Armed Police and normal policing duties
Discussion
I live near someone who has high presence uniform armed police protection 24hrs. I park my car very close to the house with the presumption it is safer there than on another road.
My question is, if someone tried to break in to my car, would one of the armed officers leave their post to stop them? I presume this could be a distraction technique to attack the person they are protecting? If they saw someone commit an offence they have so much kit on their person there is no way they are running after them. Are they allowed to draw their weapon?
I did see one officer once step away from the door to stop a car driving the wrong way down a 1 way street and stand in the road at the car driving towards him! That must have given the driver a shock to see him in full getup!
My question is, if someone tried to break in to my car, would one of the armed officers leave their post to stop them? I presume this could be a distraction technique to attack the person they are protecting? If they saw someone commit an offence they have so much kit on their person there is no way they are running after them. Are they allowed to draw their weapon?
I did see one officer once step away from the door to stop a car driving the wrong way down a 1 way street and stand in the road at the car driving towards him! That must have given the driver a shock to see him in full getup!
Once a police officer is sworn in and gets given their warrant card, they are obligated to do something if they see a crime taking place. That might just mean calling it in though depending on what orders/instructions they are under for their protection role.
Pulling a gun (or any other use of force) has to be proportionate to the risk and I very much doubt they could justify pulling a firearm on a car thief just because they can't catch them.
Pulling a gun (or any other use of force) has to be proportionate to the risk and I very much doubt they could justify pulling a firearm on a car thief just because they can't catch them.
"My question is, if someone tried to break in to my car, would one of the armed officers leave their post to stop them?"
Maybe if there were other Police units there in the protection ring. If leaving their post would reduce the protection then probably not. They have a radio, they could simply call it in and give descriptions etc.
Maybe if there were other Police units there in the protection ring. If leaving their post would reduce the protection then probably not. They have a radio, they could simply call it in and give descriptions etc.
Uppy89 said:
Pulling a gun (or any other use of force) has to be proportionate to the risk and I very much doubt they could justify pulling a firearm on a car thief just because they can't catch them.
This. Police operate on the rule of equivalent force +1, so if someone pulls a knife, an officer can then pull a gun. However less lethal options like tazers are making this less and less of a good option considering the consequences... and I'm not talking about legal ones. Killing someone messes normal people up, despite what internet warriors think. Its not unusual for cops to find it hard to go back to work after being involved in a fatal shooting.
The same rules apply to civilians, in order to use or even threaten using deadly force, you must believe your life is in danger. It isn't illegal to use a weapon in self defence but it needs to be justified.
Who the heck do you live next to that needs armed coppers protecting them? Thought only prime ministers and royalty got that level of protection?
Anyway, the main likelihood is that if there was several coppers on duty one of them would confront the car thief and the other would remain in post. If anything was to happen to the person they're protecting I'd assume they would let the car thief go and rejoin their colleague.
Anyway, the main likelihood is that if there was several coppers on duty one of them would confront the car thief and the other would remain in post. If anything was to happen to the person they're protecting I'd assume they would let the car thief go and rejoin their colleague.
revvingit said:
Who the heck do you live next to that needs armed coppers protecting them? Thought only prime ministers and royalty got that level of protection?
Anyway, the main likelihood is that if there was several coppers on duty one of them would confront the car thief and the other would remain in post. If anything was to happen to the person they're protecting I'd assume they would let the car thief go and rejoin their colleague.
Years ago, when I was a penniless student, most of the police I saw were in red police cars and were armed...Anyway, the main likelihood is that if there was several coppers on duty one of them would confront the car thief and the other would remain in post. If anything was to happen to the person they're protecting I'd assume they would let the car thief go and rejoin their colleague.
Yeah they do. They just have different training.
Last month I saw a full on swat team rescue a cat from a tree. 3 of them dispersed the crows by laying down covering fire, then the point man brought the cat down with a flashbang.
Stupid old lady wasn't even greratful, you'd expect her to at least make the lads a cup of tea. Sadly, these days it seems the police can only do wrong in the eyes of much of the population.
Last month I saw a full on swat team rescue a cat from a tree. 3 of them dispersed the crows by laying down covering fire, then the point man brought the cat down with a flashbang.
Stupid old lady wasn't even greratful, you'd expect her to at least make the lads a cup of tea. Sadly, these days it seems the police can only do wrong in the eyes of much of the population.
jan8p said:
captain_cynic said:
This.
Police operate on the rule of equivalent force +1, so if someone pulls a knife, an officer can then pull a gun.
Not in the UK they don't.Police operate on the rule of equivalent force +1, so if someone pulls a knife, an officer can then pull a gun.
I had this explained to me from a UK police officer (who also teaches self defence). Most police will opt for the less lethal options for various reasons, not the least of which was the rest of my post you omitted.
Otherwise... what you're saying is the PC that shot Khalid Masood was acting illegally... and that sure as hell doesn't sound right.
Edited by captain_cynic on Tuesday 6th February 15:46
rscott said:
revvingit said:
Who the heck do you live next to that needs armed coppers protecting them? Thought only prime ministers and royalty got that level of protection?
Anyway, the main likelihood is that if there was several coppers on duty one of them would confront the car thief and the other would remain in post. If anything was to happen to the person they're protecting I'd assume they would let the car thief go and rejoin their colleague.
Years ago, when I was a penniless student, most of the police I saw were in red police cars and were armed...Anyway, the main likelihood is that if there was several coppers on duty one of them would confront the car thief and the other would remain in post. If anything was to happen to the person they're protecting I'd assume they would let the car thief go and rejoin their colleague.
Many years ago when my town still had a Royal Marines Barracks ,during the time after the IRA had bombed the place , we had armed guards on the gates .
One Thursday the gate guard had acknowledged an old chap passing by on his way to the post office that was very nearby.
As the old boy emerged from the post office with his newly withdrawn pension he was mugged by a local scrote .
The big mistake the scrote made was doing it in sight of the gate guard then running towards him .
They had to call out the rest of the barrack guard to stop the gate guard shooting the scrote !
The old boy it emerged was a former marine and was escorted to the mess to be given lunch and several strong drinks to calm his nerves .
The scrote after his arrest had to have several stitches after collisions with some hard objects which may have been attached to the gate guard or part of the guardhouse interior structure .
A family friend was a Thames Valley police officer who did armed protection for the Queen Mother or The Foreign Secretary when they were in residence on TVP ground .
The surveillance systems usually pick up things at quite a distance .
One Thursday the gate guard had acknowledged an old chap passing by on his way to the post office that was very nearby.
As the old boy emerged from the post office with his newly withdrawn pension he was mugged by a local scrote .
The big mistake the scrote made was doing it in sight of the gate guard then running towards him .
They had to call out the rest of the barrack guard to stop the gate guard shooting the scrote !
The old boy it emerged was a former marine and was escorted to the mess to be given lunch and several strong drinks to calm his nerves .
The scrote after his arrest had to have several stitches after collisions with some hard objects which may have been attached to the gate guard or part of the guardhouse interior structure .
A family friend was a Thames Valley police officer who did armed protection for the Queen Mother or The Foreign Secretary when they were in residence on TVP ground .
The surveillance systems usually pick up things at quite a distance .
captain_cynic said:
Guess again.
I had this explained to me from a UK police officer (who also teaches self defence). Most police will opt for the less lethal options for various reasons, not the least of which was the rest of my post you omitted.
Otherwise... what you're saying is the PC that shot Khalid Masood was acting illegally... and that sure as hell doesn't sound right.
Look at police use of force in PACE and the Criminal Law Act and show me where it says Police Officers can use "equivalent+1".I had this explained to me from a UK police officer (who also teaches self defence). Most police will opt for the less lethal options for various reasons, not the least of which was the rest of my post you omitted.
Otherwise... what you're saying is the PC that shot Khalid Masood was acting illegally... and that sure as hell doesn't sound right.
Edited by captain_cynic on Tuesday 6th February 15:46
I would assume that they're treat anyone up to something nearby as being a potential attempt to distract them from their protection duties?
And so definitely do something about it, but not at the expense of what they're meant to be doing - e.g. call in someone acting suspiciously for someone else to look at, or send one person they can spare to do so.
And so definitely do something about it, but not at the expense of what they're meant to be doing - e.g. call in someone acting suspiciously for someone else to look at, or send one person they can spare to do so.
jan8p said:
Look at police use of force in PACE and the Criminal Law Act and show me where it says Police Officers can use "equivalent+1".
It is whatever force is reasonable in the circumstances.If someone is trying to stab an armed officer with a knife it does not mean that officer must immediately discard his firearm and go get a knife so it's a fair fight.
Reasonable force includes lethal force - it doesn't get more +1 than that.
Edited by Red 4 on Tuesday 6th February 17:32
Red 4 said:
It is whatever force is reasonable in the circumstances.
If someone is trying to stab an armed officer with a knife it does not mean that officer must immediately discard his firearm and go get a knife so it's a fair fight.
Reasonable force includes lethal force - it doesn't get more +1 than that.
My point is that the police don't operate on a blanket "rule of equivalent+1". Not that "equivalent+1" can't be justified.If someone is trying to stab an armed officer with a knife it does not mean that officer must immediately discard his firearm and go get a knife so it's a fair fight.
Reasonable force includes lethal force - it doesn't get more +1 than that.
Edited by Red 4 on Tuesday 6th February 17:32
Of course a firearm can be justifiably deployed against someone wielding a knife. Equally deploying a firearm against somebody wielding a knife could land a Police Officer in prison.
Your first sentence summed it up.
Static armed guarding is standard practice at:
A) Certain diplomatic premises (inside and outside of London)
B) Protected persons as notified by the Home Secretary (think certain serving cabinet minister posts, ex cabinet ministers with any sensitivity attached to their past service, some royalty and a long list of others
C) In response to circumstance (such as judges in high profile trials where there is inherent risk)
D) in response to a threat at a specific premise (usually when someone would be in residence- so for example Chequers when the PM is using it)
Depending on risk can be overt, covert or a mixture of both, sometimes supplemented by “ordinary” policing.
A) Certain diplomatic premises (inside and outside of London)
B) Protected persons as notified by the Home Secretary (think certain serving cabinet minister posts, ex cabinet ministers with any sensitivity attached to their past service, some royalty and a long list of others
C) In response to circumstance (such as judges in high profile trials where there is inherent risk)
D) in response to a threat at a specific premise (usually when someone would be in residence- so for example Chequers when the PM is using it)
Depending on risk can be overt, covert or a mixture of both, sometimes supplemented by “ordinary” policing.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff