More heavily armed police
Discussion
One of the leading stories in the media today:
"Police are being trained by the SAS and armed with more powerful weapons to prepare for a possible Mumbai-style terror attack in the UK."
source
Is this actually required?
The logic here appears to be, it might happen here so the police need to be armed to deal with it. Well lots of things 'might' happen but that doesn't mean we arm the police to deal with it. The bad guys might try and crash a plane into a build or set off a nuclear bomb. I don't think that means we should give the Met missiles for shooting down planes or nuclear bombs of their own to act as a deterrent.
There is also the point that when the police do react to a possible terrorist threat they aren't actually to discriminating about who gets shot.
"Police are being trained by the SAS and armed with more powerful weapons to prepare for a possible Mumbai-style terror attack in the UK."
source
Is this actually required?
The logic here appears to be, it might happen here so the police need to be armed to deal with it. Well lots of things 'might' happen but that doesn't mean we arm the police to deal with it. The bad guys might try and crash a plane into a build or set off a nuclear bomb. I don't think that means we should give the Met missiles for shooting down planes or nuclear bombs of their own to act as a deterrent.
There is also the point that when the police do react to a possible terrorist threat they aren't actually to discriminating about who gets shot.
Edited by Fittster on Tuesday 26th October 09:00
Why is there a bad thing about the Police being armed? I think its a good thing.
How many incidents do we hear about where an Officer has shot an innocent, only DeMenzies and that was more down to poor surveliance and the high alert of the 7/7 Bombings.
What "powerful weapons" do we recon they're being trained to use?
How many incidents do we hear about where an Officer has shot an innocent, only DeMenzies and that was more down to poor surveliance and the high alert of the 7/7 Bombings.
What "powerful weapons" do we recon they're being trained to use?
I would have thought that as this is a likely method (as in it has been done albeit elsewhere) then it would be better to train them. It would appear that they are being trained as a first response? Shhh, you know who, come in later. No one thought about suicide attacks much until it happened.
Ozzie Osmond said:
Waste of public money by duplication of effort. If you need to call in the SAS - call in the SAS!!
Plod have already proved they can't be trusted with weapons.
Holding my own thoughts on the police and shootings but so have the terrorists shown they cannot be trusted. Naughty buggers as they are, I would rather the police are trained as a first response whilst they get a few of the lads in black from where ever they live now. What is the response time?Plod have already proved they can't be trusted with weapons.
The planning assumptions for maintaining Special Forces on alert in one location in the UK to deal with a terrorist incident must have changed immensely since the days of the Iranian embassy siege. The threat now is a rolling situation that would develop quite rapidly and may need armed intervention quicker than has hitherto been possible. The advantages should be that the armed police should be more familiar with the environment/terrain (althoguh this would probably be a nice-to-have). More importantly they would respond more quickly and be far more integrated into the overall on-the-spot chain of command.
Saying that, the theory's nice but it looks as though the general impression that armed police in the UK gives is one of warped priorities in terms of training and operational procedures - the combination of lawyers, journalists and politicians (whose concerns seem to ride high in the the thinking of senior officers) means that the determinants of a successful outcome are not necessarily what the general public and common sense would dictate. THe legalities and media image of the response seem to ride higher than the need to contain the incident and terminate all threat to members of the public as quickly as possible, with confusion due to inexperiwence by the commanders on the ground (witness the inquest to the death of that idio lawyer and the Menezes fiasco where it was inadequate information-gathering and dissemination by command and control that caused issues). Whilst the actual armed officers have the best intentions they seem to have one hand tied behind their backs and for fear of loss of life at their own hands would refrain from using hteir weapons to resolve the situation quickly - which in turn runs the risk of even higher loss of life. The prospect of a Mumbai-style attack is one that is particualrly difficult to plan for, and I think it will not so much be about guaranteeing success as minimising the inevitable cock-ups.
Saying that, the theory's nice but it looks as though the general impression that armed police in the UK gives is one of warped priorities in terms of training and operational procedures - the combination of lawyers, journalists and politicians (whose concerns seem to ride high in the the thinking of senior officers) means that the determinants of a successful outcome are not necessarily what the general public and common sense would dictate. THe legalities and media image of the response seem to ride higher than the need to contain the incident and terminate all threat to members of the public as quickly as possible, with confusion due to inexperiwence by the commanders on the ground (witness the inquest to the death of that idio lawyer and the Menezes fiasco where it was inadequate information-gathering and dissemination by command and control that caused issues). Whilst the actual armed officers have the best intentions they seem to have one hand tied behind their backs and for fear of loss of life at their own hands would refrain from using hteir weapons to resolve the situation quickly - which in turn runs the risk of even higher loss of life. The prospect of a Mumbai-style attack is one that is particualrly difficult to plan for, and I think it will not so much be about guaranteeing success as minimising the inevitable cock-ups.
Jonny671 said:
Why is there a bad thing about the Police being armed? I think its a good thing.
How many incidents do we hear about where an Officer has shot an innocent, only DeMenzies and that was more down to poor surveliance and the high alert of the 7/7 Bombings.
Surely one of the main reasons why we don't hear about many police shootings is the very fact that firearms are only issued to a small percentage of highly trained officers?How many incidents do we hear about where an Officer has shot an innocent, only DeMenzies and that was more down to poor surveliance and the high alert of the 7/7 Bombings.
Kermit power said:
Jonny671 said:
Why is there a bad thing about the Police being armed? I think its a good thing.
How many incidents do we hear about where an Officer has shot an innocent, only DeMenzies and that was more down to poor surveliance and the high alert of the 7/7 Bombings.
Surely one of the main reasons why we don't hear about many police shootings is the very fact that firearms are only issued to a small percentage of highly trained officers?How many incidents do we hear about where an Officer has shot an innocent, only DeMenzies and that was more down to poor surveliance and the high alert of the 7/7 Bombings.
jmorgan said:
I would rather the police are trained as a first response whilst they get a few of the lads in black from where ever they live now. What is the response time?
As I watched the news that's pretty much what I assumed - that plod would probably be closer at hand for the first response. Then bring in the big boys if the situation is still live.Jonny671 said:
Kermit power said:
Jonny671 said:
Why is there a bad thing about the Police being armed? I think its a good thing.
How many incidents do we hear about where an Officer has shot an innocent, only DeMenzies and that was more down to poor surveliance and the high alert of the 7/7 Bombings.
Surely one of the main reasons why we don't hear about many police shootings is the very fact that firearms are only issued to a small percentage of highly trained officers?How many incidents do we hear about where an Officer has shot an innocent, only DeMenzies and that was more down to poor surveliance and the high alert of the 7/7 Bombings.
Kermit power said:
Jonny671 said:
Kermit power said:
Jonny671 said:
Why is there a bad thing about the Police being armed? I think its a good thing.
How many incidents do we hear about where an Officer has shot an innocent, only DeMenzies and that was more down to poor surveliance and the high alert of the 7/7 Bombings.
Surely one of the main reasons why we don't hear about many police shootings is the very fact that firearms are only issued to a small percentage of highly trained officers?How many incidents do we hear about where an Officer has shot an innocent, only DeMenzies and that was more down to poor surveliance and the high alert of the 7/7 Bombings.
http://tna.europarchive.org/20100419081706/http://...
The majority of SO19 are ex army or services.
Their police training will be focussed on hostage situations, lone gunmen etc.
IT is felt that there is a risk of a rampaging group of individuals with automatic weapons, as such it is very prudent to ensure that those who would be called upon in the first instance to protect us the taxpayer have suitable training for this type of event.
As taxpayers we will expect these people to engage such targets but these are not lone gunmen with a shotgun or rifle nor are they taking hostages. It is essentially combat. FIBUA.
Who better to give basic training to the police than the leading specialists in FIBUA?
It makes perfect sense to teach these people the different techniques and responses to this horrific scenario.
They will need to hold such people in a fixed position using extremely heavy and continuous firepower until specialists can arrive and handle.
It is very sensible and prudent.
It is also wise for these people to understand how the specialists will be operating as when they arrive on the scene they will be working with them.
Is it fair to put our extremely expensive, valuable and in short supply specialists at an abnormally high risk of friendly fire when a little bit of training can reduce this risk?
The more training people ahve with firearms the safer we all are.
Their police training will be focussed on hostage situations, lone gunmen etc.
IT is felt that there is a risk of a rampaging group of individuals with automatic weapons, as such it is very prudent to ensure that those who would be called upon in the first instance to protect us the taxpayer have suitable training for this type of event.
As taxpayers we will expect these people to engage such targets but these are not lone gunmen with a shotgun or rifle nor are they taking hostages. It is essentially combat. FIBUA.
Who better to give basic training to the police than the leading specialists in FIBUA?
It makes perfect sense to teach these people the different techniques and responses to this horrific scenario.
They will need to hold such people in a fixed position using extremely heavy and continuous firepower until specialists can arrive and handle.
It is very sensible and prudent.
It is also wise for these people to understand how the specialists will be operating as when they arrive on the scene they will be working with them.
Is it fair to put our extremely expensive, valuable and in short supply specialists at an abnormally high risk of friendly fire when a little bit of training can reduce this risk?
The more training people ahve with firearms the safer we all are.
As mentioned previously, if the threat of a mumbai style attack is credible then it's very difficult to plan for.
If gunmen chose say the trafford centre in manchester or the b'ham bullring they could kill hundreds in a matter of minutes before any sort of armed response team arrived.
Unless we go down the bags searched/metal detectors route like they do in malls and hotels in India then will arming more officers really make much of a difference?
I would rather see the funding go towards intelligence and other preventative measures.
If gunmen chose say the trafford centre in manchester or the b'ham bullring they could kill hundreds in a matter of minutes before any sort of armed response team arrived.
Unless we go down the bags searched/metal detectors route like they do in malls and hotels in India then will arming more officers really make much of a difference?
I would rather see the funding go towards intelligence and other preventative measures.
I suppose any terrorist will want to do as much damage as possible before any aid arrives. They must be aware that the SAS live here and factor that in. Armed response as quick as possible and with some very difficult choices to make to contain them. They will not be nice people and they like the after life.
Jonny671 said:
What "powerful weapons" do we recon they're being trained to use?
155mm artillery pieces, located in central London.Brings the reaction time to any terrorist incident in the metropolitan area down to under a minute - as soon as the call comes in, they shell the crepe out of the reported location for half an hour. Sorted.
To deal with incidents inside the minimum range of the artillery, the Met will be issued with miniguns, flame-throwers, anti-tank rockets, and withering sarcasm.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff