Police Scotland - Officers routinely carrying guns.
Discussion
GC8 said:
Hearing people say that theyre 'all for it' makes me shudder. Do you think that the country will in some way be improved by this? What on earth is going around in your head?
What's going around in my head is the fact that these police officers are doing their jobs, clearly by reading the article they are arresting people who are a danger to the general public, in this case drink drivers. They are also assisting their over stretched colleagues who are being hampered by government imposed budget cuts. The police officers in this case just happen to carry firearms that they are trained to use.I don't see any reports of scottish police officers rampaging around the countryside taking potshots at anyone who crosses their path. But here's the rub, if I need the police in a hurry, I don't care if they turn up wearing leather chaps with their backsides hanging out, I would just want them there.
This in my opinion is being grossly exaggerated by certain sections of the media, and by politicians looking to raise their profiles, I would not be bothered in the slightest by a small number of properly trained officers doing the jobs that they train for.
Edited by bluejj on Thursday 5th March 16:55
bluejj said:
This in my opinion is being grossly exaggerated by certain sections of the media, and by politicians looking to raise their profiles, I would not be bothered in the slightest by a small number of properly trained officers doing the jobs that they have been trained for.
+1Exactly, athough I would be a little concerned if they turned up in assless chaps!
AndrewEH1 said:
bluejj said:
This in my opinion is being grossly exaggerated by certain sections of the media, and by politicians looking to raise their profiles, I would not be bothered in the slightest by a small number of properly trained officers doing the jobs that they have been trained for.
+1Exactly, athough I would be a little concerned if they turned up in assless chaps!
GC8 said:
Hearing people say that theyre 'all for it' makes me shudder. Do you think that the country will in some way be improved by this? What on earth is going around in your head?
Would you rather our Police went around with spoon's in dangerous situations?Edited by GC8 on Thursday 5th March 16:49
Imagine two drunken idiots start to attack you / a friend / family member for no reason. A third party calls the police to report it. An armed resource (a double-crewed Armed Response Vehicle) is 1 minute away, and unarmed resource is 10 minutes away.
A perfectly probable scenario.
Are people saying they want the ARV to ignore them? That they should only deploy to armed / threat to life incidents (this isn't a threat to life incident)? What if they're closer? Should they drive off?
A perfectly probable scenario.
Are people saying they want the ARV to ignore them? That they should only deploy to armed / threat to life incidents (this isn't a threat to life incident)? What if they're closer? Should they drive off?
La Liga said:
Imagine two drunken idiots start to attack you / a friend / family member for no reason. A third party calls the police to report it. An armed resource (a double-crewed Armed Response Vehicle) is 1 minute away, and unarmed resource is 10 minutes away.
A perfectly probable scenario.
Are people saying they want the ARV to ignore them? That they should only deploy to armed / threat to life incidents (this isn't a threat to life incident)? What if they're closer? Should they drive off?
Armed officers shouldnt really be rolling around on the floor with drunks - risk of guns being lost potentially - or if during the course of the scrap its perceived someones gone for one of their guns I suppose theres the risk of a shooting.
A perfectly probable scenario.
Are people saying they want the ARV to ignore them? That they should only deploy to armed / threat to life incidents (this isn't a threat to life incident)? What if they're closer? Should they drive off?
Armed officers shouldnt really be rolling around on the floor with drunks - risk of guns being lost potentially - or if during the course of the scrap its perceived someones gone for one of their guns I suppose theres the risk of a shooting.
Bigends said:
Armed officers shouldnt really be rolling around on the floor with drunks - risk of guns being lost potentially - or if during the course of the scrap its perceived someones gone for one of their guns I suppose theres the risk of a shooting.
Weapon retention is a tactical / risk consideration and would feed into the NDMM. There are clearly practical ways to minimise / remove this risk. 1) They can take the sidearm magazine out and either put them in a spare pouch. That's what ours often do.
2) They can use Tasers if justified (most Taser incidents are 'red dot' only ones which gain compliance without any physical force being used) to place a safety gap between themselves and the offenders.
La Liga said:
eapon retention is a tactical / risk consideration and would feed into the NDMM. There are clearly practical ways to minimise / remove this risk.
1) They can take the sidearm magazine out and either put them in a spare pouch. That's what ours often do.
2) They can use Tasers if justified (most Taser incidents are 'red dot' only ones which gain compliance without any physical force being used).
By attending a fairly routine job, such as a drunken punch up carrying firearms, they are unnecessarily complicating things though. Certainly deal as a last resort but not as a matter of routine though
1) They can take the sidearm magazine out and either put them in a spare pouch. That's what ours often do.
2) They can use Tasers if justified (most Taser incidents are 'red dot' only ones which gain compliance without any physical force being used).
By attending a fairly routine job, such as a drunken punch up carrying firearms, they are unnecessarily complicating things though. Certainly deal as a last resort but not as a matter of routine though
Edited by Bigends on Thursday 5th March 18:28
Bigends said:
By attending a fairly routine job, such as a drunken punch up carrying firearms, they are unnecessarily complicating things though.
They're stopping a member of the public getting a kick-in / further one. Let's not forget what the police are here to do. Ideally the unarmed resource would be closer, but that's not the reality of policing. The scenario I've posed is one that can and does occur. Are we saying we don't have them attend because of some infinitesimally small chance someone gets hold of their firearm when the risks are easily manageable? How do other countries manage with fully and routinely armed officers? Do the French / Germans / Dutch / Spanish / Australians have major weapon retention issues when dealing with public order?
La Liga said:
hey're stopping a member of the public getting a kick-in / further one. Let's not forget what the police are here to do. Ideally the unarmed resource would be closer, but that's not the reality of policing.
The risks are easily manageable.
How do other countries manage with fully and routinely armed officers? Do the French / Germans / Dutch / Spanish / Australians have major weapon retention issues when dealing with public order?
Agreed for immediate jobs like this certainly they should get involved.
In the case of general routine public order stuff in town centres for example, ours used to hover in the area as an extra presence. When any trouble started they wouldnt get involved hands on, but stay on the periphery stopping others getting involved
The risks are easily manageable.
How do other countries manage with fully and routinely armed officers? Do the French / Germans / Dutch / Spanish / Australians have major weapon retention issues when dealing with public order?
Agreed for immediate jobs like this certainly they should get involved.
In the case of general routine public order stuff in town centres for example, ours used to hover in the area as an extra presence. When any trouble started they wouldnt get involved hands on, but stay on the periphery stopping others getting involved
Bigends said:
La Liga said:
eapon retention is a tactical / risk consideration and would feed into the NDMM. There are clearly practical ways to minimise / remove this risk.
1) They can take the sidearm magazine out and either put them in a spare pouch. That's what ours often do.
2) They can use Tasers if justified (most Taser incidents are 'red dot' only ones which gain compliance without any physical force being used).
By attending a fairly routine job, such as a drunken punch up carrying firearms, they are unnecessarily complicating things though. Certainly deal as a last resort but not as a matter of routine though1) They can take the sidearm magazine out and either put them in a spare pouch. That's what ours often do.
2) They can use Tasers if justified (most Taser incidents are 'red dot' only ones which gain compliance without any physical force being used).
pinchmeimdreamin said:
Bigends said:
La Liga said:
eapon retention is a tactical / risk consideration and would feed into the NDMM. There are clearly practical ways to minimise / remove this risk.
1) They can take the sidearm magazine out and either put them in a spare pouch. That's what ours often do.
2) They can use Tasers if justified (most Taser incidents are 'red dot' only ones which gain compliance without any physical force being used).
By attending a fairly routine job, such as a drunken punch up carrying firearms, they are unnecessarily complicating things though. Certainly deal as a last resort but not as a matter of routine though1) They can take the sidearm magazine out and either put them in a spare pouch. That's what ours often do.
2) They can use Tasers if justified (most Taser incidents are 'red dot' only ones which gain compliance without any physical force being used).
Edited by Bigends on Thursday 5th March 18:52
Bigends said:
Duuh - no! Of course they should get involved. Read the thread above. Deal with immediate stuff by all means.
So if an assault is reported, Armed officers are 5 minutes away and unarmed officers 10 minutes away, Who should be sent to the call ?Edited by Bigends on Thursday 5th March 18:52
the biggest problem is the perception that taser is one step down from using firearms rather than beating someone repeatedly with a big stick / setting a an attack dog on them being the next step down from shooting them ...
conflict models in recent years have tended to favour spray or taser ahead of the use of batons - which are a deadly weapon if used against 'red zones'
conflict models in recent years have tended to favour spray or taser ahead of the use of batons - which are a deadly weapon if used against 'red zones'
Bigends said:
In the case of general routine public order stuff in town centres for example, ours used to hover in the area as an extra presence. When any trouble started they wouldnt get involved hands on, but stay on the periphery stopping others getting involved.
Ideally they will stand in the background or be unneeded back-up. The specific example I am talking about is one in which a decision needs to be made. Do they attend or don't they? Do they have a policy where they won't attend or do they have one where they do?
These are the questions relevant in Scotland. Are they going to only attend firearms / OSD, or are they able to help a MOP in scenarios similar to the example I gave?
I'm just trying to outline some practical implications for people on here of having a wholly restrictive policy.
La Liga said:
deally they will stand in the background or be unneeded back-up.
The specific example I am talking about is one in which a decision needs to be made. Do they attend or don't they? Do they have a policy where they won't attend or do they have one where they do?
These are the questions relevant in Scotland. Are they going to only attend firearms / OSD, or are they able to help a MOP in scenarios similar to the example I gave?
I'm just trying to outline some practical implications for people on here of having a wholly restrictive policy.
Ours will get despatched as we run a nearest unit policy, but another unit will be sourced to assist with all the actual work.... you see it's difficult to hold a pen with all that baby oil on you The specific example I am talking about is one in which a decision needs to be made. Do they attend or don't they? Do they have a policy where they won't attend or do they have one where they do?
These are the questions relevant in Scotland. Are they going to only attend firearms / OSD, or are they able to help a MOP in scenarios similar to the example I gave?
I'm just trying to outline some practical implications for people on here of having a wholly restrictive policy.
Bigends said:
pinchmeimdreamin said:
So if an assault is reported, Armed officers are 5 minutes away and unarmed officers 10 minutes away, Who should be sent to the call ?
Generally the unarmed unit would be assigned and the Afv backs up if available Dibble said:
You really, really are detached from the current reality of policing. Get a grip, FFS.
Detached? I don't think he's ever been there.I was an AFO for many years. I dealt with everything from RTCs to domestics and drink drivers. Current AFOs have been doing the same for years. It's a complete and utter non story, Some of the comments I've seen are bordering on the hysterical. Some journalists and Politicians really, really need to take a long hard look at themselves.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff