Police scared of robbers or H & S officials
Discussion
Themoss said:
This strikes me as similar to the people who are members of the TA who then refuse to serve their country when they are needed.
The role of the police is to deal with crime. Or am I missing something?
Send the local unarmed plod into the Post Office to be wasted by some scumbag who panics. Strange attitude. Like people who watch the news and hear of another of our soldiers killed in Iraq and say "well that's his job isn't it"?
You've assumed that the gun was real.
You've assumed that the gun was loaded.
You've assumed that the criminal would panic.
You've assumed that the criminal would fire.
You've assumed that the criminal would be accurate and be able to hit any given target.
How many armed robberies are there in the UK per annum? How many people get shot? How many police officers get shot?
The chances of an ARV accidentally stumbling across a robbbery in progress is very small.
What difference does it make if the criminal act is an armed robbery, or GBH or speeding, each incident could end in someone dying.
This policy will, in my opinion, simply lead to more criminals arming themselves as they know that the police will not intervene. I bet this never used to happen years ago. Another example of PC gone mad.
ca092003 said:
You've assumed that the gun was real.
You've assumed that the gun was loaded.
You've assumed that the criminal would panic.
You've assumed that the criminal would fire.
You've assumed that the criminal would be accurate and be able to hit any given target.
Absobloodylutely!!!!....
You assume the worst and plan for it....
It's highly likely that the most danger you face in your working day is spilling hot coffee...
You have to plan for the worst as a police officer, because if you don't and get it wrong.....every Tom, Dick and Harry, suddenly becomes a tactical firearms expert (sound familiar?) and points out what went wrong...
It's not like it is on 'The Bill' you know..
Street
No6 said:
ca092003 said:
This strikes me as similar to the people who are members of the TA who then refuse to serve their country when they are needed.
The role of the police is to deal with crime. Or am I missing something?
Yep you're missing something...
A brain
I bow to your superior knowledge. 13 posts in total and a member for 1 month. Well done. Your positive contribution to PH is very much appreciated. Didn't you say somewhere that PH is full of grumpy old men? You just proved it....
ca092003 said:
You've assumed that the gun was real.
You've assumed that the gun was loaded.
You've assumed that the criminal would panic.
You've assumed that the criminal would fire.
You've assumed that the criminal would be accurate and be able to hit any given target.
Good god man, have you COMPLETELY lost your senses?!!
Unbelievable......
Streetcop said:
You've assumed that the gun was real.
You've assumed that the gun was loaded.
You've assumed that the criminal would panic.
You've assumed that the criminal would fire.
You've assumed that the criminal would be accurate and be able to hit any given target.
Absobloodylutely!!!!....
You assume the worst and plan for it....
It's highly likely that the most danger you face in your working day is spilling hot coffee...
You have to plan for the worst as a police officer, because if you don't and get it wrong.....every Tom, Dick and Harry, suddenly becomes a tactical firearms expert (sound familiar?) and points out what went wrong...
It's not like it is on 'The Bill' you know..
Street
StreetCop
You've lost me. How is my occupation relevant to this discussion? (Also, I don't watch the Bill so don't know what you are on about)
I admit to being disturbed when police investigations occur into thigns like fatal shootings. They have the benefit of hindsight and countless weeks and many resources to reach a conclusion.
Answer me this: When was this policy introduced and what were the reasons behind it?
I wonder if it is related to the HRA.
Themoss said:
You've assumed that the gun was real.
You've assumed that the gun was loaded.
You've assumed that the criminal would panic.
You've assumed that the criminal would fire.
You've assumed that the criminal would be accurate and be able to hit any given target.
Good god man, have you COMPLETELY lost your senses?!!
Unbelievable......
Every single thing we do requires a risk analysis. Are you honestly saying that you think it is better for society that police officers wait round the corner for villains to flee, than to arrive at the scene and secure the area?
I am simply amazed that anyone thinks that this is the way to deal with crime in the 21st century. No wonder gun crime it is out of control.
ca092003 said:
You've lost me. How is my occupation relevant to this discussion?
Because lots of people think they are an expert on policing matters and dealing with crime and violent people. When in fact, the last time most people found themselves in a violent encounter was in the schoolyard.
ca092003 said:
I admit to being disturbed when police investigations occur into things like fatal shootings. They have the benefit of hindsight and countless weeks and many resources to reach a conclusion.
Well go back and read your post where you advocated 'rushing in'.
ca092003 said:
Answer me this: When was this policy introduced and what were the reasons behind it?
Don't know off the top of my head. In the last 2-3 years...and it's still in it's infancy.
ca092003 said:
I wonder if it is related to the HRA.
Oh..that great piece of legislation...that's helping fight crime a great deal..
NOT The general public really don't have a clue as to what is required to bring forward a conviction nowadays....I don't mean to be rude. I really don't. But if you really knew what we (the police) are up against to keep the peace and bring the guilty to justice, there would never be any..'falling respect' or the other things spoken about by people who's only brush with the law is a speeding ticket.
Street
Anyway...I'm off to work now..for a night shift...
Last night...I, as a traffic officer,....disarmed a man brandishing a dagger....
I don't want 'thanks'...but perhaps a little respect from the law abiders who I work tirelessly to protect might be nice..
Goodnight and sleep safe.
Street
Last night...I, as a traffic officer,....disarmed a man brandishing a dagger....
I don't want 'thanks'...but perhaps a little respect from the law abiders who I work tirelessly to protect might be nice..
Goodnight and sleep safe.
Street
ca092003 said:
imo anybody who uses a firearm to perpetrate a crime,(even a dummy block of wood) should be banged up a minimum of 25 years, no excuses, no parole......
Where people serve 8-10 years for murder, 25 years for a firearm offence is unrealistic.
I'd prefer to say that 8-10 years for murder is unrealistic. Unrealistically short.
Pigeon said:
Wacky Racer said:
imo anybody who uses a firearm to perpetrate a crime,(even a dummy block of wood) should be banged up a minimum of 25 years, no excuses, no parole......
Where people serve 8-10 years for murder, 25 years for a firearm offence is unrealistic.
I'd prefer to say that 8-10 years for murder is unrealistic. Unrealistically short.
I agree. If it were up to me it should be the death penalty but there has to be the right balance.
Some people think rape should command a life sentence but isn't there a danger that rapists will kill victims to get rid of the evidence?
StreetCop
I suggest you go back and read the thread. I didn't advocate 'rushing in'.
Are you saying that because I am not in the front line, my opinions don't matter? Do you not express your opinions on non-police matters? Perhaps you think your view of the world is the only one that matters (it certainly seems to be the case from where I am sitting).
I think I've also demonstrated in the thread about solid white lines that what you consider the law to be and what the actual law is are different things. Personally, and I don't wish to appear rude (I really don't) that you are a TrafPol and you do not fully understand road traffic legislation is pretty astonishing.
I suggest you go back and read the thread. I didn't advocate 'rushing in'.
Are you saying that because I am not in the front line, my opinions don't matter? Do you not express your opinions on non-police matters? Perhaps you think your view of the world is the only one that matters (it certainly seems to be the case from where I am sitting).
I think I've also demonstrated in the thread about solid white lines that what you consider the law to be and what the actual law is are different things. Personally, and I don't wish to appear rude (I really don't) that you are a TrafPol and you do not fully understand road traffic legislation is pretty astonishing.
ca092003 said:
ca092003 said:
Wacky Racer said:
imo anybody who uses a firearm to perpetrate a crime,(even a dummy block of wood) should be banged up a minimum of 25 years, no excuses, no parole......
Where people serve 8-10 years for murder, 25 years for a firearm offence is unrealistic.
I'd prefer to say that 8-10 years for murder is unrealistic. Unrealistically short.
I agree. If it were up to me it should be the death penalty but there has to be the right balance.
Some people think rape should command a life sentence but isn't there a danger that rapists will kill victims to get rid of the evidence?
Agreed ca092003, I would bring back the death penalty, when I was young just the thought of killing someone was enough to mean you should be behind bars for life. I think we lost the plot when the term: "Beyond ALL resonable doubt" became blurred, it means what it says. We all know of cases where there was absolutely no doubt, Soham for one, They should hang. But, one doubt and it's "life" instead, we may not like it but you have to be absolutely sure. It's important because it sends a signal, (rather like speed camera's)
What I fear now is that the "authorities" are behind the times and for some youngsters it is no longer "cool" to just carry a gun, to be a "murderer is cool" and in their demented minds commands: "respec", just like their heroes.
When they introduced the gun ban, one thing they missed was: "and IF we find you with one (loaded or not - real or not) and it's 10 yrs inside whatever your age" no reprieve.
Y'know, I just read that back to myself before posting and it's not bad for a socialist pinko lefty is it? Just goes to show that you can't pidgeon hole people. OK! OK! OK! Pidgeon, I know, I know!
medicineman said:
Hey heres a radical thought, arm the public. The criminals have guns, know the public don't and know the police will take time to respond. Now then are you going to rob a post office knowing the staff may shoot back. Didn't think so.
This is what happened in the US when one state allowed folks to have weapons to defend their homes. House crime fell way down.
Themoss said:
This strikes me as similar to the people who are members of the TA who then refuse to serve their country when they are needed.
The role of the police is to deal with crime. Or am I missing something?
Send the local unarmed plod into the Post Office to be wasted by some scumbag who panics. Strange attitude. Like people who watch the news and hear of another of our soldiers killed in Iraq and say "well that's his job isn't it"?
Is it not even more strange that the cops, ( to protect and to serve) knowing folks are being threatened right then by armed robbers, decide to wait two streets away until the robbers had gone?
medicineman said:
Hey heres a radical thought, arm the public. The criminals have guns, know the public don't and know the police will take time to respond. Now then are you going to rob a post office knowing the staff may shoot back. Didn't think so.
In the USA, where in most states it's easier to buy a gun than a beer, the following is true for the year 2001:
There were 29,571 gun deaths across the US.
11,671 of these were murders.
16,869 of these were suicides.
802 were 'accidents' - I put the quotes on this as who knows how many of these were accidental or made to look that way.
Since JFK got shot more Americans have died from gunshot wounds in their own homes than have died in battle in all the armed conflicts in the 20th Century.
If the crims have got revolvers, and the public get revolvers, the crims will get semi-auto pistols. If the public then gets semi-auto pistols, the crims will get machine pistols. If the public gets machine pistols, the crims will get assault rifles...you get the idea.
The death penalty is not a deterrent. People who commit capital crimes do so on the basis that they don;t think they will be caught so what does it matter? If it was a deterrent then why are there over 3000 Death Row inmates in the USA? Every Friday at least one poor sod gets the chop in a Saudi public square (not belittling what happened to Bigley, but the Saudis do that every week and no-one bats an eyelid) and the trend isn't decreasing.
I don't have a magic answer...but for my money anyone carrying a firearm should be given a minimum of 15 years hard labour - and I mean hard, breaking 50-ton boulders into pea gravel with a clubhammer, clearing up the miles of clogged waterways and beaches, re-ballasting the railbeds, actually repaying their debt rather than sponging off my tax pounds.
Tafia said:
ca092003 said:
This strikes me as similar to the people who are members of the TA who then refuse to serve their country when they are needed.
The role of the police is to deal with crime. Or am I missing something?
Send the local unarmed plod into the Post Office to be wasted by some scumbag who panics. Strange attitude. Like people who watch the news and hear of another of our soldiers killed in Iraq and say "well that's his job isn't it"?
Is it not even more strange that the cops, ( to protect and to serve) knowing folks are being threatened right then by armed robbers, decide to wait two streets away until the robbers had gone?
As said above - the police have to make a call - a Risk Assessment if you like - as to the right action to take.
In this case - if the police show up immediately, the chances of catching the bad guys are higher than if they don't. But if they show up, the chances of someone - police or public - being killed are much higher than if they don't.
Therefore, they don't show up immediately but they wait until it's safe(r) to do so. That's the right thing to do. Safer could come from either the ARV arrived or the robbers leaving.
I think the main problem is the inspector saying he didn't show because of "Health and Safety". He should have put it more clearly - "we reckoned if we turned up there'd be a much higher chance YOU'd get shot".
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff