Police Scotland - Officers routinely carrying guns.
Discussion
It seems that in one of the lowest crime areas of the UK The Police are now at odds with elected officials and have a policy that Firearms officers, even on routine duties, carry Sidearms. Members of the public have reported seeing officers carrying Glock Pistons in supermarkets, bakeries, on routine Traffic stops and while Policing the Highland Cross Biathlon.
It does not seem to be going down well and despite opposition from MP's and MSP's Police Scotland have stated that the policy will not change.
It does not seem to be going down well and despite opposition from MP's and MSP's Police Scotland have stated that the policy will not change.
Realistically how else would it work? Leaving a car full of firearms parked by itself whilst the officers pop into Greggs for some pasties unarmed seems a bit daft. Whilst I would not support all officers carrying firearms there aren't that many armed response units around, they are necessary for some situations and I can't see why any law abiding person would feel any different interacting with an armed or unarmed officer. They aren't going to whip it out and shoot you if you look at them funny.
Personally wouldnt like to see cops routinely patrolling with guns
Most (non airport) AFV crews will only be seen with guns by the public when buying coffee or a sarnie or if they are helping out at a job, after which its back in the car and then away. They dont need guns on routine patrol though i'm not sure what they should do with them - wear them a bit more covertly whilst on general patrol perhaps if its not safe to leave them in a high vis car parked in full view of everybody -chances of them getting nicked would be pretty slim id suggest. As it is when they arrive at jobs weapons are left in unattended cars. - In fight situations surely they'd be a bit of a liability with the risk of having their guns taken from them if on their own?
Either stay in the cars doing what theyre trained to do or keep the guns out of sight.
Most (non airport) AFV crews will only be seen with guns by the public when buying coffee or a sarnie or if they are helping out at a job, after which its back in the car and then away. They dont need guns on routine patrol though i'm not sure what they should do with them - wear them a bit more covertly whilst on general patrol perhaps if its not safe to leave them in a high vis car parked in full view of everybody -chances of them getting nicked would be pretty slim id suggest. As it is when they arrive at jobs weapons are left in unattended cars. - In fight situations surely they'd be a bit of a liability with the risk of having their guns taken from them if on their own?
Either stay in the cars doing what theyre trained to do or keep the guns out of sight.
Edited by Bigends on Wednesday 6th August 16:24
Bigends said:
Personally wouldnt like to see cops routinely patrolling with guns
Most (non airport) AFV crews will only be seen with guns by the public when buying coffee or a sarnie or if they are helping out at a job, after which its back in the car and then away. They dont need guns on routine patrol though i'm not sure what they should do with them - wear them a bit more covertly whilst on general patrol perhaps if its not safe to leave them in a high vis car parked in full view of everybody -chances of them getting nicked would be pretty slim id suggest. As it is when they arrive at jobs weapons are left in unattended cars. - In fight situations surely they'd be a bit of a liability with the risk of having their guns taken from them if on their own?
Either stay in the cars doing what theyre trained to do or keep the guns out of sight.
Exactly.Most (non airport) AFV crews will only be seen with guns by the public when buying coffee or a sarnie or if they are helping out at a job, after which its back in the car and then away. They dont need guns on routine patrol though i'm not sure what they should do with them - wear them a bit more covertly whilst on general patrol perhaps if its not safe to leave them in a high vis car parked in full view of everybody -chances of them getting nicked would be pretty slim id suggest. As it is when they arrive at jobs weapons are left in unattended cars. - In fight situations surely they'd be a bit of a liability with the risk of having their guns taken from them if on their own?
Either stay in the cars doing what theyre trained to do or keep the guns out of sight.
Edited by Bigends on Wednesday 6th August 16:24
I posted this in another thread:
The Scottish force has 17,234 officers. 275 are Authorised Firearms Officers. Scotland has around 55 armed officers per million people. England and Wales has around 120. That's some "routine arming" in Scotland, indeed
This 275 provides the 24/7 cover so only a % amount of those officers will be on duty at any one time. On a 5 shift-rota this will be a 55 theoretical officers covering the whole of Scotland. In reality, this will be a fair bit less given leave / courses and other consistent abstractions. Plus a % may not carry each day depending on the minimum specified numbers. Some may also be on ports and other roles etc.
From what I can read the Chief has asked them to be more visible and do more routine work (as they always have done). They are a normal policing resource that has a specialism, and the majority of their time is spent not doing firearms work, so why not? It means a better response as more incidents get dealt with. I can understand why people think there are more if they are being more visible, but that's no excuse for having a debate based on false pretences.
There is no "routine arming". Until the people challenging the police actually know what's going on and stop debating red herrings, there should be no call for any Parliamentary justification.
What irony?
The Scottish force has 17,234 officers. 275 are Authorised Firearms Officers. Scotland has around 55 armed officers per million people. England and Wales has around 120. That's some "routine arming" in Scotland, indeed
This 275 provides the 24/7 cover so only a % amount of those officers will be on duty at any one time. On a 5 shift-rota this will be a 55 theoretical officers covering the whole of Scotland. In reality, this will be a fair bit less given leave / courses and other consistent abstractions. Plus a % may not carry each day depending on the minimum specified numbers. Some may also be on ports and other roles etc.
From what I can read the Chief has asked them to be more visible and do more routine work (as they always have done). They are a normal policing resource that has a specialism, and the majority of their time is spent not doing firearms work, so why not? It means a better response as more incidents get dealt with. I can understand why people think there are more if they are being more visible, but that's no excuse for having a debate based on false pretences.
There is no "routine arming". Until the people challenging the police actually know what's going on and stop debating red herrings, there should be no call for any Parliamentary justification.
telecat said:
It seems that in one of the lowest crime areas of the UK
You, like others, are framing this as a response to risk / threat and it therefore not being justified. That's an easy argument it make, except it isn't the cause / effect here. It's that the Chief has asked the AFOs do more non-firearms stuff. telecat said:
MKnight702 said:
I fail to see a problem. Trained officers carry guns, and???
The guns are not going to suddenly jump up and start randomly shooting people, they are inanimate objects.
Oh the irony!!!The guns are not going to suddenly jump up and start randomly shooting people, they are inanimate objects.
La Liga said:
I posted this in another thread:
The Scottish force has 17,234 officers. 275 are Authorised Firearms Officers. Scotland has around 55 armed officers per million people. England and Wales has around 120. That's some "routine arming" in Scotland, indeed
This 275 provides the 24/7 cover so only a % amount of those officers will be on duty at any one time. On a 5 shift-rota this will be a 55 theoretical officers covering the whole of Scotland. In reality, this will be a fair bit less given leave / courses and other consistent abstractions. Plus a % may not carry each day depending on the minimum specified numbers. Some may also be on ports and other roles etc.
From what I can read the Chief has asked them to be more visible and do more routine work (as they always have done). They are a normal policing resource that has a specialism, and the majority of their time is spent not doing firearms work, so why not? It means a better response as more incidents get dealt with. I can understand why people think there are more if they are being more visible, but that's no excuse for having a debate based on false pretences.
There is no "routine arming". Until the people challenging the police actually know what's going on and stop debating red herrings, there should be no call for any Parliamentary justification.
What irony?
By all means get them out working but keep the guns out of viewThe Scottish force has 17,234 officers. 275 are Authorised Firearms Officers. Scotland has around 55 armed officers per million people. England and Wales has around 120. That's some "routine arming" in Scotland, indeed
This 275 provides the 24/7 cover so only a % amount of those officers will be on duty at any one time. On a 5 shift-rota this will be a 55 theoretical officers covering the whole of Scotland. In reality, this will be a fair bit less given leave / courses and other consistent abstractions. Plus a % may not carry each day depending on the minimum specified numbers. Some may also be on ports and other roles etc.
From what I can read the Chief has asked them to be more visible and do more routine work (as they always have done). They are a normal policing resource that has a specialism, and the majority of their time is spent not doing firearms work, so why not? It means a better response as more incidents get dealt with. I can understand why people think there are more if they are being more visible, but that's no excuse for having a debate based on false pretences.
There is no "routine arming". Until the people challenging the police actually know what's going on and stop debating red herrings, there should be no call for any Parliamentary justification.
telecat said:
It seems that in one of the lowest crime areas of the UK
You, like others, are framing this as a response to risk / threat and it therefore not being justified. That's an easy argument it make, except it isn't the cause / effect here. It's that the Chief has asked the AFOs do more non-firearms stuff. telecat said:
MKnight702 said:
I fail to see a problem. Trained officers carry guns, and???
The guns are not going to suddenly jump up and start randomly shooting people, they are inanimate objects.
Oh the irony!!!The guns are not going to suddenly jump up and start randomly shooting people, they are inanimate objects.
La Liga said:
There's no rational or risk-based reason in which to do so. I never see AFOs without their side-arms when they've attended incidents.
Agreed - if theyre attending an assigned job - but then its generally back in the car and away - not off patrolling the High street. They cant deal with anything thats going to tie them up for any length of time anyway and takes them too far away from their car.Bigends said:
Agreed - if theyre attending an assigned job - but then its generally back in the car and away - not off patrolling the High street. They cant deal with anything thats going to tie them up for any length of time anyway and takes them too far away from their car.
Personally from a work point of view i'd sooner they stay in the car and out of the way -they bugger up everything they do deal with in any caseThe problem is is the lack of accurate information and the way the word "routine" is being thrown around.
Taking this BBC article as an example and all the sub-articles in links to.
It gives an example of AFOs attending a public order incident in a Town Centre. Is this anything new? I've seen them attend plenty over the years. In fact, town centres on a Friday and Saturday night are rather well policed by ARVs in my experience. I wonder if it's because of the sights?
Also from the article:
The Daily Record reports on them attending an RTC to try and fuel the fire. Dealing with traffic matters, as they always have done, then.
The Press and Journal gives and example of when someone buys food. Buying food, as they always have done, then.
This is the best evidence of "routine arming" and a policy change? Quoting regular things.
Taking this BBC article as an example and all the sub-articles in links to.
It gives an example of AFOs attending a public order incident in a Town Centre. Is this anything new? I've seen them attend plenty over the years. In fact, town centres on a Friday and Saturday night are rather well policed by ARVs in my experience. I wonder if it's because of the sights?
Also from the article:
C.Supt said:
“When not undertaking their ARV roles, all officers are available to provide support to local policing areas through regular and tasked patrols. All officers within specialist services, which includes armed policing, are deployed in support of their colleagues in local divisions and contribute to our focus on keeping people safe which includes addressing concerns within communities and responding to calls.”
ARVs being tasked and responding to calls as they always have done, then. The Daily Record reports on them attending an RTC to try and fuel the fire. Dealing with traffic matters, as they always have done, then.
The Press and Journal gives and example of when someone buys food. Buying food, as they always have done, then.
This is the best evidence of "routine arming" and a policy change? Quoting regular things.
La Liga said:
The problem is is the lack of accurate information and the way the word "routine" is being thrown around.
Taking this BBC article as an example and all the sub-articles in links to.
It gives an example of AFOs attending a public order incident in a Town Centre. Is this anything new? I've seen them attend plenty over the years. In fact, town centres on a Friday and Saturday night are rather well policed by ARVs in my experience. I wonder if it's because of the sights?
Also from the article:
The Daily Record reports on them attending an RTC to try and fuel the fire. Dealing with traffic matters, as they always have done, then.
The Press and Journal gives and example of when someone buys food. Buying food, as they always have done, then.
This is the best evidence of "routine arming" and a policy change? Quoting regular things.
I thought the "routinely armed" aspect referred to the fact that they carry sidearms as standard, not the routine calls they attend. Until recently, my force ARV's would only arm when attending a firearms job, and afterwards, weapons would be stowed. They are now "routinely armed" as in, at the beginning of the tour of duty they will strap the Glock to their thigh.Taking this BBC article as an example and all the sub-articles in links to.
It gives an example of AFOs attending a public order incident in a Town Centre. Is this anything new? I've seen them attend plenty over the years. In fact, town centres on a Friday and Saturday night are rather well policed by ARVs in my experience. I wonder if it's because of the sights?
Also from the article:
C.Supt said:
“When not undertaking their ARV roles, all officers are available to provide support to local policing areas through regular and tasked patrols. All officers within specialist services, which includes armed policing, are deployed in support of their colleagues in local divisions and contribute to our focus on keeping people safe which includes addressing concerns within communities and responding to calls.”
ARVs being tasked and responding to calls as they always have done, then. The Daily Record reports on them attending an RTC to try and fuel the fire. Dealing with traffic matters, as they always have done, then.
The Press and Journal gives and example of when someone buys food. Buying food, as they always have done, then.
This is the best evidence of "routine arming" and a policy change? Quoting regular things.
This is the bit i'm not so sure about. We managed for decades with the guns staying out of sight and in the cars. I am not sure I like the idea of ARV's strolling round at RTC's or breaking up pub fights with a deadly weapon strapped to their leg. I don't know...maybe it is needed. Maybe I'm just old fashioned.
Mk3Spitfire said:
I thought the "routinely armed" aspect referred to the fact that they carry sidearms as standard. Until recently, my force ARV's would only arm when atttending a firearms job, and afterwards, weapons would be stowed. They are now "routinely armed" as in, at the beginning of the tour of duty they will strap the Glock to their thigh.
This is the bit i'm not so sure about. We managed for decades with the guns staying out of sight and in the cars. I am not sure I like the idea of ARV's strolling round at RTC's or breaking up pub fights with a deadly weapon strapped to their leg. I don't know...maybe it is needed. Maybe I'm just old fashioned.
This is my concern. Seeing obviously armed police carrying out routine duties starts to normalise guns. This is the bit i'm not so sure about. We managed for decades with the guns staying out of sight and in the cars. I am not sure I like the idea of ARV's strolling round at RTC's or breaking up pub fights with a deadly weapon strapped to their leg. I don't know...maybe it is needed. Maybe I'm just old fashioned.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff