Should the police be armed

[big soft moose]

It's great to finally get an inside view of the whole situation.
You also raise some (speaking as a civilian) slightly worrying points,
ref the lack of support for officers, from their seniors.

I guess its like everything these days, its all about political arse covering .

Thank you for your informed input

To be fair i was discussing this issue the other day with a freind of mine who's a superintedent , and his take was that the political problem extends far higher than the imediate senior officers.

His take was that even if he stands by his men (which he generally would if he believed they were in the right) and indeed even if more senior officers like his ACC then back him up - none of that will matter once the IPPC gets involved, politicians start posturing and the trial by media commences.

His view (which i have also heard from various other cops of varying rank) was that unless the witch hunts stop, pretty soon no one in their right mind will want to take any policing role where violence is possible and society will only have itself to blame when riots like those of summer '11 can't be quelled because no one is willing to risk using any kind of force.

 

[potter]

It's great to finally get an inside view of the whole situation.
You also raise some (speaking as a civilian) slightly worrying points,
ref the lack of support for officers, from their seniors.

I guess its like everything these days, its all about political arse covering .

Thank you for your informed input

It's a massive shame, but like I said, I can only speak for the force I work for, but I have a feeling it is across more forces.

It is so sad what happened to the two officers, I really feel for everyone involved. I can't imagine what their colleagues and the ambulance crew that were there feel like.

 

[Laudrup]

I voted No. I don't think the country could afford to do it even if they wanted to. I wouldn't want all officers armed, it is a big step in the wrong direction. Most of the polls I've read are that even the police don't want all officers armed.

 

[simonblue]

Thanks Adam for your very good reply,make perfect sence to me as well

 

[MartynK]

Hi,



If I dive into it properly and being honest, I think it's the lack of support from senior officers that puts people off having a firearm as well. If you cs someone or baton strike them, it's down to you to justify why you have done that. Each of those actions have the capabilities of serious injury, the reality of it is, a taser is actually a less lethal force , which senior management would support if used.
If you shoot someone dead, alot of officers don't have faith in the seniors that they will stand by your decision. You only have to look in the media to see when officers have been left out to dry due to their use of force.

When in training your taught that your force has to be justified and reasonable, yet when it's used it is criticised.

Hi Adam

Thanks for your post. It's brought a lot of balance into a thread where some of the contributions were verging on arrogance.

I think most people, including police officers, will agree that we are all responsible for our actions and that there must be accountability where force or deadly force are employed; but investigations must be fair, transparent and reasonable, taking cognisance of the law and all the circumstances, and this should also apply to individuals who act in self defence. Perhaps the bar does have to be set higher for police officers though, because of their training and role in society?

I fully agree that senior officers should support their men, and this is one of their primary responsibilities, providing they have acted correctly and appropriately. 'Political' manoeuvring, interference and influence are to be deplored.

There's been quite a bit of discussion on whether all police officers should be routinely armed, with input from serving and former officers, but there's also the critical question of how the public would react if this was imposed by government diktat. The relationship between the police and the public has deteriorated in recent years, for a number of reasons, and I'm not at all sure that this would be welcomed. Personally, I would prefer to see steps taken to repair this relationship and roll back the sense of 'us and them' which seems to have crept in, supported by a more robust approach to criminal justice. The public want to feel safe, and I think they feel that they are being let down, as demonstrated by the support for people who have killed burglars in recent years.

FWIW, I served in a colonial police force years ago, and we were armed. CID officers carried their issue weapons off duty too, providing their intended activities were consistent with this. I also carried a licensed handgun, as a civilian, for many years in another country and I'm very conscious of the responsibility this involves, and the knowledge that you may have to make a split second decision that could cost someone his life and have serious legal consequences. Take care.

 

[ruffdog64]

As always. Would you be so bold if the one that was innocent but killed was you or a member of your family?

Of course not , but i did make that point in my original post, there`s no perfect answer, all governments past, present and future will never have the balls to do it any way and the criminals get more violent knowing they probably won`t be shot , just arrested and put at the mercy of our poorly judged justice system.

 

[big soft moose]

The other answer of course is that neither I nor my family would be so daft as to do anything other than raise our hands and obey instructions when confronted by armed police.

some of the 'innocents' who have been shot by armed police, may have been innocent of being armed , but were guilty of being bloody idiots and provoking the response they got - while other such as duggan couldnt reasonably be described as innocent anyway

 

[Davec223]

The other answer of course is that neither I nor my family would be so daft as to do anything other than raise our hands and obey instructions when confronted by armed police.

some of the 'innocents' who have been shot by armed police, may have been innocent of being armed , but were guilty of being bloody idiots and provoking the response they got - while other such as duggan couldnt reasonably be described as innocent anyway

This is also so true, what idiot would not do what someone asked/shouted at you who was pointed either a glock or mp5 towards you.

 

[Laudrup]

The people shot dead aren't really in a position to give their account of what happened are they?

 

[Flash In The Pan]

The other answer of course is that neither I nor my family would be so daft as to do anything other than raise our hands and obey instructions when confronted by armed police.

some of the 'innocents' who have been shot by armed police, may have been innocent of being armed , but were guilty of being bloody idiots and provoking the response they got - while other such as duggan couldnt reasonably be described as innocent anyway

I'll mention Stephen Waldorf ( shot after been mistaken for a wanted man called David Martin) at this point, I'm sure though that Bernie will pop up to point out that the officers involved were both cleared...

On the evening of 14 January 1983, police officers in unmarked cars were following a hired Mini in which Stephens was sitting on the back seat, occasionally looking out of the rear window. The driver was Lester Purdey and the front-seat passenger was freelance film editor Stephen Waldorf, whom the police thought was Martin. When the Mini came to a stop because of rush hour traffic congestion in Pembroke Road, Earls Court, a detective was sent forward to confirm the identity of the front-seat passenger. The only one who knew Martin was Detective Constable Peter Finch, who had been one of the arresting officers when he was detained the previous September, so he approached the car along the pavement on foot with his revolver already drawn. Finch later said that at this point the driver glanced at him through the window, then said something to the passenger, who turned and reached toward the rear seat.

Finch opened fire, shooting twice at the passenger-side rear wheel of the Mini, then four times at Waldorf himself. Detective Constable John Jardine then ran up to the back of the Mini, and fired five shots at Waldorf through the rear window. During the shooting, Purdey jumped out of the car to escape, and Waldorf attempted to follow him, even though he had already been hit several times, and ended up slumped across the driver's seat. Detective Constable John Jardine then fired twice at Waldorf through the open driver's door. Finch, meanwhile, had made his way round to the driver's side, where he leaned into the car, aimed his revolver between Waldorf's eyes and said, "OK, cocksucker," before pulling the trigger, but the gun did not fire. Finding that he had already used all his ammunition, Finch then pistol whipped Waldorf until he lost consciousness.[1][2][3]

Hit five times and severely wounded in his head, abdomen, and liver, the handcuffed and unconscious Waldorf was then hauled by his arms onto the pavement. Stephens, screaming and protesting, was also dragged from the vehicle.[4] Stephens was taken to hospital and treated for injury.

 

[big soft moose]

I'll mention Stephen Waldorf ( shot after been mistaken for a wanted man called David Martin) at this point,

Finch later said that at this point the driver glanced at him through the window, then said something to the passenger, who turned and reached toward the rear seat.

but were guilty of being bloody idiots and provoking the response they got

when confronted by two armed police officers would you

a) keep your hands in clear sight so they can see you arent armed, or

b) turn and reach for something on the rear seat

I rest my case

 

[Flash In The Pan]

when confronted by two armed police officers would you

a) keep your hands in clear sight so they can see you arent armed, or

b) turn and reach for something on the rear seat

I rest my case

Read that bit you quoted again, bearing in mind this time that the officer was in plain clothes and driving an unmarked car....,

Finch later said that at this point the driver glanced at him through the window, then said something to the passenger, who turned and reached toward the rear seat.

Your point would have been a fair one had the officers been in uniform. Rather, what Waldorf saw was man in street clothes walking along the pavement towards the car in which he was a passenger and turned to reach for something on the back seat? Have you never, as a law abiding citizen, never perhaps reached for something in your car whilst parked and whilst someone was walking past?

Now read the paragraph again....

Finch later said that at this point the driver glanced at him through the window, then said something to the passenger, who turned and reached toward the rear seat.

"Later", not at the time when he gave his original statement, but later, and that one word is crucial, particularly in light of this (from a different source)

Waldorf allegedly shouted, “Don’t shoot, you’ve made a terrible mistake!” after which a voice asked, “Who is it, Susie? Who have we shot?”

Puts a slightly different slant on things, doesn't it?

As a result of the Waldorf shooting new guidelines were introduced by the ACPO, namely that firearms officers must;

Identify themselves and declare intent to fire (unless this risks serious harm).

Should aim for the biggest target (the torso) to incapacitate and for greater accuracy.

Should reassess the situation after each shot.

All of which seems to have been forgotten by the time of Stockwell.

It's interesting to note that without fail all of the recent controversial Police shooting incidents have involved the Met......

 

[MartynK]

when confronted by two armed police officers would you

a) keep your hands in clear sight so they can see you arent armed, or

b) turn and reach for something on the rear seat

I rest my case

I'd certainly follow your advice if I was confronted by armed police officers in uniform, who would probably be driving marked vehicles, or even plain clothes officers who identified themselves. I don't think I would in this situation, which sounds more like the opening moves in a hijacking.

 

[bigt-]

Look how many innocent people get killed in America by police, I dont think it should be.

 

[Davec223]

Look how many innocent people get killed in America by police, I dont think it should be.

How many?

Edit
OK just had a quick look the figures I found were for 1993 and it was 330.

 

[big soft moose]

As a result of the Waldorf shooting new guidelines were introduced by the ACPO, namely that firearms officers must;

Identify themselves and declare intent to fire (unless this risks serious harm).

Should aim for the biggest target (the torso) to incapacitate and for greater accuracy.

Should reassess the situation after each shot.
......

I think the 2nd one has been dropped since 7/7 - if you are dealing with a suspected suicide bomber you definitely do not want to shoot them in the torso.

That aside i'm not saying that waldorf was a good bit of policing - but at the time of firing Finch made the fire/no fire evaluation based on the facts available to him at the time - ie that he thought he was confronting David Martin who was known to be dangerous and thought to be armed.

Had that assessment of the situation been correct hestitating or declaring his presence could have resulted in two dead police officers.

Likewise with most of the recent shootings - the officers who shot de menzies thought they were confronting a suicide bomber and so forth

Shooting an innocent man is not something that should be treated lightly, but we do need to consider the information available to the officers at the time, and the fraction of a second they had to 'decide' - rather than evaluating their behaviour based on far greater information and with as long as we would like to consider , with the benefit of hindsight, and from the comfort and safety of the armchair.

Every police shooting should definitely be investigated, but theres a difference between an impartial investigation, and a press driven witch hunt starting from the assumption that every victim is entirely blameless and the implied assumption that officers intended to kill an innocent man

 

[big soft moose]

Look how many innocent people get killed in America by police, I dont think it should be.

thats america though

how many innocent people were killed by armed police in

Spain ?
France ?
Germany ?
Canada ?
etc etc etc

 

[Garry Edwards]

This may be why the police shouldn't be armed

 

[neil_g]

This may be why the police shouldn't be armed

the actions of 1 dont mean all police officers will be running around popping people in the back every 2 minutes.

 

[pepi1967]

If that is the stick he had with him how does that look anything like a samurai sword?

 

[Russ77]

the actions of 1 dont mean all police officers will be running around popping people in the back every 2 minutes.

You're right it doesn't but we would potentially an innocent old man would now be dead.

 

[neil_g]

You're right it doesn't but we would potentially an innocent old man would now be dead.

id like to think the tazer was more readily deployed because of its (normally) non-lethal capacity.

 

[Reidy36]

I think it should be the decision of the individual officer, whether or not they would want to be armed.
Just because they want to, doesn't mean they will pass the tests and standards required to be allowed to carry.
I would rather have an armed officer help me than unarmed.
At the end of the say, their role is to protect the public, how can this be done when scroats will happily carry bladed weapons, firearms etc.

 

[DizMatt]

Here's one I made earlier

 

[DemiLion]

If that is the stick he had with him how does that look anything like a samurai sword?

Considering the way he's holding it and the light reflections, I'd say that it was a reasonable mistake to make.

Trifle hasty with the trigger finger, but as has been pointed out the tazer is non lethal. The problem however lies in the RoE, which dependant on Force may be the same as live firearms- in which case the officer is deeply in the poo!

 

[viv1969]

Considering the way he's holding it and the light reflections, I'd say that it was a reasonable mistake to make.

Really??? I mean I know this is the daily mail reporting it, so a pinch of salt is generally required,...but really? Looks more like Harry Potter's wand than a samurai sword. :shrug:

 

[Reidy36]

The problem is that any blade that is longer than a kitchen knife everyone calls a samurai sword. Any newspaper story where a long blade is used in an incident no matter how much it looks like a rubbish highlander copy, is called a samurai sword it's a joke, anyone with half a brain cell can see it's not.
Maybe the officer had been watching Zatouichi the blind swordsman, as his cane is actually a katana in shirasaya (maybe spelt that wrong).

 

[MackieStaggie]

Considering the way he's holding it and the light reflections, I'd say that it was a reasonable mistake to make.

I suppose from the distant that a Tazer can be effective (30 feet) it could look like a sword....

...however, surely the police should have identified himself as an officer. This according to the poor guy didn't happen and not only that, he was in fact tazered from behind and his stick/sword was not raised (from his 5Live interview).

BTW....reading the BBC article and couldn't help but giggle when they said "Mr Farmer was taken to hospital for treatment and later discharged"

 

[Happy Snapper]

I'm guessing the UK government has looked at other countries such as America and decided not to arm our police.

America today could be the UK tomorrow if we followed there policing.

Just my opinion of corse.

 

[Garry Edwards]

Pure guesswork here, but as he was clearly old, at a distance that was too far from the police to pose a real threat, not very mobile and facing away from the police officer, I woudn't be surprised if the officer simply pointed the weapon at him as a precaution and then had a negligent discharge, i.e. he fired it without meaning to.

 

[Reidy36]

Pure guesswork here, but as he was clearly old, at a distance that was too far from the police to pose a real threat, not very mobile and facing away from the police officer, I woudn't be surprised if the officer simply pointed the weapon at him as a precaution and then had a negligent discharge, i.e. he fired it without meaning to.

No such thing as an ND now, believe it's called incorrect handling or drills.

 

[Garry Edwards]

No such thing as an ND now, believe it's called incorrect handling or drills.

Yeah, OK - ND under a different name, same thing. Call it accidental discharge if you like, but properly trained people should use systems that avoid accidents, which brings it back to negligence.

Whatever you call it, that's my guess.

 

[donut]

i'd much rather be shot in the back by an officer who forgot he wasn't picking his nose and his finger twiched , than by one who did it on purpose ( that is i agree with you Gary ) just one person shot by mistake is one too many .

 

[cowasaki]

According to the news, the officer was sent to the area to locate a male who had a machete and who matched the description of the male who was tasered.

The officer approached the actual location given and challenged the male twice who did not respond then seeing what he thought to be a machete he tasered him.

It is an unfortunate accident but one which demonstrates why taser is a far better routine daily weapon for UK police. There was no long term physical harm done (nobody has ever died as a DIRECT result of a taser discharge although I think someone has by falling and banging their head). Just imagine the outrage if the male had run forwards and killed someone.... Yes we know that that wasn't going to happen as he was actually an elderly blind man but clearly the officer thought that the male was the one he was looking for. The actual male with the machete was later arrested nearby so it was a genuine call.

Yes a mistake but a genuine one and clearly the chap has been apologised to and will receive compensation no doubt. Not good in an ideal world but understandable.

 

[cowasaki]

Also the distance was UNDER 5 metres as this is the version used by UK police. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmhaff/646/64604.htm as stated by parliament.

 

[boyfalldown]

According to the news, the officer was sent to the area to locate a male who had a machete and who matched the description of the male who was tasered.

The officer approached the actual location given and challenged the male twice who did not respond then seeing what he thought to be a machete he tasered him.

without being funny how can the officer involved credibly claim to think individual tasered could present any possible threat to him. Working on the theory that police officers are generally trained and reasonably obseverant how the blazes can you equate a white stick to a machete?

Next time I see I blind old bloke I wont think 'would it make life a tiny bit easier for him if I helped him over the road', but must change that thought process to 'run away, he might beat me with a stick'

 

[munch]

So I am listening to music or even deaf and as I don't respond to a police officer, that gives him the right to taser me?

 

[cowasaki]

He was looking for a male at that location with that description carrying a machete so he has reasonable believed that that person is the one with the weapon. Yes he made a mistake but it was an understandable one. These things happen which is why I think taser is the way to go for uk police.

 

[Garry Edwards]

So I am listening to music or even deaf and as I don't respond to a police officer, that gives him the right to taser me?

Obviously not, and I'm not defending the actions of the police officer concerned, but I think it's easy to guess that having been told about someone who was potentially dangerous, it was reasonable for him to point the taser at him as a precaution, and that due to carelessness, adrenalin or simple error, the taser went off.

I do a lot of shooting with real guns, I usually fire around 150-200 rounds in a typical week, and I've had situations where I've pulled the trigger accidentally many times. In my case, the gun is always pointed in a safe direction at the time and the only consequence of my mistake has been to miss the clay that I expected to hit, but I can see how this particular accident could have happened - which is one of the reasons why I don't like the idea of most police officers having live firing guns.

 

[boyfalldown]

He was looking for a male at that location with that description carrying a machete so he has reasonable believed that that person is the one with the weapon. Yes he made a mistake but it was an understandable one. These things happen which is why I think taser is the way to go for uk police.

its worrying you think that this is understandable. The news reports this morning describe the guy actually arrested as 27 and drunk.

The guy tasered was 61 and disabled. I'm lost as to why he was perceived as a threat (so much so he was hit in the back).Or confused with the original suspect, with or without stick

Surely its a reasonably easy difference to tell. I'm more then happy to believe it was an accidental discharge, but why not just come clean and say that