Should the police be armed

[Bernie174]

BSM

I did think thats what you meant, but was keen to put the point over in indisputable terms.
I don't think the public realise the hell that a PC being investigated goes through, afterall they moaned when it took 5 days recently to exonerate the couple in the self defence shooting, so why are we waiting a year after Duggan, when according to the related trial reports, the evidence exists that the officers concerned were acting correctly.
Why, in the case of Stanley, where again, the evidence was overwelming that they acted correctly did it take 6 years!
Admittedly, in the second of those, it was due to people making allegations who were not there, that it was prolonged, but it should have reached a point where someone said, look, either produce evidence or go away. No one did, they just kept the ball rolling.

Flash
Ah Flash, still trying? Give it up. No, I didn't say everyone except the Police are "talking Fiction", did I?
What I said was most of what is on Google on the matter is fiction. And it is. So while what you claim I said, is ridiculous, mostly because it's not what I said, the fact remains that Google, like many on this site when it comes to Stanley, have no idea what happened, trusting instead to go along with what was missreported in the Guardian. Cut to Duggan and the same applies, missreported information.

The difference between me and you and the Guardian reading classes is though, that I've been there seen it done it, neither you nor the Guardian have.

No, the Met isn't perfect, no one has claimed otherwise, although you claim otherwise in your fictional account of what you may have wanted me to have said.
Nor is any other person or organisation. If you want it to be, then you're on the wrong planet, because it's never going to happen.
But, on the other side of the coin, most mistakes the Met, and other police forces make, are not made out of malice, or ill will. Stanley is a case in point, wrong result, but for the right reasons. Had you heard the transcript of the 999 call, or read the statement of the witness who describes in very great detail the bag he was holding and the firearm inside you may have understood a lot better why an armed unit was sent. Now Stanley may or may not have meant to give an impression he was going to fire at the officers, he may have thought he was being comical, but as far as they were concerned he had a firearm in the bag. If you think they could tell the difference then you again are on the wrong planet. In those circumstances any police officer would have fired. Ok, so someone innocent died, sad. However, their actions were perfectly correct. Did they bare him malice? No, clearly not. Did they mean to kill what turned out with 20/20 hindsight to be an innocent man? No, again, clearly not. What was in their minds? Well, that is clear, the same as the couple I mentioned earlier, who were found to have no case to answer in 5 days. Compare that against the 6 years those officers waited. The Met were somewhat less than perfect in that, it was CIB, the forerunner of PSD that investigated it, badly, followed by Surrey Police, who again made some howling errors. So, there you have it critical comment of 2 police forces, which shows your points to be utter twaddle.

 

[big soft moose]

Although i'm not a cop , i have in the course of my career been fired at twice , and had guns pulled on me two other times ( working in wiltshire i had the windscreen of my landrover shot out by hare coursers , working in essex I was fired at by a neer do well with a sawn off- fortunately i was right on the edge of the shot cone and wasn't hit badly, while working as a conveience store manager we were robbed at gun point by a gang again with a sawn off, and in milton keynes someone threatened me with what later turned out to be a soft air replica of a glock 17 )

I can vouch for the fact that when someone draws down on you you don't have ample time to consider whether the gun my be a replica/chair leg / toy whatever - you instinctive assumption is that its real and you act accordingly

 

[Flash In The Pan]

BSM


Flash
Ah Flash, still trying? Give it up.

Why? Because you claim to be a police officer? Even if you are/have been (although your spelling/grammar suggests you probably were/are in the Met) it doesn't make what you say correct.

No, I didn't say everyone except the Police are "talking Fiction", did I?
What I said was most of what is on Google on the matter is fiction. And it is. So while what you claim I said, is ridiculous, mostly because it's not what I said, the fact remains that Google, like many on this site when it comes to Stanley, have no idea what happened, trusting instead to go along with what was missreported in the Guardian. Cut to Duggan and the same applies, missreported information.

The difference between me and you and the Guardian reading classes is though, that I've been there seen it done it, neither you nor the Guardian have.

I'm sorry, I didn't realise you were one of the officers directly involved in the Stanley and Duggan shootings.

Oh, wait that's not what you mean is it? You, like myself and others you decry as "Guardian readers" (for the record it's not a paper I take) weren't there, ergo all you can offer is your opinion and that, sorry to say, is no more valid than that of anyone else here, regardless of whether you claim to have "seen it and done it" as a police officer or not....

,

 

[big soft moose]

but on the other hand being a cop he might have slightly more idea what its like to be in the position those officers were in, so his opinion might be more valid than one based entirely on third party reports from google

 

[Garry Edwards]

Bernie,
It's my impression that you constantly defend junior police officers and constantly make very critical statements about senior officers, ACPO, IPCC and the like, so your statement above means pretty much nothing - which doesn't make you either right or wrong - but please don't tell us that the fact that you have made critical comments about the senior officers of two police forces is some kind of evidence that you are not a police apologist.

In the case of charles de menezes, here was an innocent man shot dead by police, the police say that they honestly thought that he was an immediate danger to the public so they shot him dead - self defence, as far as the law is concerned.

In the case of Harry Stanley, here was an innocent man shot dead by police, the police say that they honestly thought that he was an immediate danger to themselves so they shot him dead - self defence, as far as the law is concerned. I don't see the relevance of the witness statement by their informant who couldn't tell the difference between an Irishman and a Scot, that statement will have been taken long after Mr. Stanley had been shot.

In the case of Mark Duggan, here was a known criminal shot dead by police, the police say that they honestly thought that he was an immediate danger to themselves so they shot him dead - self defence, as far as the law is concerned. But it seems to me that there may be very good reasons to investigate the police actions, for example there is the mystery of the disappearing gun, apparently the officer who didn't fire the shots saw him pull a self loading pistol from his waistband, even though the gun couldn't be found afterwards, the gun that was found, that had apparently been thrown out of the car just before the police opened the car door, wasn't a self loading pistol, it was a blank firer that had been converted. And the police officer who found the thrown away gun didn't know whether it was ready to fire or not, and didn't make a statement for 3 months, apparently because he was told not to by a senior officer whose name he can't remember...

Whether any police officer did anything wrong or not, surely both the public and Mark Duggan's family are entitled to expect a thorough investigation.

And although I fully accept that these investigations are stressful to the police officers subjected to them, it isn't exactly the same thing as the couple in Leicestershire were subjected to is it? After the stress of having 4 men break into their home in the middle of the night, they were separated and locked up for days.Their lives were turned upside down. Why? Could it be because some police officers are just opposed to people actually doing something to protect themselves and try very hard to make a crime out of a clear cut case of self defence?

 

[Flash In The Pan]

but on the other hand being a cop he might have slightly more idea what its like to be in the position those officers were in, so his opinion might be more valid than one based entirely on third party reports from google

It's still just his personal opinion, not fact.

 

[broadway]

It's not really a tough call and there's no time to sit down and think about it - if you believe he's armed and you or someone else is in imminent danger, you shoot - it's that simple. You're talking nano seconds away from possibly being dead if you delay.

There's no error of judgement involved, only on the part of the guy putting himself in that situation.

Glad you're not an armed police officer.

 

[big soft moose]

I think you'll find he is, or was

 

[Houston1863]

Only just came by this.

It was truly horrible that those two policewomen were lured to their deaths and gunned down like that. While I voted that our police should be armed under certain circumstances, we do already have that since there are those specialist units. The callout that resulted in this despicable and cowardly crime was seemingly not a situation that required an armed response but that it turned out the way it did makes me wonder if more of our police should be armed. Not all, but more and perhaps as the area in which they were attending was a but of a hotspot then an armed or mixed unit should have been sent.

RIP Fiona Bone and Nicola Hughes. Our thoughts with their families and friends.

 

[Davec223]

Yes I believe they should be armed,but I also believe that the handgun ban should be overturned and as in the states the public should be allowed to carry as well, but would have to go through proper training and checks that they are mentally stable to carry.

 

[gramps]

Yes I believe they should be armed,but I also believe that the handgun ban should be overturned and as in the states the public should be allowed to carry as well, but would have to go through proper training and checks that they are mentally stable to carry.

 

[big soft moose]

Quite - while i'd have quite liked being able to carry in order to defend myself from various lunatics encountered during my career as a ranger in various areas (as above) there are too many halfwits who'd wind up shooting each other and bystanders over parking spaces etc

 

[Flash In The Pan]

Yes I believe they should be armed,but I also believe that the handgun ban should be overturned and as in the states the public should be allowed to carry as well, but would have to go through proper training and checks that they are mentally stable to carry.

Because allowing people to wander around with firearms has made the US the peaceful, safe place it is today?

 

[Davec223]

Quite - while i'd have quite liked being able to carry in order to defend myself from various lunatics encountered during my career as a ranger in various areas (as above) there are too many halfwits who'd wind up shooting each other and bystanders over parking spaces etc

Which is why I said about training and mental tests to make sure they are stable and not going to shoot someone over a parking space.

 

[Garry Edwards]

Yes I believe they should be armed,but I also believe that the handgun ban should be overturned and as in the states the public should be allowed to carry as well, but would have to go through proper training and checks that they are mentally stable to carry.

I too would like handguns to change back to S1, i.e. to be available for good reason as before, as the handgun ban did absolutely nothing to improve safety - but, as someone who has been properly trained, I would not want to have the right to carry one, nor do I want other people to have that right. I would not like this country to become another USA.

 

[Davec223]

OK rethinking my original post, maybe not all people. But depending on their occupation and what risk they are under.

 

[Cobra]

I too would like handguns to change back to S1, i.e. to be available for good reason as before, as the handgun ban did absolutely nothing to improve safety - but, as someone who has been properly trained, I would not want to have the right to carry one, nor do I want other people to have that right. I would not like this country to become another USA.

As a trained (qualified) UKPSA range officer,
that used to shoot section one firearms inc. full bore pistol,
I have to agree with Garry.
They should be allowed for target shooting, but "open" or "concealed" carry,
by "anyone"?
I don't think so either.

 

[malo50]

BSM

I did think thats what you meant, but was keen to put the point over in indisputable terms.
I don't think the public realise the hell that a PC being investigated goes through, afterall they moaned when it took 5 days recently to exonerate the couple in the self defence shooting, so why are we waiting a year after Duggan, when according to the related trial reports, the evidence exists that the officers concerned were acting correctly.
Why, in the case of Stanley, where again, the evidence was overwelming that they acted correctly did it take 6 years!
Admittedly, in the second of those, it was due to people making allegations who were not there, that it was prolonged, but it should have reached a point where someone said, look, either produce evidence or go away. No one did, they just kept the ball rolling.

Flash
Ah Flash, still trying? Give it up. No, I didn't say everyone except the Police are "talking Fiction", did I?
What I said was most of what is on Google on the matter is fiction. And it is. So while what you claim I said, is ridiculous, mostly because it's not what I said, the fact remains that Google, like many on this site when it comes to Stanley, have no idea what happened, trusting instead to go along with what was missreported in the Guardian. Cut to Duggan and the same applies, missreported information.

The difference between me and you and the Guardian reading classes is though, that I've been there seen it done it, neither you nor the Guardian have.

No, the Met isn't perfect, no one has claimed otherwise, although you claim otherwise in your fictional account of what you may have wanted me to have said.
Nor is any other person or organisation. If you want it to be, then you're on the wrong planet, because it's never going to happen.
But, on the other side of the coin, most mistakes the Met, and other police forces make, are not made out of malice, or ill will. Stanley is a case in point, wrong result, but for the right reasons. Had you heard the transcript of the 999 call, or read the statement of the witness who describes in very great detail the bag he was holding and the firearm inside you may have understood a lot better why an armed unit was sent. Now Stanley may or may not have meant to give an impression he was going to fire at the officers, he may have thought he was being comical, but as far as they were concerned he had a firearm in the bag. If you think they could tell the difference then you again are on the wrong planet. In those circumstances any police officer would have fired. Ok, so someone innocent died, sad. However, their actions were perfectly correct. Did they bare him malice? No, clearly not. Did they mean to kill what turned out with 20/20 hindsight to be an innocent man? No, again, clearly not. What was in their minds? Well, that is clear, the same as the couple I mentioned earlier, who were found to have no case to answer in 5 days. Compare that against the 6 years those officers waited. The Met were somewhat less than perfect in that, it was CIB, the forerunner of PSD that investigated it, badly, followed by Surrey Police, who again made some howling errors. So, there you have it critical comment of 2 police forces, which shows your points to be utter twaddle.

How do you know it was misreported? This is a very simple question and I'd really like a clear answer without patronisation, obfuscation or name calling.

 

[DemiLion]

I too would like handguns to change back to S1, i.e. to be available for good reason as before, as the handgun ban did absolutely nothing to improve safety - but, as someone who has been properly trained, I would not want to have the right to carry one, nor do I want other people to have that right. I would not like this country to become another USA.

As a trained (qualified) UKPSA range officer,
that used to shoot section one firearms inc. full bore pistol,
I have to agree with Garry.
They should be allowed for target shooting, but "open" or "concealed" carry,
by "anyone"?
I don't think so either.

We've got bloody aggressive sheep in rural Wiltshire.

I absolutely demand the right to have a leg mounted Walther P99 with Glaser Safeties!!

 

[Davec223]

As a trained (qualified) UKPSA range officer,
that used to shoot section one firearms inc. full bore pistol,
I have to agree with Garry.
They should be allowed for target shooting, but "open" or "concealed" carry,
by "anyone"?
I don't think so either.

I also was a qualified range officer and also an rfd , I still believe that carry concealed or open does have its benefits as well as draw backs. I do believe that I number of people who opted to carry would be small and again having re thought it as said in my last post it would also depend on occupation and said risk of occupation.

 

[Cobra]

We've got bloody aggressive sheep in rural Wiltshire.

I absolutely demand the right to have a leg mounted Walther P99 with Glaser Safeties!!

That's a woman gun
A nice remmie 1100 semi auto, with solid slugs will soon sort them thar sheep out

 

[Cobra]

I also was a qualified range officer and also an rfd , I still believe that carry concealed or open does have its benefits as well as draw backs. I do believe that I number of people who opted to carry would be small and again having re thought it as said in my last post it would also depend on occupation and said risk of occupation.

I think that there would be a "rush" personally,
and where would (could) you draw the line on "Safety reasons?"
Late night taxi drivers are always at risk of being beat-up for their takings?
Jewelers / banks are at risk of being robbed.

There will always be risks to celebs, from crazed fans.
The list is endless...

 

[Davec223]

That's a woman gun
A nice remmie 1100 semi auto, with solid slugs will soon sort them thar sheep out

Is that with the extended mag tube and ported barrel.

 

[DemiLion]

That's a woman gun
A nice remmie 1100 semi auto, with solid slugs will soon sort them thar sheep out

I want to stop them, not vapourise the sods!

 

[Davec223]

I think that there would be a "rush" personally,
and where would (could) you draw the line on "Safety reasons?"
Late night taxi drivers are always at risk of being beat-up for their takings?
Jewelers / banks are at risk of being robbed.

There will always be risks to celebs, from crazed fans.
The list is endless...

OK point taken. Maybe I was being to simplistic in my view. But I still stand by that the police should be armed, and part of be still thinks carry permits should be allowed,but could cause some more problems but could also stop some forms of crime where the criminal would never be sure if the potential victim was armed or not.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

How do you know it was misreported? This is a very simple question and I'd really like a clear answer without patronisation, obfuscation or name calling.

Good luck with that

 

[Cobra]

Is that with the extended mag tube and ported barrel.

Just the 7 shot replacement tube, besides the 10/12 shot get a bit nose heavy IMO

I want to stop them, not vapourise the sods!

Gutted and skinned in one shot, whats the problem :shrug:

 

[Cobra]

OK point taken. Maybe I was being to simplistic in my view. But I still stand by that the police should be armed,

There is the ARU, but it seems (rightly or wrongly) that your average bobby on the
beat doesn't want to be armed. So I guess that's their choice?

but could also stop some forms of crime where the criminal would never be sure if the potential victim was armed or not.

I'm not saying that your "theory" isn't a good one,
but I still think the logistics of it
would be a total nightmare.

 

[Sonriendo]

I'm not saying that your "theory" isn't a good one,
but I still think the logistics of it
would be a total nightmare.

Depends - here, even security guards are armed :shrug: I really can't imagine that the training here is that rigorous

But, the UK being the UK and HSE or whatever they are called now being what they are now - well, I just can't imagine

 

[TriggerHappy]

There is the ARU, but it seems (rightly or wrongly) that your average booby on the
beat doesn't want to be armed. So I guess that's their choice?

I'm not saying that your "theory" isn't a good one,
but I still think the logistics of it
would be a total nightmare.

Your average booby?

 

[Cobra]

Depends - here, even security guards are armed :shrug:

God forbid that happened here!
Imagine the "run in's" that "we" as togs, tend to have
with these guys, now, because "you cant stand here", "take that picture there" etc etc.
They'd be trying to shoot "us" if we didn't hand over the camera!

Ok so maybe that was a tad flippant, but I for one wouldn't like to take the
chance

 

[Cobra]

Your average booby?

****!

 

[Sonriendo]

Imagine the "run in's" that "we" as togs, tend to have
with these guys, now, because "you cant stand here", "take that picture there" etc etc.
They'd be trying to shoot "us" if we didn't hand over the camera!

Ok so maybe that was a tad flippant, but I for one wouldn't like to take the
chance
[/COLOR]

Never had a run in with a security guard in my life :shrug:

 

[Cobra]

Never had a run in with a security guard in my life :shrug:

Nor me (over toggin' anyway) but there are / have been loads of examples
posted around the forums.

 

[big soft moose]

We've got bloody aggressive sheep in rural Wiltshire.

I absolutely demand the right to have a leg mounted Walther P99 with Glaser Safeties!!

It was rural wiltshire where i got my landrover shot to bits by a bunch of hare coursers - you can keep your P99 , but I demand an M4 battle rifle with UGL, or better still a roll bar mounted gimpy- that'd teach them

joking aside it was bloody scary being shot at by a couple of head cases with rifles - it was only the fact that the landrover was left hand drive that saved me from serious injury as they put several shots through the right hand side of the windscreen where i'd have been sitting had it been a RHD, and another couple into the body panels as i turned away.

 

[Dave *]

Yes I believe they should be armed,but I also believe that the handgun ban should be overturned and as in the states the public should be allowed to carry as well, but would have to go through proper training and checks that they are mentally stable to carry.

That thought gives me nightmares, and it possibly one of the worst I have ever heard.

I do think though that members of the public, with a permit (background check, no criminal record etc) should be entitled to self defence weapons. The civilian version of the Tazer would be an example, after that person had passed a training test (and only with the microdot cartridges, so every activation can be traced back to its permit holder to avoid unlawful use).

 

[Forbiddenbiker]

I don't think their is any training or phyco tests that can make guns safe for general use, and that includes general use for our officers. I feel relying on criminal background checks for the public for any sort of control would be a facile remedy of pretence. as we know they are just an illusion of safety that can't be trusted to protect us from anything!

 

[CT]

Glad you're not an armed police officer.

And that is what you get when you patiently try to explain the realities of the situation - from people who have no concept of what is involved and usually aren't in the least gun aware.

These two young women being slaughtered while routinely going about their job is a disgrace and there's quite rightly an outpouring of sympathy from most right- minded people. It's already yesterdays news though and a few weeks from now no-one will remember their names ... they'll just be another statistic, while every police shooting will be on peoples lips for months and years afterwards, analysed and dissected by internet 'experts' to the point of nausea.

 

[cowasaki]

The question should be WHAT should the police be armed with.

PAVA / CS is a firearm

Taser is a firearm

A glock is a firearm

All are routinely issued to police officers so 4 choices of None, Pava/CS, Taser, Gun might be better.....

Then we have the question of WHEN

For specific incidents
Routinely
Occasionally
Never

It is a complex question and most police officers do not want the responsibility of carrying an item which can kill.

 

[cowasaki]

Glad you're not an armed police officer.

The training for police would dictate that this was the case.

There has been uproar before now when someone carrying a replica and pointing it towards police has been shot...... What goes through these peoples minds? What are the police going to do? Wait until at least one officer is shot at each incident just to check that the gun is real?

If someone points something at someone and it LOOKS like a gun then they will get shot, that is the training and the armed officer's duty.

THIS is the reason most officers do not want to be armed.

Taser, however, is another thing! But at least one of the officers killed in Manchester was carrying taser and unfortunately on that occasion she did not have time to use it.