heavily armed and trained police duvisions is SOP around the world. So far, in places like Canada or Australia or France where police are usually armed, the world has not collapsed.
When Monis took hostages in Sydney, it wasn't your average beat copper who shot him, despite there being dozens of average beat coppers, also armed, outside.
There are benefits to arming police, eg in Melbourne when some jihadi killed a civilian police worker, AFAIK it was an ordinary armed copper who shot said jihadi. Had that copper not been armed, as per the UK model, the jihadi may have killed more people in the minutes before specialist armed police did arrive.
It can go wrong, like when non-specialist armed NSW police shot Ron? Levied, mentally ill but no particular threat, on Bondi Beach.
When Monis took hostages in Sydney, it wasn't your average beat copper who shot him, despite there being dozens of average beat coppers, also armed, outside.
There are benefits to arming police, eg in Melbourne when some jihadi killed a civilian police worker, AFAIK it was an ordinary armed copper who shot said jihadi. Had that copper not been armed, as per the UK model, the jihadi may have killed more people in the minutes before specialist armed police did arrive.
It can go wrong, like when non-specialist armed NSW police shot Ron? Levied, mentally ill but no particular threat, on Bondi Beach.
How long do you expect that jerking knee to continue?
I'll say it yet again. I, as in me, myself and my opinion, would not like to see police carrying firearms routinely. I do not believe there is a genuine enough reason for this. I dread the idea of many current beat boob it's suddenly being given a gun, both for their wellbeing and the public's safety.
In the US hundreds of people are shot annually by the police, many will be justified, some not. Either way it is not progress IMO.
I have no issue with the army going into the streets in times of imminent threats amd to be used as necessary. I don't believe it is the policies place to patrol the streets carrying guns, apart from the most threatened areas.
I'll say it yet again. I, as in me, myself and my opinion, would not like to see police carrying firearms routinely. I do not believe there is a genuine enough reason for this. I dread the idea of many current beat boob it's suddenly being given a gun, both for their wellbeing and the public's safety.
In the US hundreds of people are shot annually by the police, many will be justified, some not. Either way it is not progress IMO.
I have no issue with the army going into the streets in times of imminent threats amd to be used as necessary. I don't believe it is the policies place to patrol the streets carrying guns, apart from the most threatened areas.
Kawasicki said:
Bigyoke said:
ging84 said:
Police in US shot and killed best part of 1k people this year alone, in UK excluding northern Ireland it's zero
And in the UK including Northern Ireland it's still zero.http://www.inquest.org.uk/statistics/fatal-police-...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_...
http://metro.co.uk/2015/09/01/graphic-shows-how-ma...
multiple links included to stop the "oh that site is just a reactionary anti police site yadda yadda"
A quick Google says it isn't true.
Richard Davies (22 October 2015 in St Neots, Cambridgeshire) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshir...
James Fox (30 August 2015 in London, England) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-34105801
Richard Davies (22 October 2015 in St Neots, Cambridgeshire) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshir...
James Fox (30 August 2015 in London, England) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-34105801
La Liga said:
Bigends] said:
Most 'ordinary' Police. you wouldnt want within 50ft of a gun - believe me
What's unique about the UK police compared with just about every other country in the world? Is there something unique about the populations of Europe, Australia and Northern Ireland, for example, which enable them to safely carry but not us?
Suitability of arms carrying isnt part of the selection process over here at the moment. We used to have a number of extra officers qualified as 'authorised shots' who had very basic training and could draw a gun in the case of an urgent containment needing to be put on a building or, for example back in the IRA days we'd be sat in potential target buildings with an authorised shot with us in case the job did come off. They were ok for static, controlled situations until trained units arrived. There were a number of accidental shootings and accidental discharges so the concept was shelved and we only have the units you see out and about now. When batons and CS spray was first introduced - there were bets amongst a few i worked with as to who could be first to use them - we dont really want to be giving some of them guns as well do we.
I have always been an observer in this part but here's my how I feel.
I love the fact that UK police in general are unarmed and would say quiet approachable and in the whole they're doing a very difficult job well. I do believe though there comes a time when maybe we as a nation have to accept we need more armed /better armed police force.I don't know what I want is an entirely achieveble but no harm in been wishful.
I love the fact that UK police in general are unarmed and would say quiet approachable and in the whole they're doing a very difficult job well. I do believe though there comes a time when maybe we as a nation have to accept we need more armed /better armed police force.I don't know what I want is an entirely achieveble but no harm in been wishful.
Bigends said:
Suitability of arms carrying isnt part of the selection process over here at the moment. We used to have a number of extra officers qualified as 'authorised shots' who had very basic training and could draw a gun in the case of an urgent containment needing to be put on a building or, for example back in the IRA days we'd be sat in potential target buildings with an authorised shot with us in case the job did come off. They were ok for static, controlled situations until trained units arrived. There were a number of accidental shootings and accidental discharges so the concept was shelved and we only have the units you see out and about now. When batons and CS spray was first introduced - there were bets amongst a few i worked with as to who could be first to use them - we dont really want to be giving some of them guns as well do we.
It's not, but I expect a large portion would pass any comparable selection process. I don't know the ins and outs, but I expect it's more technical than temperament for basic routine carrying in other countries. I know a few who transferred to Australia (albeit a small number), and they found it easy enough. It's not relevant as it won't, and doesn't need to occur, but the idea that somehow we're uniquely unsuited to carry when nearly everyone else is rubbish.
I have always been an observer in this part but here's my how I feel.
I love the fact that UK police in general are unarmed and would say quiet approachable and in the whole they're doing a very difficult job well. I do believe though there comes a time when maybe we as a nation have to accept we need more armed /better armed police force.I don't know what I want is an entirely achieveble but no harm in been wishful.
I love the fact that UK police in general are unarmed and would say quiet approachable and in the whole they're doing a very difficult job well. I do believe though there comes a time when maybe we as a nation have to accept we need more armed /better armed police force.I don't know what I want is an entirely achieveble but no harm in been wishful.
I have always been an observer in this part but here's my how I feel.
I love the fact that UK police in general are unarmed and would say quiet approachable and in the whole they're doing a very difficult job well. I do believe though there comes a time when maybe we as a nation have to accept we need more armed /better armed police force.I don't know what I want is an entirely achieveble but no harm in been wishful.
I love the fact that UK police in general are unarmed and would say quiet approachable and in the whole they're doing a very difficult job well. I do believe though there comes a time when maybe we as a nation have to accept we need more armed /better armed police force.I don't know what I want is an entirely achieveble but no harm in been wishful.
La Liga said:
Bigends said:
Suitability of arms carrying isnt part of the selection process over here at the moment. We used to have a number of extra officers qualified as 'authorised shots' who had very basic training and could draw a gun in the case of an urgent containment needing to be put on a building or, for example back in the IRA days we'd be sat in potential target buildings with an authorised shot with us in case the job did come off. They were ok for static, controlled situations until trained units arrived. There were a number of accidental shootings and accidental discharges so the concept was shelved and we only have the units you see out and about now. When batons and CS spray was first introduced - there were bets amongst a few i worked with as to who could be first to use them - we dont really want to be giving some of them guns as well do we.
It's not, but I expect a large portion would pass any comparable selection process. I don't know the ins and outs, but I expect it's more technical than temperament for basic routine carrying in other countries. I know a few who transferred to Australia (albeit a small number), and they found it easy enough. It's not relevant as it won't, and doesn't need to occur, but the idea that somehow we're uniquely unsuited to carry when nearly everyone else is rubbish.
This suggested that the majority of police officers (who proposed themselves, of course) were not suitable for armed service.
LoonR1 said:
And your still missing the fairly obvious point.
The definition of armed police is they carry firearms. Therefore give an ordinary copper a gun and he becomes armed, therefore he is now armed police. It really is that simple. I'd rather not see police carrying guns as an everyday occurrence. I find it quite disturbing and whilst far from a liberal hippy, I can foresee those guns being used for non terrorist situations fairly easily.
Why you seem to think that there is a distinction in the definition of armed police based on what type of guns they carry is beyond me.
Armed police deal with general police duties every day and the guns don't get used, so I'm not sure it would make much difference (in relation to tie comment about guns being used on none terrorist fairly easily )The definition of armed police is they carry firearms. Therefore give an ordinary copper a gun and he becomes armed, therefore he is now armed police. It really is that simple. I'd rather not see police carrying guns as an everyday occurrence. I find it quite disturbing and whilst far from a liberal hippy, I can foresee those guns being used for non terrorist situations fairly easily.
Why you seem to think that there is a distinction in the definition of armed police based on what type of guns they carry is beyond me.
Devil2575 said:
Greendubber said:
Here each and every round would need to be justified as a use of force.
I wouldnt worry though because if we end up in the same boat as Paris we have neither the staff or weapons to deal with it.
How would it happen here though? I wouldnt worry though because if we end up in the same boat as Paris we have neither the staff or weapons to deal with it.
How many assault rifles are actually in circulation in the UK?
Without going into detail the majority of illegal firearms that arnt (badly) re-activated collectors pieces are smuggled in from the US. Normally from lifted military stock, although some are civilian stock over their (handguns mostly, and US legal AR15s with modified recievers). Prices for handguns range from 800 to 1500 USD. Assault weapons being 2500+ USD. Once smuggled in they crudely package them up with some disguise then send them via royal mail. Its nuts.
Although the prices cited are for the average punter. If these guys have connections in the middle east im sure they can get them into the country for buttons. Its sadly just another case of laws only being for the abiding. If these people want to aquire weapons and have 'reasonably' intelligent leadership, its only a matter of funding.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff