Time to arm the British Police?

[crazylegs]

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?

How is giving a sidearm more incentive for a criminal to misbehave?

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.

Armed officers aren't only sent to offenders armed with firearms. They're sent to offenders with knives, bats, bar and other weapons because local officers aren't equipped to deal with these threats - to say that offenders will arm themselves is a fallacy because they already *are* arming themselves.

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.

Everything the police do is confrontational. To pretty much every call they attend at least half the people there will be on 'the other side' to the caller. This instantly creates conflict. If you really want to see the levels of conflict involved in policing try to give someone a parking ticket.

Unfortunately we do have need for some armed officers, but smaller specialised teams are enough to meet our needs.

I politely suggest you are wrong. An ARV can be anything up to 15 minutes away - greater in some rural areas. This was proved dramatically with the incident involving Derek Bird where local, unarmed, officers saw Bird during his shooting but were forced to withdraw when they came under fire - keep in mind this was at the start of the protracted incident & lives could have been saved.

ARVs were introduced by MetPol in '91 & by other forces shortly after. Since that time 18 officers killed by either GSW/bladed instruments. Admittedly I have no data for those officers who have been shot/stabbed and survived however I'm more than happy to assume that it's greater than an additional 18. The fact that 18 officer have died waiting for armed backup/not having equipment on scene shows the ARV concept is ineffective.

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.

Firearms are not just deployed to firearms - as previously discussed.

It appears that in this incident one of the officers was armed with a TASER & that it was found on the ground (knowing the holsters it's virtually impossible for them to fall out - for good reason) showing the officer had time to draw it. Should it have been a Glock/other 9mm I can only hope there might have been a different outcome.

A quick note as to why ARVs are sent to offenders with weapons other than firearms.

An offender with a knife is a lethal threat. It is surprisingly easy for a knife to kill a person, even those with body armour. Because of this, and the police officers inability to provide a safe distance between them and the lethal threat armed officers are called. I'm sure some of you will be thinking about TASER.

TASER is in effect a one shot weapon. If you miss or one of the probes doesn't penetrate correctly then it will not work. This is why TASER armed officers are backed up by AFOs.

[Mytical]

I have to agree with GK here. Should've, would've, could've. I mean I could claim that a 16 year old with a butterknife could have changed what happened on 9/11 because there is no way to prove it wouldn't have. In a grenade vs gun fight..the grenade tends to win. Saying guns would have changed the outcome is good in THEORY, but not something that can be proved. Besides which..think of this. If police were armed on a normal basis, and somebody was laying a trap for them..they would take that into consideration. It would have changed nothing, except maybe escalated the problem into an even more dangerous situation. (Ie it can be argued that the ambusher would have escalated his trap to counter the police having guns).

[s_stabeler]

Everything the police do is confrontational. To pretty much every call they attend at least half the people there will be on 'the other side' to the caller. This instantly creates conflict. If you really want to see the levels of conflict involved in policing try to give someone a parking ticket.

In America, this could well be true. In the UK? apathy leaning towards supporting the police is more common. (i.e. they'll get out of the way, but won't do much else)

As fro ARVs being ineffective- um, that is assuming that those 18 PCs would have survived if they had guns- that's not necessarily true.

[crazylegs]

I have to agree with GK here. Should've, would've, could've. I mean I could claim that a 16 year old with a butterknife could have changed what happened on 9/11 because there is no way to prove it wouldn't have. In a grenade vs gun fight..the grenade tends to win.

I'd rather the police have some chance rather than no chance. PM shows the officers died of GSW though.

In America, this could well be true. In the UK? apathy leaning towards supporting the police is more common. (i.e. they'll get out of the way, but won't do much else)

As fro ARVs being ineffective- um, that is assuming that those 18 PCs would have survived if they had guns- that's not necessarily true.

I have actual, frontline, working knowledge of the police (although I left a year ago). I can assure you that parking/speeding/driving tickets are some of the most contentious parts of the job - I had more (quashed) complaints about traffic tickets than anything else; I've had people threaten to bite my face off (he had previous for this I learned later), to stab me, to ruin my career - all for a £30 ticket. I can assure you there is a considerable amount of conflict telling an adult they can't do something they want to do.

They may have survived, they may not have done - it would have given them a fighting chance though which is considerably more than they have at the moment.

[Mytical]

I think that there is some sort of mental leap that I can not make here. Some assumption that firearms would have made a difference in the equation. Which is like saying that some large fire that has already happened wouldn't have IF <insert reason here>. Which MIGHT be true, but it takes facts not in evidence.

Police here in America have been armed for quite some time, yet crime has not suddenly or magically stopped. I mean..what you are saying makes some sense. Since in a given situation there are normally more officers then criminals (not over all mind, just in a given situation) then yes..logically criminals are going to surrender. However, nobody ever accused mankind of acting logically or rationally. For all we know the ambusher would have just stepped up his game, and a whole lot of other people would have gotten hurt even worse. We don't know. We can speculate, we can guess, we can both give scenarios to support any position we want. Heck, why not say that if we had space aliens on our side they could have beamed the weapons away from the criminal..so we should go seek aliens to help us against crime?

Weapons never SOLVE anything. They can cause things to escalate, but they never really solve anything. Do I think it right that the police have no firearms? No, but the logic that it would solve anything just eludes me.

[Tanasi]

Having been on the receiving end of a grenade there is little to no defense other than to be out of the way when it goes off. I spent the better part of a year recovering from a buddy's mistake and I still feel like I jingle when I walk. I haven't seen any pictures of their wounds (and I don't want to) but even with a vest it's still easy to die and it seems to me that those ladies didn't stand a chance armed or not. Once that spoon is released there's a world of hurt coming someplace.

Personally I think question of arming your police are armed should be question that should be answered by the British people themselves in an election. I also think the same British people should decide if they themselves should be armed after all it is their country and not the governments... If the people are smart they won't grant the police or any others with powers that they themselves don't readily have. Then again that's the independent rebel in me speaking.

[Zod]

Personally I think question of arming your police are armed should be question that should be answered by the British people themselves in an election.

I think the police should have some say in the matter too : they're the ones who are actually going to have to be carrying the things.

I think last time the Police Federation did a poll on this : over 80% of police officers said "No".

I also think the same British people should decide if they themselves should be armed after all it is their country and not the governments...

I don't remember any mass protests when the handgun ban came into play. Are you an American? You've got to remember that our culture is different to yours. Only about 60,000 people in the whole country had handgun licences at the time of the ban : not a massive voting block.

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.

Ah now, you never said "British Criminal" : only "Criminal".

And you seem to have a high faith in the character of our criminals. If they think they need guns to defend themselves : they're going to try and get them.

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?

At the moment, it's 0.7 a year ( including the stabbings ). I find it hard to belive that it could drop much lower that this - especially as you'd have to add the number of members of public shot by the police by mistake to the 'Saved / Killed' list.

The last time we had a group killing of police officers was 1966 : if we didn't arm up for 3 dead : we're not going to for 2 dead.

[Shangri-laschild]

Does it have to be an all or nothing thing? There is also the option of expanding which calls the armed officers go to and if needed, expanding that division.