Should the police be armed

Should the police be armed?

  • Yes

    Votes: 43 32.6%

  • No

    Votes: 52 39.4%

  • In some situations I guess it'd be ok

    Votes: 34 25.8%

  • I already am

    Votes: 3 2.3%
  • Total voters
    132
Eddzz!! said:
I'm not sure that Police opinions matter when it comes to threats on national security. The point I initially raised was how public opinions may come to change as threats made to us from overseas begin to increase. Media exposure aside, this ISIS thing is rather frightening and I for one would feel safer if our officers can respond effectively to serious threats of terrorism in the UK... Let's face it, Police on the streets with firearms is a deterrent!
Click to expand...

Is it? ISIS and its allies follow a religious interpretation that promises martyrs a short cut to paradise. Why would they be deterred by routinely armed police.
 
big soft moose said:
This is true - but its a damn site harder to learn to put all your shots in the ten ring under pressure than it is to drive fast but safely. I don't disagree with arming the police if its done responsibly , but I can see the govt doing it on the cheap nand that aint a god idea (or fair to the officers concerned)
Click to expand...

Honestly, they won't. The fear of repercussion and law suits means they will do it properly. Have some faith, it won't be a problem.
 
MartynK said:
Is it? ISIS and its allies follow a religious interpretation that promises martyrs a short cut to paradise. Why would they be deterred by routinely armed police.
Click to expand...

They won't. You can't plan for someone who is so blinded that they're willing...eager even...to give up their life for their beliefs.
 
ST4 said:
Lack of martyrdom. Suicide by cop isn't the same as suicide by bomb in a plane/train/etc
Click to expand...

It's got nothing to do with suicide by cop, but I suspect you know that. ;) Taking part in a spectacular, involving a bomb on a plane, train or whatever, obviously attracts more attention, but dying while taking in part jihad qualifies you for martyrdom. That's the lure.
 
ST4 said:
People here etc talk about how well trained traffic police are, why would be any different for their fire arm training. We trust our traffic police to drive well over a ton, but not joe public. The argument being the police officers training makes them safe to this, but joe public driving training means it isn't for them.

I apply that logic to guns, a trained police officer with a gun isn't an unacceptable risk, IMHO. Despite my views on the police, the training that is given to officers is more than decent and they are capable people going through a tough selection process. They won't turn rambo but be able to deal with bad people more effectiverly.

There is the counter terrorism argument, there is the person safety to the officers, there is the argument their training will be effective (we trust police with high speed driving, tazers, why not guns), theres the argument they will use them with restraint and most other police forces uses them.

The only argument against is some misfound liberal hug a hoody crap that guns are bad bred by the anti gun lobby.
Click to expand...
There's a massive difference between training talented police officers to drive safely at high speed and training all police officers to handle a gun safely.
They have been driving cars for a very long time, and their training programme has proved its worth. And they practice their skills all day every day.
Armed police are very few in number, and until fairly recently the training was very basic indeed -some might say that it still is. They get very little annual training and they hardly get any practice at all.
And police drivers instinctively try to avoid accidents - everyone except nutters do that. Armed police, to be effective, need to be well trained enough to shoot without hesitation when the situation demands it, that's a very big ask.
big soft moose said:
Its not just shooting though - how many cops are assaulted with knives, bats, iron bars, run down with by criminals fleeing the scene etc (and how many don't make the mainsteam news if its not a fatal injury). Currently a cop dealing with a criminal with a knife has to get close enough to deploy his pepper spray , rather than being able to shoot him at a safe distance (or to threaten to do so in order to force compliance)
Click to expand...

Fair point.
 
Garry Edwards said:
There's a massive difference between training talented police officers to drive safely at high speed and training all police officers to handle a gun safely.
They have been driving cars for a very long time, and their training programme has proved its worth. And they practice their skills all day every day.
Armed police are very few in number, and until fairly recently the training was very basic indeed -some might say that it still is. They get very little annual training and they hardly get any practice at all.
And police drivers instinctively try to avoid accidents - everyone except nutters do that. Armed police, to be effective, need to be well trained enough to shoot without hesitation when the situation demands it, that's a very big ask.


Fair point.
Click to expand...

The training will be rolled out. It'll take time, there will be the odd hiccup but they'll get the hang of it. If other police forces have routinely armed officers why can't us British achieve that.

It's about time the police were invested in and fire arm training, practice could all be factored into their resources. Just because police have had fast cars since day 1 doesn't mean they'll be dangerous with day 1. I don't recal the roads being a blood bath in the 60s when plod had mk2 jags. It'll be no different when they're given their guns.

I agree the guns should be used sparingly but our armed police do a good job, why won't the rest of them do the same once trained.

Have faith. And as such a law abiding community here even if they aren't as we're all law abiding it's not like the bullets that potentially shouldn't be fired will end up in us as no one here will be resisting arrest or causing trouble.
 
Last edited:
Armed police are very few in number, and until fairly recently the training was very basic indeed -some might say that it still is. They get very little annual training and they hardly get any practice at all.
And police drivers instinctively try to avoid accidents - everyone except nutters do that. Armed police, to be effective, need to be well trained enough to shoot without hesitation when the situation demands it, that's a very big ask.
Click to expand...

You do talk some utter rubbish!
 
It shouldnt be beyond the wit of man to write an ROE that covers these things (although tbh the civil service struggle to define a sensible ROE for the military so it might be harder than it looks)
Click to expand...

This is the crux of the matter as far as the public are concerned is to protect them, and as far as Police are concerned give them some protection, but more particularly when they shoot in circumstances where it was reasonable in that .05 second they had to decide.

Unfortunately the 2 things complete, and both cannot always be satisfied. On the one hand, the public get out of their box when someone is shot by Police, without waiting to find out all of the circumstances. We've seem on here the screams of "Try them for murder" over Stockwell, but perversely, "well done" when it's someone who they can readily identify as an 'enemy' like Gibraltar, even though in both cases the shooting was reasonable, although the reasons were flawed.

On the other hand, no, no one wants Police shooting someone for walking on the cracks in the pavement.

So how would anyone write something to try and satisfy both ends of the equation. The simple answer is you can't.On a number of occasions I had troops walking round Heathrow with me. Out of interest, as it was a bit important for me to know, I asked in what circumstances they could open fire. The answer worried me, and I decided at that point I'd go and guard Perry Oaks sewage works(where T5 is now!) in the event of any shooting.

Most Police officers I know don't want to be armed because there is so little protection and even less understanding in the public that they have very little time to make a decision, which when strung out in court is made to sound like they had time to read the sun, drink a coffee and eat a canteen breakfast. There is no understanding in law that that decision has to be taken in a very very short time, and that inevitably it will sometimes be wrong. If that was somehow solved, then I suspect you'd find the numbers in favour would go up.

So we are now left with the situation where the officer must decide in the circumstances, and he must justify that action. At the moment, there's a lot of politics interfering in that decision, hence the DPP's latest bit of genius, which will no doubt entertain people for the next year or so.
 
Eddzz!! said:
I thought you were banned (for good reason)?
Click to expand...
He's not that only one posting in this thread that has had a short break, though is he? ;)

Just quit with the personal targeting that's twice now in this thread.
Either join in and play nice or stay away Thanks.
 
Bernie174 said:
Most Police officers I know don't want to be armed because there is so little protection and even less understanding in the public that they have very little time to make a decision, which when strung out in court is made to sound like they had time to read the sun, drink a coffee and eat a canteen breakfast. There is no understanding in law that that decision has to be taken in a very very short time, and that inevitably it will sometimes be wrong. If that was somehow solved, then I suspect you'd find the numbers in favour would go up.
.
Click to expand...

exactly its like that British cop, Australian cop, American cop thing that was posted in the joke thread a while back - much truth said in jest
 
You're down a deserted street on patrol
Suddenly, a dangerous looking man with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, raises the knife, and charges.
You are carrying a Glock .40, and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you.
What do you do?.


UK Police Officer answer:
Well, that’s not enough information to answer the question!
Does the man look poor or oppressed?
Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack?
Could we run away?
Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand?
What does the law say about this situation?
Does the Glock have appropriate safety built into it?
Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society ?
Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me?
Should I call for social worker support
Could I negotiate with him
Why is this street so deserted? We need to raise taxes, have a paint and weed day and make this a happier, healthier street that would discourage such behaviour.
If I raise my gun and he turns and runs away, Do I get blamed when he falls over running away, knocks his head and kills himself?
If I shoot him, and lose the court case does he have the opportunity to sue me, cost me my job, my credibility and will I lose my family home?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AUSTRALIAN OFFICERS Answer:
BANG!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMERICAN OFFICERS Answer:
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!

partner : "Nice groups, bro "
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
ST4 said:
Ok, but you get the point of my post. Why are people so anti police using guns if they are being law abiding they won't get shot. I don't see the issue.

With the London riots etc, a lot few well placed bullets would have worked a lot better.
Click to expand...

Several incidents where innocent people have been shot by the police. Presumably it would happen more frequently if all police had guns.
 
It would be impossible to produce a percentage.

So look at the actual numbers.

http://www.inquest.org.uk/statistics/fatal-police-shootings

55 since 1990. Thats all shootings, irrespective of the reasons. The vast majority of those cases there is no argument that the shootings were justified. All were investigated, in 2 cases there was a prosecution, in one there was an acquittal. The other is sub judice at the moment.

Either way, it does not show any increase in deaths from Police use of firearms in spite of a huge increase in the arming of Police Officers. In fact if you take the first and last 5 years, it shows a 50% reduction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Bernie174 said:
It would be impossible to produce a percentage.
Click to expand...


:banghead: Its fairly simple maths...if you know a shooting was either of an innocent unarmed man or found to be unlawful then as every school boy knows %=(part/whole * 100)
 
Using that formula, then the answer is 0.

There is no basis for your criteria, 'innocent unarmed man' is your opinion, not a legal definition. Where you use that definition and yet the law decides that the shooting is justified, then your definition becomes invalid.

So, you are left with a legal definition, how many people have been shot by Police and the officer was convicted. Answer is ZERO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Bernie174 said:
Using that formula, then the answer is 0.

There is no basis for your criteria, 'innocent unarmed man' is your opinion, not a legal definition. Where you use that definition and yet the law decides that the shooting is justified, then your definition becomes invalid.

So, you are left with a legal definition, how many people have been shot by Police and the officer was convicted. Answer is ZERO.
Click to expand...



yes Bernie, whatever you say...........the police have never shot anyone without justification. Ok then.
 
Dry your eyes.
Lesson one, don't ask a question to prove your point, unless you already know the answer. You clearly didn't.

Moving on, no one has ever said that no one has ever been shot by Police in error. Clearly they have. Without justification? I can only think of three, possibly 4, and in all of those cases there was no intention to shoot anyone.

Other than those cases, there have been no cases of Police officers just shooting people for the hell of it, which is what "Without Justification" means. You may not agree with the justification where officers have shot someone but that does not make the officers wrong, it's simply your opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Bernie174 said:
Dry your eyes.
Click to expand...

grow up a little Bernie. Every time someone disagrees with you you resort to somewhat petty posturing

Bernie174 said:
Lesson one, don't ask a question to prove your point, unless you already know the answer. You clearly didn't.
Click to expand...

errm yes I did ta - neither was it as you claimed either zero or impossible to calculate

Bernie174 said:
Moving on, no one has ever said that no one has ever been shot by Police in error. Clearly they have. Without justification? I can only think of three, possibly 4, and in all of those cases there was no intention to shoot anyone.

Other than those cases, there have been no cases of Police officers just shooting people for the hell of it, which is what "Without Justification" means. You may not agree with the justification where officers have shot someone but that does not make the officers wrong, it's simply your opinion.
Click to expand...


thats not as you earlier stated zero then. It'd be so nice to have a sensible conversation without some rather biased posturing and petty apologists. Incidentally, I had thought there were 2 in the period mentioned. Less even then you talked about......
 
It'd be so nice to have a sensible conversation without some rather biased posturing and petty apologists. Incidentally
Click to expand...

Yes, it would. But if your starting point is emotive rhetoric without foundation, you wont get it.

If you'd started with, "look, everyone makes mistakes including the Police, so how do you reduce or remove those mistakes", you'd get a better response.

The answer is that while in an ideal world, we wouldn't have the problem, but it isn't. While we have criminal use of firearms, you have to have police armed as well.
Police are human beings, you put them in a position where a split second decision has to be made sometimes with less than ideal information, then there will be occasions where that decision is wrong. Thats not being apologist for anyone, it's simply the real world. That same real world applies to everyone.

All you can do is train for that eventuality initially, which is what happens, in spite of the rubbish talked by one member of this forum, and if it goes wrong, then make sure that it is fully investigated to ensure that the there has been justification. In every case of Police shootings that has happened. Even when the evidence is clear at the outset, the equivalent of a murder investigation has happened, followed by a Judicial review of the evidence, be that Judge led enquiry or inquest. If the officer has not acted with justification and there is evidence of a crime, then they are prosecuted.

If you can think of something more that can be done, then say so.
 
Bernie174 said:
Yes, it would. But if your starting point is emotive rhetoric without foundation, you wont get it.
Click to expand...

I don't Bernie. Look at my posting history.

Bernie174 said:
If you'd started with, "look, everyone makes mistakes including the Police, so how do you reduce or remove those mistakes", you'd get a better response.

The answer is that while in an ideal world, we wouldn't have the problem, but it isn't. While we have criminal use of firearms, you have to have police armed as well.
Police are human beings, you put them in a position where a split second decision has to be made sometimes with less than ideal information, then there will be occasions where that decision is wrong. Thats not being apologist for anyone, it's simply the real world. That same real world applies to everyone.

If you can think of something more that can be done, then say so.
Click to expand...

I'd also like to see more honesty. Over recent years, particularly the Met have projected an impression of closing ranks, and only really had the media to thank for keeping them honest. I have no real problem with genuine mistakes happening and realise in circumstances they do happen. What I, and many others dislike is the impression we're being lied to
 
It seems to me that a lot of people here are happy for police to needlessly die in the line of duty. Remember those two police women, shot dead and blown to pieces with a grenade in Greater Manchester? How differently that could have tuned out had those officers been firearms trained. It's a very sad affair when people can't trust our police to use firearms appropriately and would rather see them die than have the authority to shoot when the need arises.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
the key thing about "without justification" is does it mean "without justification based on the facts the officer was aware of at the time he pulled the trigger " or "without justification based on facts that came to light later, with the benefit of hindsight and all the time in the world to contemplate them "

for example a man "armed" with a soft air replica points it at a police officer and gets shot dead for his troubles - at the time the officer believed he had a gun pointed at him so shooting was justifiable , but the liberal press jump up and down about the unjustified shooting of someone who didn't even have a real gun. (there was also a case like this with a table leg if I remember correctly)

ditto if the officer believes he is confronting a suicide bomber and so forth
 
big soft moose said:
the key thing about "without justification" is does it mean "without justification based on the facts the officer was aware of at the time he pulled the trigger " or "without justification based on facts that came to light later, with the benefit of hindsight and all the time in the world to contemplate them "

for example a man "armed" with a soft air replica points it at a police officer and gets shot dead for his troubles - at the time the officer believed he had a gun pointed at him so shooting was justifiable , but the liberal press jump up and down about the unjustified shooting of someone who didn't even have a real gun. (there was also a case like this with a table leg if I remember correctly)

ditto if the officer believes he is confronting a suicide bomber and so forth
Click to expand...


Its a very difficult one. I think the guy stupid enough to point the soft air replica at an armed police man shouldn't be surprised what follows. The guy with the table leg, someone called the police describing it as a sawn off shotgun. It was found at inquest as unlawful, and I certainly think its san incident a lot could be learned from
 
Eddzz!! said:
It seems to me that a lot of people here are happy for police to needlessly die in the line of duty. Remember those two police women, shot dead and blown to pieces with a grenade in Greater Manchester? How differently that could have tuned out had those officers been firearms trained. It's a very sad affair when people can't trust our police to use firearms appropriately and would rather see them die than have the authority to shoot when the need arises.
Click to expand...


Certainly not happy to. I'm not sure how being armed would have helped them being ambushed in that way.

FWIW arguing against routine armament is not the same as saying I don't trust them to use firearms or shoot when the need arises
 
Eddzz!! said:
It seems to me that a lot of people here are happy for police to needlessly die in the line of duty. Remember those two police women, shot dead and blown to pieces with a grenade in Greater Manchester? How differently that could have tuned out had those officers been firearms trained. It's a very sad affair when people can't trust our police to use firearms appropriately and would rather see them die than have the authority to shoot when the need arises.
Click to expand...

No police should die in the line of duty, I hope the guns mean this won't happen as often,
 
Its a very difficult one. I think the guy stupid enough to point the soft air replica at an armed police man shouldn't be surprised what follows. The guy with the table leg, someone called the police describing it as a sawn off shotgun. It was found at inquest as unlawful, and I certainly think its san incident a lot could be learned from
Click to expand...

The table leg is a very good example of why the Met tend to close ranks.

There were 2 Inquests, the first found is was a lawful killing. The second unlawful, and that was overturned by Judicial Review back to Lawful killing.

The full circumstances were that a call was made with a very full description of a shotgun, in a plastic bag. So when he was seen by Police, with, as it turned out a plastic bad containing an object which resembled a firearm, and raised it towards the officers, he was shot.
Now the response from the press, and public always plays down or ignores the fact it was wrapped in plastic. The officers had less time to make their decision than it took to read the last sentence, and he was shot. A warning was shouted to him, he could of course of dropped the object, he didn't.

It's a good example of what Moose says, its all very well in the cold light of day, and in true internet style to attack the officers concerned, usually without any of the evidence, beyond "he was shot carrying a table leg", but that wasn't the full story, and no one else was there or had to make that decision.

As for learning from it, there really isn't much you can, in all of the circumstances.


To return to your point Boyfelldown, you call it lying, it rarely is, it's usually perception, and that is always different from person to person.

Certainly not happy to. I'm not sure how being armed would have helped them being ambushed in that way.
Click to expand...

On that I agree, although I'd go futher, if they had been armed it would still have happened. At the point the shooting started there would have been no reason or them to have drawn guns even if they had them. That would have happened no matter what.
 
Last edited:
I really do sit on the fence on this. I would like police to be armed in order to deal with certain situations better, but also agree that if they were armed we would probably see criminals tool up more and it would be worse overall. Also, the training needed would be impractical to deliver over the short term.

I don't know the numbers but an inbetween could be just to have more police marksmen 'out and about on patrol' but that may not be needed.
 
Bernie174 said:
It would be impossible to produce a percentage.

So look at the actual numbers.

http://www.inquest.org.uk/statistics/fatal-police-shootings

55 since 1990. Thats all shootings, irrespective of the reasons. The vast majority of those cases there is no argument that the shootings were justified. All were investigated, in 2 cases there was a prosecution, in one there was an acquittal. The other is sub judice at the moment.

Either way, it does not show any increase in deaths from Police use of firearms in spite of a huge increase in the arming of Police Officers. In fact if you take the first and last 5 years, it shows a 50% reduction.
Click to expand...

Why select that period of time - the 10 years to 2012 show an increase on the previous 10 years.
 
Using raw numbers isn't going to give you anything meaningful.
Your difference is 24 v 25. so about 4% difference.
Given the vagaries of crime, and armed crime in particular is that really significant? I'd say not.

I used the years I did, because apart from central London, there were almost no ARV's around in the 1990-1995 period.
In the last 5 years I compared against there were a lot more. Which does show a decrease and again shows that the more armed Police, more deaths lobby isn't accurate.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Bernie174 said:
Using raw numbers isn't going to give you anything meaningful.
Your difference is 24 v 25. so about 4% difference.
Given the vagaries of crime, and armed crime in particular is that really significant? I'd say not.
Click to expand...

Exactly my point Bernie - you say that 'Using raw numbers isn't going to give you anything meaningful.', yet use the above data to show a decrease. Not exactly a consistent position....
 
OK, I missed the word 'alone'.
So in your example, the numbers of armed Police increased by a little in the 2 time periods you used and a very small deaths, in mine they increased by a large amount. Yet there's a reduction in these incidents when comparing those 2 periods.
Neither is very scientific and in any case, there will always be spikes, which your second period contained 2 of, but neither supports the more armed police more deaths argument in any way, and that was the point I was trying to make.
 
Last edited:
ST4 said:
Violent criminals need stopped, and that may require the police to shoot them dead for the safety of themselves and the public. I don't see whats so hard to grasp.
Click to expand...


thats in itself is not hard to grasp. But you seem to fail to understand that some of us ares of the opinion that the system we have now generally works pretty well
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top