Currently the rank and file police forces of the United Kingdom are armed with CS spray (a gas which acts as an eye irritant and can cause retching, like mace) and an extendable baton. If something particularly hairy is going down then Armed Response Vehicles, or specialist CO19 squads (our version of SWAT), are deployed. However, recently the anonymous whistleblowing blogger and author 'Inspector Gadget' (a pseudonym, obviously) has called [http://inspectorgadget.wordpress.com/2011/05/18/why-uk-police-should-be-armed/] for the UK police forces to be armed with firearms as a last resort weapon to protect both the public and themselves from immediate threats. This is why and is just one such incident of many:
Currently, most EU, Asia-Pacific, Eastern and American countries have firearms issued to officers as part of their standard equipment and I think that above video makes it pretty bloody obvious why that's the case. So what are your thoughts, Escapist, on arming the police of the UK with firearms as standard issue and why?
Context: It took 20 minutes for (reportedly) 30-35 police officers to detain the man in the video above. The police had called for an Armed Response Vehicle to attend the scene, but none arrived as they were all either busy elsewhere or denied by command. By the time the filming starts, eight police officers had reportedly sprayed him directly to the face with CS spray. The man was a previously released mental patient (seriously, so much is wrong with this country). The weapon the man was wielding was a machete of between 2-3 feet in length, similar to that which was used to kill PC Keith Blakelock [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Keith_Blakelock] in 1985, after he was almost beheaded and lost multiple digits when an assailant hacked at him 8 times with a machete.
Why have I chosen to spoiler the options rather than just sticking them in plain format? To stop people from entering the thread, clicking a poll option without watching the video and thus skewing the results:
Option one: All police should be armed at all times whilst on duty if they've passed firearms training
Option two: Police shouldn't be armed with firearms unless they're heading to a call which is particularly likely to place themselves or the public at risk and only after passing firearms training
Option three: Standard police shouldn't be armed with firearms, that should be left to a few specialist divisions such as ARVs whose sole purpose is to respond to high threat calls from ground officers
Option four: No police officer of any branch or division should be armed with firearms
Option 1 for sure. Police need to be at least one step up in terms of weaponry then criminals, if that man had had a gun the cops would have been almost powerless to stop him, he could have shot at police or passersby until he ran out of ammo. Besides I'm sure the cops would adhere to the mindset of "I'd rather have it and not need it then need it and not have it."
1) Whenever I hear Jean Charles' name, I keep thinking he's a character from GRAW 2
2) Why are we referring to Ian Tomlinson? His death wasn't really to with gun-crime, rather general (possible) police misconduct.
Because, Ian Tomlinson's death was an act of unprovoked police violence. I wouldn't trust MET with guns, or batons, or sharpened sticks, or boards with nails in them.
If the police can have guns then so should citizens. Gun control is such a stupid concept. Your taking guns away from people that want to LEGALLY obtain one. Criminals don't get guns legally their freaking criminals. Either politicans are all idiots or they just like knowing pissed off citizens that will probably crack one day cant fight back as well as they can. Didn't crime in the UK go up like 40% after the gun ban? Makes no sense whatsoever. That's politicans for you though. Logic and common sense are two things you can't have to be a politician for some reason. Glad I live in America.
Violent crime and homicide diminished by capita in Australia after the auto/semi-auto/easily concealable pistol/loaded weapon/carry in public ban. People are quite content with overt gun control over here.
But we live on an island ... so gun laws are easy to enforce. That and Australians attained independance the new, trendy way (through the ballot box). So most of the citizenry believe that the most effective political action is peaceful negotiation. Works for us.
Still get glassings and stabbings, but it was worse when people added guns to the mix.
Gun fetishists aside, the fact is that the UK police force have enough trouble handling the CS spray and tazers as it is now, without causing more injury than they actually know how to handle.
The issue to OP describes isn't caused by the fact the police are not armed, but because the squads designed for such situations are over stretched while the police forces in the UK have had their budgets stripped and cut so many times, they cannot effectively police this country.
By arming UK police forces, they risk putting more guns on the street. It is a known part of FBI training that there is always at least one firearm in every situation they attend - their own, and they have the responsibility to look after their firearm, others it can easily be turned against them. Therefore arming UK police forces, which have very strict gun control laws, means an increase in firearms in a society where firearms are not common.
The problem is, and will always be, the the law enforcement officer on the street expected to deal with things for which they are not equipped and isn't their job. If UK society had looser gun control laws, then it would make sense, because every one and their grand mother could carry around a firearm for personal defence and other uses. Yet arming the UK police force isn't necessarily the answer here - it's about giving the police forces the budget so that the specialist units required for this job can actually do it, rather than have a bunch of unarmed guys try to take on a machete-wielding man when all they have is a stab vest and a stick.
If the problem persists once funding has been restored, then it might be worth considering arming the UK police in some capacity - but this is a one-off incident based on a critical shortage of resources for a service that has been undermined for a very long time. There may be time to arm the police, but this isn't it.
I don't think any extra amount of training is going to affect the probability of a beat cop running into a suicide bomber or terrorist before the deed as been done. Least not out side the movies. The chances of that are one in a million. Those things often require stakeouts, undercover work and other such things, we've caught plenty over here before they've had the chance to destroy many a property and people. However you don't often catch them in the middle of the street, without no prior information, no training is going to increase those odds and I only hope that if an officer over there did see something like that, he'd not just flash his cannon in hopes of being a hero, but go and radio for back up and have the area evacuated.
Grevensher said:
2. Those officers are always (24/7) out in high risk areas ever since 9/11. The first time I came upon them I was scared sh*tless. It was dark, 11 PM in Brooklyn. I am coming out of a subway station at Borough Hall onto the street. I can just make out 4 officers and 7 soldiers standing in the darkness, one having a cigarette. My heart jumped, but since then I have not heard of a single cop shooting a civilian with a rifle.
Mmmm, honestly wouldn't have thought that. Well the more you know. Sounds a little paranoid to be honest however, different culture so different solutions.
You know what I hear about in the UK? Knife crimes, like women being decapitated by them. I would prefer to be shot in an arm or leg than have that arm or leg chopped off. I suppose if I was a criminal I would prefer my police be unarmed.
1. A machete is more of a sword than a knife.
2. The crime you're referring to happened in Spain.
3. We have very strict knife laws that ban basically anything larger than a scalpel being carried.
Knife crime here is a problem (it is becoming less of a problem), but a man with a knife can be safely stopped with a stun gun or CS spray.
Come to think of it, civilians should be allowed to pack heat too...as long as they can prove they can use it as well as the cops.
Where I live, no problem
My accuracy rating is 91, you need 70 to get a job as a cop and their average is 79
I couldn't agree with this less. Giving gun rights to civilians is the reason the US has more murders with guns than the european population equivalent. You can't have average people thinking they have justification for killing. Though I do love how some Americans would have everyone armed than no-one. Because, you know, a fire-fight is obviously preferable to no-one getting shot at all.
I'd be up for a more armed police force, in conjunction with a ban on unlicensed civilian firearms like we have now. We need the police to be able
If the cops had been armed, they'd have killed the guy. As it is, they apprehended him without any serious injuries. Besides, mental patients with machetes aren't that common.
police officers are there to keep the peace, not kill people. The UK doesn't suffer from out of control criminality and we have almost no gun crime. What possible use could we have for arming our officers when there is no clear need for them to be so?
Option one. To protect and serve the people, law enforcements require firearms.
If you aren't persuaded by the video, then I thank the fact you are not in charge of any state or federal Australian police authorities, because firearms should never be removed from their side, and under any circumstance theyy do or do not believe to need a firearm, they should carry one, because anything could happen.
Serenegoose said:
police officers are there to keep the peace, not kill people. The UK doesn't suffer from out of control criminality and we have almost no gun crime. What possible use could we have for arming our officers when there is no clear need for them to be so?
I'm picking on you because my post comes after yours. Watch the video. If even one of those police officers had a firearm, they could've shot the suspect in the chest, arm, leg, ect, not fatally wounding them, and removing any possibility that the suspect would harm anyone else. Threat contained, damage none. In this scenario it took the time of 30+ officers to detain '1' person. That is inefficent when the cost of a single round would've saved all that hassle.
EDIT: And let me add, if anyone else was actually wounded, or forbid, killed as a result of no firearms as could've easily been the case in this scenario, you might think twice about giving the proper tools, to the people we entrust our safety to.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
