Time to arm the British Police?

[crazylegs]

As some of you may be aware yesterday two PCs who responded to a burglary call were ambushed and attacked with a hand grenade as well as being shot. Like every other 'normal' officer they were unarmed & had only a baton & spray to defend themselves (there are some reports that one of the officers had a taser but this is currently unconfirmed.

This is not the first time unarmed officers have been killed or seriously injured by armed criminals, PC Rathband was shot and blinded by Moat in 2010, in 2003 Bieber shot and killed PC Ian Broadhurst. There are unfortunately numerous others.

None of the officers were armed, none had the ability to defend themselves against such a massive use of force by these criminals.

So should the British Police be armed routinely?

[Rapscallion]

I disagree. We have special armed units trained to a high standard to respond. What I heard is that it was handled internally incorrectly and the unarmed officers were not expecting an armed man.

If the police become routinely armed, so do the criminals. It escalates to US proportions.

Rapscallion

[crazylegs]

I disagree. We have special armed units trained to a high standard to respond. What I heard is that it was handled internally incorrectly and the unarmed officers were not expecting an armed man.

While having ARVs (Armed Response Vehicles) is a positive, if you need a firearm you need it now, not in 5, 10 or 15 minutes time. It would be like having an ambulance but no defibrillator apart from special defib units.

From what I can work out a call was made about a break in progress to an address. As has been stated by the CC Sir Peter Fahy the address was not known to the police, there was no intelligence on the house and from what I know about policing it is likely the same would be said about the phone that the call was made from too.

It is not usual for armed officers to be sent to a break in progress unless weapons have been seen by the person making the call so I fail to see how this was handled incorrectly?

Like Moat the 'offender' was happy to take on unarmed officers but as soon as the chance that armed officers would meet the threat the offender folded (In the case of Moat he hid in a culvert, in this instance it appears he handed himself in) so it appears that threatened with armed officers criminals don't 'up arm', they stop.

[Zod]

it appears that threatened with armed officers criminals don't 'up arm', they stop.

So you're saying in countries with armed police, the criminals are always unarmed, and no police office has ever been killed?

[Zod]

This is not the first time unarmed officers have been killed or seriously injured by armed criminals, PC Rathband was shot and blinded by Moat in 2010, in 2003 Bieber shot and killed PC Ian Broadhurst. There are unfortunately numerous others.

I would question your usge of the word 'numerous'. According to the FBI : 72 American police officers were killed in 2011. That, to me, is numerous.

Offhand, I think the last time a police office was killed on duty in England was in 2007 ( stabbing ). Surely, if being unarmed was so risky, we'd be losing more then one every 2-3 years?

[crazylegs]

So you're saying in countries with armed police, the criminals are always unarmed, and no police office has ever been killed?

Nope, I'm saying that it appears that when faced with armed police the British criminal has no stomach for a fair fight and either holes up or gives up.

With regards to 'numerous' - any more than 1 is numerous. However at what rate do you suggest that police officers should be being killed and maimed before they get the tools to protect themselves and you? 10? 20? 30? Furthermore at whatever tipping point you choose why are the lives on one side of your arbitrary point more important that the other side?

[Rapscallion]

I'd like to see stats on how many armed UK criminals collapse when faced by armed police against the number of ones versus unarmed before accepting your first point.

Rapscallion

[crazylegs]

Firearms authorised in 17,209 incidents last year - firearms discharged 3 times.

As per BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19637051

Unfortunately I'm not aware of any breakdown that shows out of how many of the 17,209 were armed or whether it was intel led.

While it may not be the exact stats you're after it's as close as I can find.

[Rapscallion]

Closer than I thought anyone could provide on that, I have to admit.

I still don't accept the hypothesis that all-out arming of the British police would be a good thing. I fully believe it would accelerate the arms race between criminals and police, breaking the first point you raise. I admit I don't have anything but my gut instinct to go by there.

I also don't necessarily think that weapons would have helped in this situation. The officers went there believing it was a normal situation, not an armed one. Unless we go down the route of our police bringing out their weapons for every incident, the murderer in this case would have had the drop on them at least initially.

I've realised something whilst thinking about this. Why do criminals give up in the UK? It's respect - grudging at times, but they know the police over here do a difficult job without having weapons to reach for at a moment's notice. That takes some balls. They know they are going to be treated fairly, because the cops who are prepared to go into dangerous situations without guns on their hips are usually the sort of people who will follow the procedures and treat them fairly.

It's our culture - I don't want to see it go down the 'guns are great!' path.

Rapscallion

[crazylegs]

I've realised something whilst thinking about this. Why do criminals give up in the UK? It's respect - grudging at times, but they know the police over here do a difficult job without having weapons to reach for at a moment's notice. That takes some balls.

You over estimate the worst criminals. They don't respect armed police they know they can fight back on equal terms.

It takes balls because it's so incredibly dangerous, seeing as the equipment is available to make it less dangerous is it acceptable to deny the police this kit?

The problem is that we're sending police to a gun fight without even a knife - they get an extending baton, sometimes made of plastic, and a can of spray to which some individuals are immune to. Tasers have their limitations too (even though they're good bits of kit).

Firearms aren't always great - in the wrong hands they can do untold damage & I don't for one moment suggest we should go down the US path of having assault rifles in each vehicle, I'm arguing for each frontline officer to be issued a sidearm for the purposes of defense & containment.

[HYHYBT]

Nope, I'm saying that it appears that when faced with armed police the British criminal has no stomach for a fair fight and either holes up or gives up.

...and that would change if they were all armed. People get used to things they're exposed to regularly, especially when your line of work, so to speak, depends on it.

The question is, is it better to accept that there will be exceptions to criminals' being relatively cooperative, or to change the system so that there's more incentive not to be?

[Rapscallion]

You over estimate the worst criminals. They don't respect armed police they know they can fight back on equal terms.

One end of the bell curve doesn't cover the entire situation. Scum such as the one who killed the two officers today are relatively few and far between.

Admittedly, I've never been on the policing frontlines, but logic dictates that if police routinely tool up, lower grades of criminals will do likewise and exacerbate the situation. It might take a decade or so, but guns in petty crime situations will become more common. That puts more members of the public at risk from armed criminals.

It takes balls because it's so incredibly dangerous, seeing as the equipment is available to make it less dangerous is it acceptable to deny the police this kit?

The problem is that we're sending police to a gun fight without even a knife - they get an extending baton, sometimes made of plastic, and a can of spray to which some individuals are immune to. Tasers have their limitations too (even though they're good bits of kit).

I agree the situation is shitty, but for now I'll trust the judgement of those who have to weigh up whether or not we arm the police. That should only happen if the threat to the police becomes so great that arming is needed. I can't see that it's got to that stage, and arming now is only going to increase the arms race.

Sure, if you can do it and root out all the criminals, fine by me. Even with all the arms in the world, and all the manpower you could ever want, I can't see that happening.

Rapscallion

[s_stabeler]

There is also the different policing cultures in the UK and US. In the US, it's very confrontational, Us v Them, shown by the fact that many police forces are described as paramilitary ( I used to read a forum for police (it was open to non-police, but I never joined. paramilitary was the term they used to describe the police. On that note, the term they used for non-police (civillians) is further proof of my point)

On the other hand, in the UK, is is closer to 'policing by consent' for want of a better term- the police work fairly closely with the local community, and it's far less confrontational. There's generally more respect for the police over here, which is why things like policemen selling information on cases to the press was so shocking. The police over here are supposed to be above things like that, as opposed to over in america, where the reaction would probably be more along the lines of "what can you expect-they're cops"

my point is that routinely arming police officers is inherently confrontational, given that it indicates that the police don't feel safe w/o the weapon.. In america, that's in line with the policing culture. over here, it isn't.

[Password]

Nope, I'm saying that it appears that when faced with armed police the British criminal has no stomach for a fair fight and either holes up or gives up.

With regards to 'numerous' - any more than 1 is numerous. However at what rate do you suggest that police officers should be being killed and maimed before they get the tools to protect themselves and you? 10? 20? 30? Furthermore at whatever tipping point you choose why are the lives on one side of your arbitrary point more important that the other side?

Whilst anything more than zero is too many, it certainly cannot be descirbed as numerous. The figures on the BBC articles on this current incident suggests in Great Britain over the past half century there has been just over one fatal shooting or stabbing of a police officer per year since WWII. One reason all shootings of police officers are lead stories here in the national press is due not just to the shocking nature of the crime, but also its rarity.

Policing may have many similiarities between our two countries, but there are also plenty of differences. Our gun culture (or lack of it) for one. I'd certainly be vary of having more guns around in society and it ever being normal to see one. Unfortunately we do have need for some armed officers, but smaller specialised teams are enough to meet our needs.

[Gravekeeper]

Apparently there's been only 5 fatal shootings of police officers in the last decade in Britain. This incident sounds like very much the exception, not the norm.

How much good would guns have even done them here? Apparently he lured them to the scene by calling in a fake attempted robbery then walked outside, tossed a farkin' grenade and opened fire the moment he saw them pull up. They barely made it to the sidewalk judging from the photographs of the crime scene running in the news.