In a horrific re run of the Hungerford massacre, 12 people are dead and 25 wounded after horrific shooting spree in West Cumbria. Cab driver suspect Derrick Bird committed suicide in woodland shortly afterwards.
I bet you are glad that we are armed with an aluminium expandable stick, a few grams of pepper and some hand cuffs.
Oh, and a stab vest just incase. How can we protect the public, or even ourselves, with equipment like this?
It really does come to something when you realise that even if you call the police to deal with this kind of thing, we can’t help you until a specialist unit arrives from the other side of the county, and then they are constrained by so much pre planning and procedure that they really can’t intervene in any kind of real-time anyway.
In European countries, the very first police who arrive at the scene can engage the gunman immediately.
And as the blaming of the police starts, which we knew it would because it always does, my unshakeable view is that if local response crews had been armed and allowed to use their weapons, Bird could have been engaged and contained or stopped immediately.
I support the immediate routine arming of all UK mainland police officers at all times.
Surely time to arm the citizenry as well?
All the gun laws have done is ensure that the bad guys have the weapons and the public take the casualties.
Let’s face it, we are never going to be the States, where people routinely walk around strapped (which only happens in some states anyway; others have much more restrictive gun laws).
And since most of his victims don’t appear to be the sort of people who would have carried a gun if they’d been allowed to, I’m not sure what good it would have done.
I don’t see how this would have helped in this case. The citizens would have had to have their guns loaded and ready at 10:35AM on an ordinary day when they’re going around their business and not switched onto danger. They’d have had to realise what was happening, get their gun out and fire accurately in the space of a few seconds, outshooting a man who BBC news says had a telescopic sniper rifle.
Even someone with the reactions and skills of a marine would have struggled in a scenario like that. And that’s not even looking at the fact that some victims were shot in the back or without the murderer gaining their attention in anyway.
From what I’ve seen of murder and manslaughter cases bad guys tend to kill other bad guys aka “business associates” or their friends and families. I don’t see how carrying a gun would realistically help in the majority of scenarios.
I respect the author of this blog and the stance he generally takes. However arming the police whilst we have an unarmed public (or more correctly a public which does not have the right to be armed anymore) makes for a police state. Government has enough power as it is. The handgun ban has not saved a single life, all it did was criminalise the ownership of handguns by law abiding people. If Joe Public (of the law abiding non-Sink estate kind, I imagine that IG perhaps does not encounter us all that often at work) cannot legally own a handgun. Then giving handguns to all Police along with the training burden involved is a non-starter. The mature approach to this issue adopted in Switzerland, Israel and the US may be a separate idea but giving handguns to all plod whilst law abiding public cannot is a recipe for a tyranny.
I hear this argument regularly but what you need to understand is that when it comes to firearms, training makes an incredible difference, not just in terms of individual shooting skills but as well as working as a team, hence an armed civilian (or a group of armed civilians) isn’t really a match for a team of armed professionals (be them policemen or soldiers) in regular firefight. Which leads to my point which is that simply arming the public wouldn’t lessen a theoretical police state.
Well can you explain why as a law abiding citizen, with nine years army service and no criminal record it is right I cannot own a handgun for sport/self defence? I bet I am better trained than many ARV members. But that is not the point arming all police gives the government too much power. It’s bad enough that I would have to expect for an ARV to turn up if some armed criminal did seek to do me or my family harm. Plus I live in the countryside s would have a long wait. If I’m to be expected to trust a government and it’s police (I trust the latter), government should trust me.
yeah right Paul. Cos France, Germany, Italy, Spain etc are seething hell holes eh? Where cops are gunning down people in the street as soon as looking at them.
Err…
oh no, thats not true? Those are the countries we go to on holiday.
So, I guess that they are safe eh?
Well in case you hadn’t noticed all the examples you quote actually allow their citizenry to own fire arms. So there is a balance between government and individual, which is what I am calling for. I have no problems with armed cops, so long as equal rights are granted to the armed law abiding citizen.
Like the chap that just wasted 12 people you mean?
By definition, he was not a law abiding citizen!
There are millions of guns in Britain, but only the criminals have them. We don’t have an unarmed nation; we have a State guarantee to armed criminals that their victims will not shoot back.
Arming the police would help a little (by allowing the police to intervene earlier) but the chances are an armed criminal will have shot me before the police arrive. I want my own weapon and – if I have no record of criminal violence – what right has the state to deny me?
We don’t all have to carry firearms to benefit. It would transform society for the better if criminals did not know which potential victim (or bystander) might open fire. And it’s actually an incentive to stay on the right side of the law that you will be disarmed if you have a criminal record.
The US statistics that people are already quoting here frothily are misleading. US gun control advocates always cite “gun deaths”, not culpable homicides. This brings lawful shootings (in self-defence, by cops etc) into the numbers, as well as suicides. The main downside of an armed citizenry is that when they attempt suicide, they generally succeed.
I respect the police and what they do, but the fact remains they probably won’t be there for me when I am in trouble. They never have been and the odds are vanishingly small that they ever will be. I need criminals to fear me, not me them. If I am in trouble, I want at least the chance of a good outcome; the police can sort out the aftermath when they show up.
A recipie for tyranny? What planet are you on? Do you think officers are going to threaten everyone they see with their firearm? Do you not think there will be rules detailing when the officer can use it?
Your comments are a disgrace. You suppose that individual officers are incapable of responsibly holding a firearm. You also seem to suggest that by arming us, we suddenly become a major threat to democracy.
Arming us is in the public interest, because it is the public we protect. People like you.
The only “non-starter” is your argument where you suggest that allowing the police to carry guns whilst the rest of you can’t is somehow unfair!
Just how does that work? Do we allow the public to carry handcuffs, batons and CS gas because we can? Do we allow the public to drive to their own perceived emergencies with blue-lights and sirens because we can?
You’ve got some holes to plug.
I’m generally against arming the public. We have many fewer gun murders than , for instance, the USA. (Pace those who compare us to European countries; we’re much closer in culture to the USA than, f’rinstance, Spain.)
However, there are occasions where arming the consenting public would be a good bet. The downside is that many more crims would cary firearms.
Frankly, I’m in the middle on this one. I see both sides of the argument, and agree with some of the points each makes.
Sure, I’d like to be able to use deadly force against an intruder much bigger than me. However, I don’t want to be shot by someone who thinks I’m intruding on their property when I’m simply bringing help.
I suggest you unwind and read my comments again. I quoted the successful examples of Israel, Switzerland and USA. I didn’t suggest that officers are going to threaten people at all. I was calling for balance between the power of the state and the individual. In fact I would be in favour of arming the police if citizens could also be armed. You see its called trust, I trust the cops naturally but I would expect as someone who has spent years on active service and with no criminal record for the authorities to trust me. Before the 1997 Firearms act they did.
So, as a civilian do you attend many incidents where you think you would need a firearm?
That’s the reason we need to arm the police. Arming the civilian population is a nonsense, they don’t deal with what we deal with. If the only reason you want a gun is because the police have one, then you have some serious issues.
Howard,
By definition the public *do* deal with the same incidents you deal with, because the incidents invariably involve some toe-rag and a member of the public.
You seem to be saying that only being burgled once or mugged once isn’t sufficient reason to want to defend ourselves.
It was the police/acpo in collusion with politicians that took our legal guns away, including mine.
When you outlaw something, the outlaws keep it and become stronger.
Tough. Live with it like we have to.
Oh, and coppers are unsafe handlers and can’t hit a barn door, I know this from experience, they’re too busy being arrogant because they’ve just been given a bang stick.
If you’d had the bottle, you’d have been more than welcome to be a barn door facing me with a Model 64 S&W in my hand.
.357 Sturm Ruger 6″ stainless heavy, Hogue grips, speed loaders, club champ 95.
I also know the difference between live and blank ammunition, I used to make my own.
Not really a mature response to the issue, that, is it? Come and fight me. With guns.
Guns plural?
I only need one.
And we don’t need no stiingkin’ badges!
So do we call you when we have firearms incidents then?
You obviously have a greater aptitude to carry a gun and we all bow down to your overwhelming ability to hit a barn door.
However, we don’t fire at many barn doors, only other people who have crossed a line.
From experience Rightwinggit, I can tell you… it’s much easier to hit a paper target down the range before popping off to Tescos to pick up a bit of lunch – than a live one that is shooting back at you intending you some harm…
Surprising how that can distract your aim.
A piece of paper? Turning man shaped targets actually, advancing and reloading as we went.
It used to be called Police Pistol one, until some seat polisher somewhere got snooty about it and it got renamed practical pistol one.
As to popping down Tescos, Nooooo! From home to the range and then back home and secure weapon, no detours, all part of safe handling which is drummed into you before you even see a gun.
Remember the WPC that left her Glock in a bog somewhere?
Lol advancing and loading on a piece of paper isn’t the same as the piece of paper shooting back… Trust me it isn’t.
As to the toilet glock, don’t get me into mops misbehaving with guns-there isn’t enough room on the server.
I’m undecided about this; having seen some reports about the police training of firearms, I’m surprised that there isn’t some national firearm training centre for police firearms; as a former infantryman, I was horrified to hear that one force managed to keep live and blank ammunition, together in a Quality Street tin!
This being said, a routine arming of the police, would almost certainly lead to higher standards of handling firearms by police officers.
Should police, instead of being routinely armed, insist on regular training of all officers with firearms, and provide easier access to firearms (such biometrically protected firearms cases in all vehicles)?
There are at least 6 National Firearms Training Centres in the UK, or were up until I skedaddled. As for routine arming raising standards, I’m afraid the opposite is the case. With the training implications the standard of handling/shooting of a standard patrol officer would be basic. That’s not to say it will be poor, but it would be basic. When I did a US exchange I shot alongside their tactical teams and they classed my skills as `outstanding`refusing to believe that I was unarmed for 90% of my duties. Any pre-planned ops would still require tactical team expertise. As for the Quality Street ammo – I concur, bloody unbelievable. As for today, and as is usual in all spontaneous firearms incidents, all the heroics were most likely performed by unarmed response officers. My respect to them all, as always.
“With the training implications…”
Having to certify and requalify EVERY cop in the UK would be a ma\ssive, massive drain on resources, wouldn’t it?
funny how the army/navy/airforce/CNC manage …
how do they do it?
Different roles? Less paperwork? Less ‘front line’ time?
Like I said above about live and blank..I used to make my own, so I can tell the difference.
Did the innocent civvy shot by PC dumbo in the quality street incident live, by the way?
Yes, he did.
As an ex-ARV Officer, I disagree. There are quite a few Bobbies I wouldn’t trust with a sharpened pencil, let alone a firearm.
Never happen anyway. Just look how long it’s taken for Taser to arrive and all the deployment nonsense that comes with it.
oh that old chestnut…
funny how we trust them to drive…
and how we trust them to have a baton that could kill you…
thats a red herring.
Yes that old chestnut. If you seriously think possession (and use) of cars and batons compare to a gun. I challenge you to a duel.
I will brandish a gun, you can choose between car and baton.
Which will it be?
Totally OT but I’d take the car
Cars kill more people, should we no ban them too [tongue in cheek]?
I live were the men in blue have the official weapon for deleting criminals with guns along with tasers et al and some even have pump guns for keeping heads down and I feel a lot safer here than I did on the last trip to the UK where a local escapee from the local swamp was running around waiting for official sanction to be apprehended.
Many here, only use their weapon for re-qualifying.
There always be those civilians and blue coats that will fail to be adequate with a weapons, thus they should not be sanctioned to carry or use a weapon.
England is no longer a simple society, it is now multi cultured with all the diverse versions of behavior and ideas of freedoms , usually freedom means now, to do “it my way, ” like they do on those crazy roundabouts when driving.
Yes, the Police should have weapons, there will always be some substandard personnel that is why you need good leaders [cough] and strong training , [ I was a marksman once with sten, bren, and lee enfield, ] will not now own a weapon as I would hesitate and too slow to put one in the sternum, or try and to remove pervs family jewels.
You, In UK only read/ hear of the deviations from the norm, the press like hyenas thrive on these exceptions , just like , [ we enjoy hearing of your fkups too [we are better? (grin)]
oh come on shijuro. if you really believe that all the warranted collegues in your office would be both physically fit enough and trustworthy enough to carry a fire arm you really are deluded.
That’s particularly ironic, because I’ve supervised a fair few cops who I didn’t trust with a blunt pencil (and who couldn’t think in a straight line) who’ve gone on to be accepted by a Firearms department who apparently claim to have standards ‘in excess’ of many other UK firearms departments.
Allowing members of the public to be armed – you have got to be joking!!!!! Can you imagine what could’ve happened had citizens in this incident had been armed? There would’ve been absolute chaos. The situation as it was today was bad enough without other members of the public starting to blat off at anyone they thought wielding a gun was the suspect. And how then would the armed police be able to ascertain who was who in such a situation. No, IG is right and the police should be routinely armed, or at the very least dozens more ARVs in each force area.
My condolences go out to all that have been involved in this terrible, terrible incident.
“Allowing members of the public to be armed – you have got to be joking!!!!!”
That’s it citizen, roll over, tickle tummy, big brother loves you…now look up my nations history.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita
I would prefer the public were not routinely armed. This is deliberate deaths, not including the thousands of horrific accidents. More guns = more deaths.Please show more respect to those killed horrifically today.
I used to live in south africa(No. 1 on that list) for 18 years, and I would have felt a LOT safer had there been a gun in the house(I would have even gotten training to use it, but my parents took the british approach and wouldn’t have any of it).
Here’s the catch, someone who would commit murder isn’t going to worry about the illegality of owning a firearm, and if they can’t get hold of one they’ll use another tool to do the job, so arming the citizenry isn’t really going to increase gun-related murder. sure, it’ll increase gun-related death, but not murder.
Andrew, Exactly my point. You lived in S. Africa for 18 years – and what happened – nothing, you’re still alive. All the firearm would’ve given you as you state is reassurance.
Your nation? Which one is that? Your link takes me to some nonsense about “Lord of the Ringpiece” and telling me your occupation is “Fucking Classified” so I’m none the wiser.
If you are American and, in the same sentence, moaning about UK gun laws and extolling the permissive gun ownership laws in the US then please, go home.
English.
Guns used to be freely available, but there was no problem.
Different society however.
As to my description, it’s called humour.
“Humour” on a thread about 12 people being horrifically shot…….
Officer and a Lady,
Is there any other way to be shot? …
“…or at the very least dozens more ARVs in each force area.”
In such vast areas to cover, what real difference would it have made?
Still better than having only one ARV chasing around all over the area. The possibility of the police then being able to set up armed VCPs may have prevented as many deaths – but then again horse stable bolt comes to mind
I’ve already posted my comments on this on the last blog entry.
For those that say no to arming, consider then what might have happened here if the gunman decided to carry on shooting instead of taking his own life. By the time armed officers stopped the threat who knows how many more innocents would be lying dead.
My own view is that if they didn’t arm us after 7/7 they never will.
I’m not so bothered as Paul about the Police State issue – from what we have heard from Gadget, Bloggs and others I suspect this might be a bit beyond the senior leadership people.
I’m not in favour of arming the public – while I am aware of the argument that this would mean criminals would be less likely to kick off as they would know that anyone might be armed and stop them, it would also mean that the ‘casual criminals’ definately would be armed, and would be much more likely to use their weapons, especially given the current joke of a penal system.
I wouldn’t mind arming the police, but would rather have it as equipment they have in their vehicles rather than something they carry on their person all the time – I have read a lot here and on other blogs that officers spend a surprising amount of their time wrestling with nutters on the floor, and having a handgun that can easily be grabbed doesn’t sound very good.
Then again, I am just a mop, so don’t really know what I am talking about. I would like to hear the thoughts of other police officers on this though
Good post, at least every police officer should have firearm training and access to firearms.
Hi KJR,
A good sensible post if I may say so.
I think the idea of having weapons in the car is a good one, though with all these things there are pros and cons to both.
An alternative argument might be that if officers were routinely armed and carried the weapon with them, a fight situation where they’re wrestling around with a crim would never get to that point in the first place.
Whilst in the Marines I went on detatchment with the US Marine Corps was posted at Camp Pendleton near San Diego for six months. Towards the end of our time there our hosts took us out for some beers (well ok a lot) and for some reason a bunch of the locals didn’t like our “homo” accents and decided to pick a fight with five Royal and six US Marines.
Being the well behaved sorts we were having none of it, but at the end of the night these chumps were outside waiting and had brought some friends along as well. One thing led to another and a fight ensued. It was eventually stopped by one lone, female, deputy sherrif who arrived, tried shouting a bit and gave up with that.
The next thing she fired one round off into the air and the fight was stopped. For several obvious reasons firing a gun in the air is a no no and not something I’d recommend our UK colleagues do, in overcrowded Britain, but it certainly did the trick. A fight with 20 plus involved was stopped. Immediately. By a lone sherrif.
Regards,
TaffyMedic.
Hi Taffy,
I did have a bit of a think about the “if officers were routinely armed, they wouldn’t need to get into fights” thing, but I’m not sure it would work out, as officers would need to either threaten to shoot, or actually shoot, the crim.
The ‘actually shoot’ is just not realistically going to happen due to the way society is these days. Even if police procedure said to use lethal force in these situations, the body count would be horrendous for just a single night (of course, subsequent nights would be a different story!)
I don’t think that the ‘threaten to shoot’ will work, partly because savvy crims would know that it is an empty threat due to H&S implications, and partly because I just don’t credit a lot of the people that the police tangle with as being able to weight up the situation and react rationally – they are more the tear-their-shirt-off-and-charge-in-screaming brigade.
I feel like a bit of a liberal guardian reading wimp, but I prefer the police to tackle crims the way they do now – they are wrestled to the ground under a scrum of reflective jackets, in a manner that is hopefully safe for both the officers and the criminal. From what I have been able to make out, actually arresting people is not really the problem – it is having a legal system in place so that you don’t have to arrest them the week after, and the week after that, and the week after that, and so on.
Hi KJR,
You make a good point re the less rational ripping off shirts and going in for the charge. It would require a step change in thinking from the UK public to accept that sometimes people have to take responsibility for their own actions and if a piss head decides he’s going to charge armed police, he’d better be expecting a bad outcome for himself.
Unfortunately with the likes of Chakribati bleeting like a lamb with a loud hailer everytime some violent, thieving scroat gets his just deserts, I think this step change will being a long time coming.
Personally, I am in favor of more armed cops. I don’t think it should be compulsory for every officer, but IMO it should certainly be an option for all officers with a military background. They already have much training in weapon handling etc etc so a 9mm on the hip isn’t going to turn them into raving loon. Leave the bigger stuff to the specialist ARVs as it is now but we need to arm more “regular” cops.
Regards,
TaffyMedic.
This, exactly, thankyou taffymedic. I couldn’t articulate this myself.I’d be crap with a gun, I’m a very poor shot. I am a good copper though, more along the lines of “pick everything and everyone back up and put them back to gether after” than “respond blues and twos” type – there is room for both. I’m not scared of getting stuck in in a handfight but I would probably be a danger to all present with a gun……doesn’t make me a bad person, or mean i should lose my job, I hope.
Taffymedic – mentions a fight involving 20+ of whom 11 were ‘Marines’? That implies a certain degree of over-confidence on the part of the ‘locals’, and I’m surprised it was still going on when the Deputy arrived?? (Chortle)
More seriously, I have no wish to trade insults with some of the posters here – but suppose I should confess that I was never armed during my Police Service in UK (1970s). I did, however, have have colleagues killed by gunmen. IIRC, in none of those cases would possession of a sidearm have made a difference – each incident involved the sudden close range use of a gun by a suspect who was NOT known to be armed.
Hi uncle john,
I think their confidence was somewhat improved by tequila.
Not forgetting of course that we were somewhat battered at this stage! I could barely see straight let alone fight, don’t mind admitting I got a bit of a pasting. Still the local sherrif was excellent. he was ex us airforce so he put us up for the night in the cells, doors open and he brought us a cheese burger meal for breakfast! Couldn’t ask for better hospitality. One of the lads keeps in touch with him to this day!
Rest in Peace, to all those lost today.
My sincere condolences to all those who have lost a loved one today.
Time to arm the police? That time came and went about 10 years ago I think. I don’t necessarily agree that ALL officers should be armed, as quite frankly I’ve met some response officers who I wouldn’t trust with an ASP but I certainly agree there should certainly more armed officers out there.
How about giving all officers who are ex-military the option of carrying? I realise the posters on this blog can’t be taken as a representative sample of the police but there do seem to be a number of ex-military types here. How would you guys feel about it?
I know I’d certainly feel more comfortable with a Bowning HP or Glock 17 on my side in some of the areas I tend to, if I were an officer.
Regards,
TaffyMedic
Good comments Taffy. I agree with you that this country’s police forces are very much the anomaly of the Eu in being the only routinely unarmed police in Europe and most of the rest of the world. That said, the perpetrator of today’s murders would have got a nasty shock from theinternal police if he’d tried to hide in the local (nuclear) power station.
Hi Hogday,
Thanks.
According to the beeb the CNC and Northumbria ARVs were called in by Cumbria when they realised things were a bit more FUBAR than they expected.
I agree too, he’d have had a hell of a shock if he’d tried anything with the CNC, they don’t dick about with silly guns like the MP5. They use proper guns.
(anyone know what weapon the officers are carrying in the pics on the CNC website? I don’t read guns ‘n ammo and it’s been 15 years since I was interested!)
It looks like a G36. You’re right, it’s not standard issue. I suspect it was taken out of the “Oh Shit, the terrorists are at the perimeter wire” store for photographic effect.
Ahh, thanks Howard. I can feel another wikipedia binge coming on.
According to wikipedia the CNC use a “Range of heavier weapons up to a 30mm auto cannon”.
What on earth do they use that for?
Many forces are moving away from the MP5 to G36 with its military 5.56mm round. My biggest concern as a Tac Adviser, was being told that a man had gone banzai armed with a .22 scoped rifle and a shotgun – ironically what happened yesterday. The .22 is the most underestimated round and would hit and stop me and my chums at a far greater range than our MP5 (on ARV’s) could have done. Tactical nightmare when you weigh up the current immediate response.
//According to wikipedia the CNC use a “Range of heavier weapons up to a 30mm auto cannon”. //
Most nuclear installations are on the coast, so I suspect that is for discouraging unauthorised boats?
Hi UJ,
Had I read the next sentence on wikipedia I would have learned that they’re deployed on the ships of Pacific Nuclear Transport Limited who transport nuclear fuel around the world for BNFL and whom the CNC protect.
Regards,
taffymedic
Any chance of getting some of those ships to sail up and down pirate territory for a couple of months?
Why the assumption that ex-military types would be better, better suited or more inclined. Police firearms instructors usually tell you that ex-military types need a lot of ‘un-training’ before you start the training because civil deployment of firearms is a totally different matter with differents ROEs.
I can view this problem fairly dispassionately because, as a personal protection officer in the Met, I was routinely armed.
As notaspecialist above says, there were several guys I wouldn’t want to be anywhere near had they been armed.
Having said that, I’ve always been in favour of an armed police force (note the use of the word ‘force’) and recruits should be trained from Day One at Training School. If they should have no wish to carry firearms, then they don’t become coppers.
In this particular instance though, I can’t see that an armed police force could have prevented any of these killings.
Was the gun ‘legal’? Did Hungerford and Dunblane have any effect on illegally held firearms. I think not.
Beofre all the present bollocks about shotgun certificates, I held a shotgun licence and as such owned a Mossberg pump action (7 rounds). When it was made illegal to possess such a weapon, I turned it in to a gunshop and lost a lot of money.
Did anyone check as to whether I’d sold it? No.
Could I still have it tucked away somewhere? You bet your life I could.
Assuming that your barrel length was over 24″ your shotgun was not moved to section 5 only to section 1 so you could have kept it if you wished.
I disagree about most bobbies carrying firearms, and I think most bobbies would agree with me. As long as we police by consent in this country I also do not think the public at large would accept the widespread arming of the police as long as there is an unarmed citizenry.
As someone has already pointed out, too many cops are not competent to tie their shoelaces together, let alone fire weapons at people. For every Hungerford or Dunblane or David Bieber there would be a Jean Charles de Menezes or a Harry Stanley.
I love being a cop and have had my share of violence and weapons being directed at me, but I’d rather go home safely at the end of the day back to my family then run in and try my luck with a madman wielding a shotgun and hope that I can pick him off with my Glock first.
“…..I’d rather go home safely at the end of the day back to my family then run in and try my luck with a madman wielding a shotgun and hope that I can pick him off with my Glock first”
All well and good until its your family being threatened by the armed madman and your unarmed cops are happily sat at an RVP.
Lets all leave it to someone else and avoid risk no matter what the cost.
I’d hazard a guess and say you’re not on a response team.
I am on a response team as it happens. One reason my family are highly unlikely to be threatened by an armed madman is because very few people have access to guns. Once cops start carrying guns, more scumbags will, and the risk to my family increases.
My family (and everyone else’s for that matter) are far more likely to be killed by a drink driver than shot.
I also don’t see how arming every cop would have prevented Hungerford, Dunblane or Cumbria today. American cops are armed to the teeth yet this does not seem to reduce the tendency of American nutters to kill large numbers of people with firearms.
It’s not a case of “leaving it to someone else”. There are plenty of firearms cops who have volunteered for the role and who have access to plenty of weapons who can deal with gun wielding offenders. That is not a situation I would ever volunteer to be in and I don’t think many would. I’ve yet to meet a member of the public I would willingly die for.
Most members of the public – even in my fairly posh (but crime-ridden) BOCU seem faintly alarmed by the fact we DON’T carry guns.
I had one MoP actually walk a full circuit around me (took a few mins
)scanning my belt because she didn’t believe I wasn’t Glocked-up.
Most of the public don’t give damn about Police States, armed publics or ‘policing by consent’. They do give a toss about being shot while Old Bill wait round the corner, cowering in their IRVs.
I agree with the “Most of the public don’t give damn about Police States” thing.
I have the strong impression that the people who have most to fear from armed police are ACPO and the other various leadership teams.
What’s all this bollocks about an unarmed citizenry? Apart from the obvious fact that an increasing number of them are armed, this isn’t the USA so please keep your NRA cliches where they belong thanks.
There’s no “armed citizenry” in Holland, Norway, Spain, or virtually any other European country (I know about Switzerland), but that doesn’t stop there police officers carrying a discrete 9mm on their belts, with full public approval. That’s part of the problem with the UK – the public image of an armed officer in this country is Kevlar, goggles, nomex, G36, Glock, Taser , baton launcher, stun grenades and the rest – we make it such a huge issue.
I’m with IG on this. 9mm standard issue firearm for all operational officers – the ARV’s can keep all the fancy kit.
Won’t happen in my service (or lifetime for that matter) though.
Having carried a firearm on and off duty throughout my service in RUC/PSNI, I felt, like most other officers, that it was a necessary evil. Training was rigorous, frequent and confidence- building.
If you could not handle the weapon confidently (and competently) after training, you probably lack what it takes to be a police officer anyway.
There is a very short-lived feeling of “Oh…look at me, I’ve got a gun!”, but that soon passes and you realise why you are armed.
No-one on duty wants to be involved in a shooting incident, but, when someone is shooting at you, it is a great help to be able to shoot back.
The guy in Cumbria will have known that it would take a very long time for armed police to arrive, be briefed, carry out Risk Assessment and deploy. If he knew that ALL police patrols were armed, his spree could well have been shortened considerably.
I am sure that there were a large number of Response officers who were totally frustrated at their lack of ability to respond. Police should NEVER feel helpless.
Whilst I can see the argument for arming officers I wouldn’t agree with officers being armed preventing an attack or having an impact on a person who is willing to shoot 13 people dead.
It may shortening his killing spree though and thats obviously a very good thing
knowing that he has the superior killing power does wonders to his mindless ego, If he had an inkling that his flying ammo would get ammo coming his way then the story different.
I’ll take a wild guess and state that if you took all the operational constables I’ve EVER supervised and put them through a standard firearms training course, of the type we’d need for routine armed deployment, all that it would confirm when the pass / fail results were read out, is that those who failed were those about whom I already had questions in terms of their personal confidence to engage confrontational situations anyway OR those who have insufficiently developed professional knowledge to be let out alone … those would pass would include those who engage the publ fights (without finding a PNC check on the way) and who actually know what they’re doing.
So this is not a debate about training, testing and re-testing: it’s a debate about selection for the police service full stop.
My condolences to the deceased families. Can’t agree more IG, we all can think of examples where armed police are miles from where they are required, and unarmed officers are sent or have to wait round the corner. Farce. That costs lives.
Arm the police, hell yes. Speaking as a member of the ambulance service who was been involved in a serious assault involving a male being stabed in the throat (it came through as a shooting). Despite this advice it took 50 mins for the armed guys to pitch up. Even then this was after a crew meber had been attacked, and we had recovered the male to the local A&E. The armed police then locked the hospital down, becasue of the risk of retaliation strikes.
The one problem with enabling all police officers to carry firearms, is the glock 9mm. Due to the way it is designed, you need large hands to use it correctly. This unfortuntaly puts the smaller officers at a disadvantage, females and those of an ethnic background as examples. Saying that its an easy fix, pick a better/different side arm, sig p226/8, usp to name a few. There is a reason most miltarys dont use the glock for a side arm. Yes I know I have just brought the issue of the police starting to look like a paramilitary force, however aghanistan is a proving ground for a lot of military equipment. So lets use this increased knowledge to the advantage of those poilce officers who carry firearms.
coops
There’s also the Glock 30 you could consider but I think that’s a .45 if memory serves correctly?
Taffy.
There have been several comments on this subject along the lines of “I know officers who couldn’t be trusted with [INSERT AMUSING ITEM/TOOL/KIT HERE]‘.
The armed forces train people who are quite often two planks short, etc etc.
In general, the police require a higher level of qualifications and mental ability.
If the current police training/recruitment is not fit for ascertaining people’s ability to carry or employ firearms (and we all know it probably isn’t) then that’s something that can be addressed in the same spirit that would be required to authorise routine arming in the first place.
Everyone on my response team wants Tazer, and most would carry a 9 milly too, if given the choice.
I think the issue would be the back office mongs and 20+ year sweats woud start whinging that they didn’t agree to carry a gun when they joined. If you look at the PSNI, as part of their application form they are asked if they are willing to carry a firearm on duty. If the answer is no, then the application doesn’t proceed.
There’s too many people in the job in cushy ‘support’ roles that will not carry a firearm for fear of then being removed from said cushy ‘support’ role. Instead of admitting that this is the reasoning behind their reluctance to arm, they piss and moan that they won’t be backed by the job if they have to use it. Well by that logic no one would ever volunteer to be an AFO. These ‘leave it to someone else’ merchants get right on my f*cking tits. What the majority fail to grasp is that with routine arming, you’re not arming to make tactical firearms officers out of every copper with a gun, instead you are arming to enable every copper to protect him or herself and the public until such time as they can summon assistance from tactical firearms.
i have to say, as it’s been used a couple of times now,the term mong really is offensive. I have a cousin with Downs and i don’t believe its acceptable to use that in conversation, thank you.OAAL.
Oh, and if I had to, I would carry a gun.Even though I’m a crap shot. Can’t practice to improveunless I get on fireamrs, which I won’t, cos I’m a bad shot. rock and hard place, see, but honest.
A civvy club could have helped with your accuracy, but there aren’t any anymore.
Starsky – I confess to being fairly naive in these matters so I may be wrong, but it seems to me that there is a huge difference between a soldier wielding a firearm in a combat situation following orders from an officer, and a cop wielding a firearm and independently making his or her own decisions about when it is appropriate to use it. The latter, it seems to me, requires more intelligence and much better judgement than the former.
Also, I wonder how adequate the police forces’ training of firearms officers is, and how adequate the training of all officers to carry firearms would be, if they were routinely armed.
Just another quick question: if the police were routinely armed, is it impossible that this fact might attract, shall we say, people who might not otherwise have found it appealing?
A friend of mine was a Royal Marine recruiting sergeant for 2 years and he lost count of the time he was asked “when do I get my gun?”.
not impossible
If some reports are to be believed a bobby was able to at least get near him but had to withdraw when rounds came his way. imagine how that officer is feeling now, knowing that if he had been carrying and trained he (may) have been in a position to drop the bastard and thus save other lives.
I guess part of my view comes of having served alongside the RUC, where every officer carried a side arm. There were no ego problems and most officers never drew it in all their service, but at crucial times they were armed when needed.
I carried an automatic weapon myself in NI and I could have ended an incident like today with some dash, down, crawl, observe, sights, fire.
Also, they have them in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Holland, Sweden, Norway, Greece, Hungary, Denmark etc with little or no problem. What do we know that they do not?
Nothing.
‘Also, they have them in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Holland, Sweden, Norway, Greece, Hungary, Denmark etc with little or no problem. What do we know that they do not?
Nothing.’
That’s the key – well meaning intellectual types are always extolling the virtues of European culture, they just never seem to subscribe to that particular bit of it. They make it work on the continent, and we’re constantly being told to emulate our brethren over there – so why not copy their routine arming?
In all correctness, Norwegian police is unarmed.
And ironically (in want of a better word) the last high profile (and first in quite a few years) police officer killed on duty was armed response. He was killed by a bank robber brandishing an even bigger gun (well a G-3 automatic).
This is also the country where police routinely work single crewed, with back-up being from 2-4 hours away. Unarmed.
Some districts have guns stored in their cars (in gun cabinets in the boot, that is purposefully not easily accessible) to be accessed after proper authorization (and requires special training).
As such, arming the police (more than the S&Ws and MP-5s already stored in vehicles) is still not an issue in Norway, and probably won’t be for quite some time. The most recent addition to equipment is pepper, tasers are still a long way of, if at all.
Nope, Norway’s are armed now too, as are New Zealand’s. UK is the last country in the world not to arm its police.
This is absolutely bollocks. I live in Norway now. Wikipedia will also collaborate my story. Norwegian police is still unarmed, but some cars have stored weapons (if the officers have sufficient training, and wants to).
Snap, I worked alongside the RUC during my Army service. If you’re arguing IG that the 1997 Firearms act should be repealed (it doesn’t apply to NI) then I am with you. Also in NI, individuals can possess a firearm for self-defence most ex RUC do. However if you’re saying (albeit for sensible reasons) that all cops should carry a 9mm but a law abiding mop cannot then that is too much power to the state. My arguments are libertarian in nature. I consider as someone with no criminal record that I should be allowed to keep a firearm in my house if I so choose.
Paul,
Whilst i can understand your arguements and reasoning, you are looking at it from your own personal point of view.
I would welcome being routinely armed, not looking at it from my own personal point of view, but from the point of view the public, who expect me to serve them and protect them.
Nothing felt more lame than attending an armed robbery in the past, and being told to withdraw whilst within close proximity of the offenders, as we might be at risk of harm and had to wait for the ARV to turn up.
When they had arrived the offenders had long gone.
Whilst this incident didnt cause loss of life, if the offenders had begun to open fire I would have wanted to try to be able to protect myself and the public.
I certainly dont think that that is a Police State.
I’m a bit puzzled by the couple of comments along the lines of “all police should be armed, and those who don’t want to be armed shouldn’t be coppers”
Can you guys explain this a bit more? I don’t see why a copper shouldn’t be able to choose not to be armed? Is this a “might not be able to help their colleagues” thing?
As a Mop, I don’t want to see our police being routinely armed. I have seen police with weapons, and as an ex serviceman, they horrified me.
What I really want to see, and I suspect so do most, is the courts to be the ‘weapon’ of the police. punishments that not only fit the crime, but ones that can actually exceed the crime.
None of this helps with the mad gunman scenario, or the Harold Shipman types. In today’s sad events, anyone in the vicinity seems to have been a target, and no matter how well armed the police could have been, would, ultimately lives have been saved, or more lost?
My thoughts are with the families of those lost today. RIP.
Re kjr
RUC officers were armed to protect themselves, their colleagues AND the Public. There were a few officers who chose not to carry their weapons ON duty for personal (usually religeous) reasons. Their choice…but I refused to go on the beat with one such officer (An Inspector) unless we were accompanied by at least one other armed officer.
This was agreed by Local Commander (It was in a dangerous area)
The weapon is not just for personal protection…It is there to protect your colleagues and the Public too.
I don’t know the details of today’s event, but for the vast majority of crime, if the police turn up at all then it’s well after the crime has been committed.
Was there an opportunity for this man today to be ‘engaged’ by a local policeman in the midst of his spree?
I suppose we’ll get shotguns banned now, too.
Whilst IG makes some really salient points around how the right officer, in the right place and time and with the right equipment and training can stop this sort of appalling incident before it gets “worse”, how do some of the other police on here feel about comments like
“If you’d had the bottle, you’d have been more than welcome to be a barn door facing me with a Model 64 S&W in my hand.”
?
If we’re talking about something specific like this: what appears – and obviously there’s still loads we don’t know about this – to be motiveless shooting of civilians, thankfully they’re still pretty rare. How many have we had since Hungerford? And, more to the point, if you’re talking about a man driving from location to location shooting randomly, haven’t the school massacres in the US shown that it’s pretty difficult to do anything about it? All these people need is their two or three-hour timeframe before the almost inevitable suicide. Maybe I’m being naive or I just don’t know the stories, but I can’t recall any instances in the States of a couple of police nipping these things in the bud (sorry for the cliche, but I can’t think of anything more respectful that fits the bill) and limiting the incident to an admittedly still awful two or three killings.
Shouldn’t the motivation for arming the police be to deal with the work they have to do every day, rather than fundamentally changing the way law enforcement operates in the UK on the basis of something that’s happened twice in 20 years?
“Shouldn’t the motivation for arming the police be to deal with the work they have to do every day, rather than fundamentally changing the way law enforcement operates in the UK on the basis of something that’s happened twice in 20 years?”
Well, yes. But they are politicians, and Something Must Be Done.
“Maybe I’m being naive or I just don’t know the stories, but I can’t recall any instances in the States of a couple of police nipping these things in the bud (sorry for the cliche, but I can’t think of anything more respectful that fits the bill) and limiting the incident to an admittedly still awful two or three killings.”
From what I’ve read, it seems that SWAT teams made some fundamental changes to the way they respond to mass-murders-in-progress since (and as a direct result of) the Columbine High School shootings.
I don’t know if the response to the Ft. Hood shootings was informed by Columbine, but I think (if I remember my details correctly) that it is a good example of a fast, armed, and effective police response. One other example that comes to mind is that of the Holocaust Museum shooting in DC. While the security guards weren’t police officers, they were armed, and they did stop a situation that could’ve been much bloodier. Those are just a couple examples that spring to mind.
Well, ok.
In the case of the Museum shootings, you had a man in the final stages of decrepitude opening fire in a building with a reasonably large number of armed guards in it in the first place.
In the Fort Hood incident, Major Hasdan was thankfully limited to just the 13 murders.
Not that I want to sound sarcastic, but… bang up job, SWAT.
Oh, and Major Hasdan also decided to go postal in the middle of a highly secure military complex surrounded by armed guards – and as pointed out, still managed to kill 13.
“a reasonably large number of armed guards….” Yes, that’s the point. If they hadn’t been armed he’d probably have been able to kill more people. I don’t think “decrepitude” would have been a big factor if the guards hadn’t been armed, unless they were able to get behind him. Without getting shot. And (OT) what if a similar situation were to occur that featured a 20 yo muscle-bound hulk? What if there were two? It’s certainly a conceivable situation.
Sorry if I wasn’t clear, but the police officers who stopped Hasan weren’t part of a SWAT team, unless I’m mistaken. They were part of the base’s civilian police force. Considering the lack of armed personnel (military or civilian) in the immediate area, and the fact that Ft. Hood is the largest US military base in the world, I think that the number of casualties is a lot lower than it could have been.
And Teofilio – that the base is secure is irrelevant since he worked there, and authorized people bringing firearms onto a base probably isn’t uncommon.
The man involved drove through my village to get to Boot where he finally finished himself. I am used to seeing armed officers around as we are local to Sellafield and the Civil Nuclear Constabulary patrol the area. I was still surprised to see an officer with an H&K slung round his neck standing at the village crossroads. I was routinely armed before I retired and given the choice would pick the gun every time.
The reason this guy was able to travel around the Cumbrian countryside killing so many people is simple… Every unarmed officer will have been told, in no uncertain terms, to hide out of the way until armed officers arrive. It’s a completley unrealistic method of Policing crime involving firearms.
Its about time every frontline officer recieved the appropriate training and equipment. I don’t mean training them to be AFO’s, I mean training in the use of a pistol (a Glock 19 please), for engaging dangerous individuals, or at least allowing armed containment pending the arrival of specialst officers.
First off, I’ve personally not got a problem with the police being armed with guns – if they think they need them to maintain law and order, then fair enough, but…
How often would this actually make a difference? The incident in Cumbria looks (from the reports) to have been all over before the police arrived. Plus shooting sprees aren’t all that common here – OK people get shot in various incidents fairly regularly, but again, they’re usually discovered after the fact.
Plus i think it’s quite civillised at the moment that there’s a inquiry every time someone is shot by the police – it means killing/seriously injuring people is taken seriously. If the police are out and about shooting people every other week, i’m guessing this would fade into a form filling exercise…
You’ve obviously never had any dealings with the IPPC or PSD then.
Their ranks would just swell to take on all the new opportunities.
Somethingh to think about.
This has not even reached the teletext in Mainland Europe!
Are these becoming so reegular that they are no longer “news”?
Talk all you want… The gov WONT arm all officers.
Full stop, end of.
For many reasons:
1. Money. It costs a lot to arm a big force like the met – even at 200 quid a pistol thats about 2.8 MILLION quid (with out training and ammo etc…).
2. Perception. Who wants to be the gov that says ‘its now too dangerous to walk the streets without armed police…?’ Like it or not George Dixon is the picture of policing the gov wants you to think of…
3. Image. The pressure groups will have a field day… given that the image of a Police officer in this country is now a racist, mindless, thick, puppet thug- can you imagine the outcry when a person is shot? Even dead on lawful killings end up in suspension and court.
4. SMT dont want it. They have kittens when people are hit with batons and CS sprayed… imagine the horror down the golf club when they see PC pull his firearm out?
and finally… most damning of all….
5. Risk management. Gov and SMT would rather be on telly saying how brave you were before you were killed trying to disarm a gun person – and how we should all be trying to emulate such courage etc… than trying to distance themselves from you shooting a poor father of 2 that had ‘issues’…
NO SPINE….
“Like it or not George Dixon is the picture of policing the gov wants you to think of…”
…and in the film ‘The Blue Lamp’ George Dixon was shot and killed, if that’s what they’ve got in mind.
Great, so instead of one armed maniac on the street we would have thousands.
Based on what factual knowledge????
or do you just like to ringfence everyone?
IMHO it would be far better if, subject to safeguards, we could ALL carry guns should we wish to.
“IMHO it would be far better if, subject to safeguards, we could ALL carry guns should we wish to.”
*sigh*
9 out of 10 people on the street couldn’t lay their hands on their mobile/car keys/wallet within a few seconds and under pressure. It’s a bit much to start thinking we’d all become Dead Eye Dick, isn’t it?
Would you want Mrs Miggins from the corner shop hauling out a giant pistol in extremis, with her cornea operation just a few days behind her and her arthritis playing her up..?
I am in two minds about arming cops. I believe that UK cops will not go gung-ho if allocated a firearm. We are different from American cops; whereby we will communicate first, unlike the American policy of shoot first, ask questions later.
However, by arming cops, there is the potential for the criminals to arm themselves with guns.
Force policy dictates that officers must wear their body armour when attending knife related incidents. Yet, when I attended an incident the other night during the hours of darkness, where two neighbours reported seeing what appeared to be a barrel of a rifle out of a living room window, the Armed Response unit stayed within close proximity, but the on duty inspector asked that we attend the address first to ascertain whether the alleged offender did have a gun. I then said to my colleague, “What’s quicker a bullet, or me chucking my asp at him?” He responded by saying “Typical, send the unarmed cops in first”.
Hence at that point, I wished that I had a gun. Thankfully, no gun was found, just a metal pipe near the living room window.
“However, by arming cops, there is the potential for the criminals to arm themselves with guns.”
Or Kevlar.
Didn’t one massive police operation in the US take longer than normal because the crims were wearing vests? Somewhere in LA, I think?
Not wishing to burst your bubble Jools…
But we (the cops) are the only ones that ARNT armed… the crims are…
I you are ok with that… fine.
Just dont expect too much help in a firearms incident.
Well, I wouldn’t.
Because I can never forget the inquests where police have sat outside a siege house claiming they couldn’t go in because of ‘h&s’ and people have died who might otherwise have lived…
I can’t see that that would necessarily be any different if cops were routinely armed, could you?
Search you tube for “North Hollywood shootout” if you’re interested.
Regards,
TaffyMedic
Ah! That’s the one!
Watching the footage of that again, that sort of ammunition and firearm would, outside of terrorist organisations, not be available to your average UK street crim, I hope?
7.68 spent rounds have been found on my borough. So yes they do have access and your glocks and mp5s won’t be much help
Really Serpico? If an armed robber was pointing a gun at you that he’d already used to shoot a store clerk for the money in the till, you’d want to have a chat with him during the time it takes him to draw a bead on you?
Circumstantial evidence in the form of US police blogs, newspaper accounts, and film clips has me pretty well convinced that the vast majority of US officers do try to “communicate first” and only shoot if they feel their lives or threatened or the suspect is in danger of getting away.
Of course, I might be biased.
Coyote,
I believe that its reasonable to say that if an individual had already shot a person, then pointed a gun at an officer, then that officer would have no choice in shooting. Maybe, I am being biased due to the stories that have come from actions of some officers over in America i.e. friendly fire.
“We are different from American cops; whereby we will communicate first, unlike the American policy of shoot first, ask questions later.”
Gee I’m been a cop in a large American city and haven’t shot anyone yet. I have asked a lot of questions though. Drop the anti-American crap. You guys need to get firearms but you need to change your whole mindset first. I’ve watched UK police vids online and it looks you receive zero hand to hand training as well. Strapping guns on you guys won’t change your passive attitude.
Johnny Law,
I am not being anti-American. I am simply stating that there is some truth about shooting first, asking questions later. How many times have you heard about innocent people being killed due to the actions of some imbecile behind the trigger. I am sure that you have heard the term Friendly fire.
By the way, who is Gee?
Friendly fire incidents aren’t very common. It’s also pretty uncommon for truly innocent people to be killed by police. At least, that’s what I gather from the high quantity of American news that I read and listen to. I’ve also read or seen footage of a number of situations where American cops could’ve have reasonably used firearms but didn’t, and still managed to bring in the suspect alive. I guess they didn’t get the “shoot first” memo.
Sometimes cops – even well-trained and experienced ones – make mistakes. They’re only human. And there are a few cops who are in LE for the wrong reasons, and shouldn’t have a gun or a badge. That said, I feel comfortable that the screening given to incoming officers, the training those officers receive throughout their careers, and the seriousness with which most of them take their jobs make them more of an asset than a liability to society, and make them likely to choose the best course of action when situations that include the possibility of having to use deadly force arise.
Good point Coyote. It is not the gun that causes the problems, just the individual that pulls the trigger.
All the best.
Close Serpico – it’s criminals cause problems. I’m glad that my local police have the tools to deal with almost any situation at their fingertips. Accidents happen, but being unprepared is just foolishness.
If a normal, law-abiding (no, really! We do exist!) MOP may have an opinion – I’ve lived in a couple of countries where police are routinely armed and I wasn’t comfortable with it. I would have been far less likely to approach the police for help – I can’t rationalise it, but I didn’t like it at all. I think firearms training for officers is probably a good idea, but routine arming? No thanks.
The fact that this awful event has made such a huge impact shows how rare these types of incident are. I like living in a country where the police aren’t routinely armed. I am from a police family, and I have lived in some very rough areas, and I have been a victim of crime too. Still prefer a routinely unarmed police force. Sorry.
Don’t be sorry Hannah. I recently conducted a straw poll of 100 colleagues (all different ranks and roles inc response, CID and senior management), and only 6 of them said we should all be routinely armed. The others varied between it being a choice for the officer and a definite no.
I remember the same response prior to CS.
To be fair though, CS is properly horrible shit. I hate the stuff and on a team averaging twenty of us over five years we probably used it less than a dozen times collectively. Batons were used a he’ll of a lit more even in situations where a taser and occasionally a firearm would have been perfectly justifiable.
“I’m amazed at the amount of bollocks spoken here”.
That’s an insult. I carried a weapon on the streets in Belfast when you were probably in school. Cheeky sod.
Well, ok, but we’re not comparing the current state of British streets with those of Northern Ireland during the 80s, are we?
no.
In that case, could you explain your point?
I AM armed, on duty.
I have, since the Falklands war, shot NOBODY.
People come up to me in the streets of Kiel and Bremerhaven and want photos taken. We smile at them, they smile back. Still not shot one. But then none come from Brazil.
“Still not shot one. “
Been tempted, though..?
must. resist. urge. to. mention. ze. war….
lirish; I’m not sure where you work, but in six years I’ve had a firearm (live semi-auto with 1 in the chamber) waved in my direction (suitably disarmed by my opo and I), been at a pub fight where shots were discharged, captured two teenage armed robers who dumped their gun over a garden wall as we pulled up (they’d pulled the trigger whilst pointing it at the newsagent- it failed to dishcarge) as well as countless gang related incidents.
I suspect the true reason so few people are shot by the Police here is because it takes ARV’s so long to actually get to the scene that offenders are home, showered, packed and on the plane to a non-extradition treaty country.
We keep talking about guns, but how many jobs involving knives, axes, the chav’s favourite ornament (aka Samuari Swords) have we all been to? A knife is lethal, it doesn’t run out of amunition or misfire.
irrish said ‘And ffs those who’ve said things along the lines of ‘ I’d be happy to carry a 9 milly’ have a word with yourself. It’s a gun or a firearm, it’s made and designed to kil people, there’s nothing glamorous about it and peple who make weak arguements to justify their desire just to carry a gun to make themselves feel stronger are exactly the sort of people who shouldn’t have them’
but you feel superior enough to carry? why did you volunteer?
‘usual low standards of British policing knee jerkism’
nice…
but mr superior firearms afo knows better eh?
you criticise others for talking crap – and spout a bag load yourself.
The answer to the question ‘ How many years would it take for what remains of the publics support for us to disappear altogether?’
err.. they dont support us now… no loss…
the answer to the question ‘don’t they have the right not to carry if they so wish?’
err… no they dont. this is a service that is supposed to be disciplined? if you dont want to follow orders – bugger off and be a plumber.
I pose another question since you mention Hungerford… How many people may have been with their loved ones now – if those to coppers that confronted Ryan had shot him dead?
Its simple really.
You don’t take a stick to a gun fight.
I bet you feel a little bit more able to protect yourself and others carrying that pistol than with a stick eh?
The ARV system JUST DOESN’T WORK …
Actually, I take that back… it does what it was ment to do…Keep UNARMED officers out of danger until the gun man has left the scene.
Thats what the RVP and wait for the ARV is for…
err.. they dont support us now… no loss…
AGREED
As I say, we are not Police in this country…. just Law and Oder administrators…
We have no real bite.
I dispair for the people that lost loved ones today, but I know that if I was face to face with that gunman- I would be joining the dead people in the morgue.
NO OTHER FORCE IN THE WORLD WOULD PUT UP WITH IT.
I have had a loaded 9mm Walter PPK in my face and a number of knives etc…
It is only by LUCK I lived to tell the tale…
As an ex-matelot we were often called the most dangerous thing with a gun on the odd occasions when we were required to handle a weapon (no jokes please!)
Regarding today of course every sympathy with the friends/relatives of the murdered. I am just waiting for the first Daily Mail article blaming the police for not stopping him because:
1. The offender was released 25 years ago for shoplifting.
2. An officer armed with cs spray didn’t attack the offender because they were too scared, or because regulations forbade them from doing so.
3. The police didnt follow his car and attempt to stop it sooner because it might infringe on his human rights.
4. Due to current regulations, PCSOs were the only ones on the streets at the time.
Well I think you get my drift. It has just got to happen at some stage. TV News will start a story with ‘There were questions today about police response to……….’
Lirish – the only bollocks I’ve read on here is what you’ve posted. The ‘no one should carry a firearm other than ARV’ is typical of the arrogance and elitism I’ve heard spouted by arv crews. My point of reference is ex-military and I would be more than capabe, like the vast majority of my colleagues, of carrying a firearm on day to day response work. Yes it’d change the way we police (not a bad thing) and yes it’d make for safer streets.
Several points :
As a Police Authority member who has suffered through dozens of meetings on Tasers – should we or not? How many? What training? Used when? Where? Routine carry or in cars? Compulsory or elective? etc and still not reached a decision (we only have a stock of them ‘cos they were provided, free, by the NPIA) – I doubt the authority will ever agree an approach.
The demo put on by a neighbouring force was a good idea. Save that the instructor missed his very large target, wasted 26 quid for the taser and apologised rather poorly.
Most heartening is that not every contributor to this blog is in favour and not all are against. Personally, I find the infrequency of this kind of incident more heartening than a clamour to respond. The handgun laws post Hungerford/Dunblane didn’t do anything to reduce armed criminality.
Incidentally, I have carried a gun – issued to me when working in Baghdad. No training of any kind at all. Did I feel safer as a result? No. Is my aim good enough to hit an incoming mortar – er, no. Handed it back PDQ. But I have been shot at in the Republic of Georgia (police armed, but have no ammunition) and Lebanon (everyone armed, usually with better weaponry than the cops). I am old enough to have had a Lee Enfield 303 issued to me when in the school cadets and been allowed to take it home on a London bus on a Friday night to clean it for return (also on the bus) on Monday morning. Don’t see that too often in Central London these days. And I was a good shot in those days!
As to the idea of giving ex-military cops guns routinely, this would enable their egos to grow ever bigger. Many ex military cops in my experience believe themselves to be somehow superior to civvy-cops. We try to check the ego thing at interview as best we can and as a consequence, it is no longer automatic for ex-military types to get in.
Train all cops – fine. But how often must they re-train to have any practical value and be safe with the gun?
80 percent of our population lives in 20 percent of the space. Outside rural areas the ability to have a clear shot without many innocents being in the way is questionable. The “one shot in the air” is potentially lethal in a crowded space anyway (what goes up must come down – many academic papers on this aspect of middle-eastern celebration).
And just for the record, who wants to be the first non-specialist cop to fire?
And just for the record, who wants to be the first non-specialist cop to fire?
I’d do it, no issue. Yellow card? Down the range they go.
Notaspecialist June 2, 2010 at 5:04 pm – spot on. The standards are just not there in recruits now and haven’t been for the better part of a decade.
The problem also goes deeper in that we haven’t had a universally armed force in living memory, and no serving officer (with the exception of ARV’s and certain specialist units) carry firearms on a daily basis as a matter of course.
Our whole training, recruitment, standards and tactics are not geared around individual officers outside of specialist units being routinely armed; it would be the mother of all retraining and reorganisations. That said, I agree with IG that something has to change to redress the balance, perhaps not routine arming but in any case where the officer meets the requisite standards? Although I suppose the reality would be that officers who didn’t want to carry would just ‘fail’ the test?
Also as i’m sure notaspecialist can attest (i assume the procedures are the same nationally?) to there’s some serious grilling and paperwork given for even clearing the holster, let the inquisition given for putting rounds on target.
Shijuro. You’re exactly right re. administrators; as a collective entity the police have been thoroughly operationally castrated.
“But I have been shot at in the Republic of Georgia (police armed, but have no ammunition)…”
??
What’s the point of that?!
To clarify the little ARV officers vs Non-ARV officers spat:
It’s not that hard to train someone to use a firearm accurately. They can and have trained chimps to do it in the past (look up the russians in the 60′s)!
The difficult bit is shaping the decision making and mindset of the individual using said firearm to ensure that they use it in the right circumstances. Thats the single biggest reason people don’t pass the ARV selection after the limited places; psychological profile didnt fit.
Also, I believe our force still operates a ‘face fits’ policy.
Agreed, the Head AFO or FFO has the final say and there is a definite mould. One might almost say a certain type of individual (and we’re back to the psych profiling again!)
Sorry, I don’t back routinely arming anyone. I’m old enough to remember numerous Met balls ups – having an offensive table leg while being a Scottish cancer sufferer, anyone? to say nothing of being an illegal Brazilian immigrant while looking vaguely Muslim to the chronically hard of thinking – to say, no, nothing should be routine.
‘Sfunny, I’ve been having an argument with my adult daughter tonight. She doesn’t think there’s any justification, ever, for anyone having guns. I was taught to shoot when I was six, and despite the fact that I’m a pacifist and a vegetarian, I’d never, for instance, stop a farmer who needed to keep down vermin having a gun.
But no offence, any policeman who wants to be armed shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near a weapon.
I can’t remember the name of the bloke who was shot for the offence of being in the back of a car while vaguely resembling an IRA suspect, but I’m sure he’d agree with me
“and despite the fact that I’m a pacifist and a vegetarian”
Who’da thunk it?
ps Stephen Waldorf – in the front of the car and nothing to do with the IRA.
Specialist firearms officers shot all of the above.
Case proved. Thank you.
IG says – ‘specialist firearms officers’ shot Stephen Waldorf. My understanding (from colleagues in the Met at the time) is that the Wikipedia account is substantially correct? Even IF SWs presence in the car was a ‘ruse’ to facilitate the escape of Martin, their actions were considered sufficiently deficient to cost £150,000 (1980s – half a million now?) in compensation – and to trigger considerable changes to training, selection and RoE for firearms officers.
The utility of armed ‘vehicle check points’ – has interested me for some time. Specifically – since 22 February 1972. With a couple of other Officers I was sent to man one of several unarmed VCP and ‘stop-search’ in case those who had planted a car-bomb in a barracks in Aldershot were trying to leave the area. We consoled ourselves that – even if they WERE in the several miles of traffic jams – seeing the Police activity might cause them to turn around &/or take the bus.
In the incidents referred to by Linda, an individual ‘suspect’ had been located the scene was (more or less!) under control, and Police fired first (naturally – since the ‘suspects’ were not, in fact, armed).
In the ‘Cumbria’ case, I see no good reason to suppose that, once Bird had left the scene of his first killings, his route (40+ miles) was predictable enough to set up road blocks ahead AND ensure that – were he trapped in a queue – any number of armed personnel could take him out before he continued to shoot at random?
BTW – being the (unarmed) Station Officer in a nick with armed personnel inside your cell-block – in case someone wants to ‘spring’ prisoners – is good training for the sphincters. (Non-Chortle)
Hungerford 16 dead, Dunblane 17 dead, Cumbria 12 dead. Total 45 killed in 23 years, or 2 per year. Does anyone think that if the police all carried firearms there would be less than 2 fatal mistakes per year?
I doubt it. These things happen every so often, and knee jerk reactions will only result in more deaths.
I concur with those who have pointed out if the police all had guns you would get every pyscho gun nut applying to join. And some would make it in. There’s enough control freaks in the police already without giving them guns to play with as well.
‘There’s enough control freaks in the police already without giving them guns to play with as well.’
Comments like that are just pathetic and really p*ss me off.
Yes there are some like it as in any profession. I would love to know what you do Jim as you are so obviously perfect.
Oh and there has been a lot more than these well publicised firearms incidents resulting in death since Hungerford so your maths of 2 killed per year, is a little short!
First and most importantly, my condolences to the victims families.
Posting from the states… I won’t (this time) try to talk England into being America, but I do want to say a few things for the record.
First, even in the states with relatively high carry rates, there simply has not been any increase in shoot-outs or rage incidents from concealed carriers. And the flip side of that coin is that concealed carriers don’t get involved in stopping crime as much as people might guess. Often they do, and I applaud that, but they have a luxury that police don’t of not having to get involved if they don’t know for sure what’s going on. And the advice and education for concealed carriers emphasizes that. There was a shooting in a Washington state mall a few years back, witnessed by a law-abiding man with a gun, who was far enough away he didn’t think he had a safe shot and chose to just get his family out of there. So, the commenter who thinks armed civilians might not have done anything in this case is odds-on to be right, but there is some chance they would have, and the cost of giving them that chance is negligible.
Second, police response to active shooters as against hostage situations in the US, especially following the Columbine massacre, has been shifting from a “lock-down, secure the perimeter and call in a SWAT team” strategy to immediate individual or small team response by the first police on the scene. Now, yes, that is asking a lot of those officers. But it is the only strategy with a chance of stopping a determined rampaging murderer before he just gets tired or does everything he wanted to do. Any strategy except immediate response inherently admits a level of acceptable losses among victims. A force structure and a policy of waiting for off-site special teams to arrive accepts those losses at the outset. To the self-identified bobby above who wants to come home at the end of his shift, well, fine, and I would to, but he is also admitting he would be no use whatsoever to victims of the most serious crimes in his area.
Lastly, one of the open secrets of police training with firearms here is they aren’t all as competent marksmen as the public might guess. The dividing line seems to be that those officers who spend their own time on practice get very good, but those who do only the required minimum of department training are usually out-shot by civilian hobbyists. I imagine the same thing would happen in England. So I suggest some sort of voluntary or two-tier system to carrying guns at first. (Unless a very demanding training regimen were adopted, the likelihood of which I am not qualified to guess at.)
That’s some of the most well made and intelligent points I’ve seen on this post.
Tragic though it is that a policy needs to be in place for a ‘bloke goes nuts with some guns’ scenario, the yanks have more experience of it than us and seem to be shifting thier response accordingly.
We simply could not stop a nutter like that even if we were reasonably close to him. I’m not advocating small arms for all police accross the board but in this instance it seems it would have made a difference.
I don’t think it will happen here – arming I mean. I have no great desires one way or the other, but I know I would struggle for the rest of my life if I had the opportunity to stop a man like that but was unable to do so through lack of offensive capability.
Top comments here Dave R. Your final sentences were actually part of common police practice in London in the period immediately after WW2 whereby an officer `of suitable experience` could draw a firearm from the station armoury and carry it on duty. I believe this will be similar to what, ultimately, will happen in the UK. I say, `ultimately`but perhaps that should read `inevitably`.
Get over yourselves. Innocent people have been murdered today and you’re arguing on a blog. This is what this blog and many others are about. The people who actually get out there and try and make a difference. It has not worked. Please think about what the people who have had a police officer turn up at their door in the last few hours to tell them a member of their family has been shot dead. They will be relying on the officers actually dealing with this case. Remember those of us who spend our time writing on blogs while the world turns mean nothing. Really.
Get over yourself mate – this is what people do when something like this happens – they talk about it. If you don’t want to be involved, naff off.
People are just frustrated, and considering most of the people on here are the same people going out each night – they have a right to vent that frustration.
Let me throw this real scenario into the mix:
Early last Saturday morning in east London, local un-armed IRVs respond promptly to call reporting a ‘fight’ in the street. They turn up, one guy has been shot dead and two are critically injured.
What would of happened had the gun man still been on scene?
In the recent past, I have responded to an armed robbery at a newsagents. Little did I know I was racing towards an armed robbery, as there was no mention of a gun in the call to police. Had I arrived a few minutes earlier I could have been mincemeat. Unfortunately Sharon Beshenivsky wasn’t quite so lucky.
Whilst I would be prepared to carry a gun on duty and support many of the comments made above, if the police were seriously to consider routine arming, the question of recruitment standards needs to be addressed. For me it is the elephant in the room in this whole debate. I have to concur with some remarks already made – there simply are some Pc’s I would not trust with a pen. If you look at the competance and ability of those with maybe 8-10+ years in the job with some of the people that are let in today, I cannot help but come to the conclusion that there is a gradual dumbing down of standards (of course, I am not saying it is everyone, there are many able people). BUT the physical tests for recuritment is pathetic and some people are incapable of performing basic tasks – and of course we have the ‘pc’ competancy framework and other Nu Labour non-sense to thank for that. There will be hundreds, maybe more, who won’t meet the necessary firmarms standards – what do you do with these people ???
For all the police vs. army training comments, don’t forget that if the police officer does his job then he should be trying to resolve the situation using only the threat of firing, a soldier doing his job should be shooting at and preferably killing the enemy. In this case I’m afraid whether you can fire and hit the target (barn door or not) is much less important than whether you can make the correct decision on whether to fire at all.
There are plenty of situations in which officers are seriously under threat, but from which everybody walks away, if armed will that remain true? We have enough bloody trouble with RoE in conflict zones and soldiers aren’t generally then subjected to trial by British media. if you’re going to be armed you need to be as confident as you can be on use, the worst possible result is escalating a situation by drawing a firearm and then dithering over whether or not you can use it.
Without unconditional support from the top brass I don’t see how anyone can have that confidence and judging from what we’ve seen so far they’ll hang you out to dry as soon as the media looks nasty.
Lets get over this “I wouldn’t trust certain PC’s with a gun” thing.
They could easily bash someone’s skull in and kill them with an ASP any day of the week and they don’t.
We had the same argument at Ruralshire with TASER; we hardly shoot anyone with it, and no one illegally yet.
I found in H M Forces that peer group pressure to behave sensibly and professionally with a firearm worked wonders, and it could for us too.
Well said boss.
Ditto.
The loss of your job/time in prison would probably help with that too!
IG by extension you don’t agree with the testing / profiling applied to ARV’s and other specialist units then?
Well, knowing a number of the Ruralshire ARV lads as I do, having seen them at VERY close quarters when they were on my team before they joined the ARV’s, do I agree with the testing/profiling? Errrr…. no.
European forces seem to manage it somehow.
Um.
It’s quite hard to accidentally beat someone to death with an ASP, though, isn’t it?
Whereas shooting-related accidents are… if not common, at least rather more common.
IG, I tend to respect your views and your common sense, but in this instance you seem to be using a .50 calibre handgun to crack a hazelnut.
Peer-group pressure? I totally agree – the rest of the squaddies present in XXXtown centre were quite annoyed that their drunken mate was firing a pistol in the air. They were making comments along the lines of ‘Don’t be a silly boy.”
Neither they, nor I, knew it was loaded with blanks until after I’d grabbed it (He was VERY drunk, hadn’t noticed me, and the gun was pointing straight up – but that was long ago, & I probably wouldn’t do it again)
Let’s get over this….it’s not trusting the officer with the gun. The training is excellent, the officers ideal. In the Met, where I used to serve, I have personal knowledge of armed officers who have shot and killed people…how do SMT / ACPO react? Say no more. The officer who pulls the trigger is treated as a murderer. Until proven innocent. Again and again and again. The main point of this blog is the innocents who have been murdered today. If an officer had turned up and shot this man, it would have turned into a media circus. Arming the police will never happen.
Yes I was present at the pub when the shot was fired. Three people were stabbed too. Instead of doing something constructive, we had to withdraw and wait for 15 minutes (I kid you not) whilst the ARV’s travelled across the force. By which time our offender was off into the night. As for the teenage robbers, they matched the description, what was I to do? Drive by and pass on the information to the boys in their armoured cars. By the time they arrived they’d be home on their x-boxes smoking the fags they nicked. Instead they were stopped, arrested, firearm and stolen property recovered, remanded and for a short time at least the public were protected.
I’m not saying we would replace ARV’s or Firearms Units, I’m saying every officer should be able to counter every threat they face. I’ve no doubt most of us would go through our service without every removing our pistol from its holster.
JuliaM commented:
“But I have been shot at in the Republic of Georgia (police armed, but have no ammunition)…”
??
What’s the point of that?!
What indeed. I was never brave enough to ask.
I suspect that the radical idea of arming front line officers would call for radical thinking in carrying of firearms:
Our ARV crews ALWAYS carry their sidearms, whether they be stopping cars or eating their refs. Frontline officers would be no different. It’d become another part of our belt kit… mostly forgotten.
If someone didn’t want to carry a firearm, I’m sure they’d fit in on a neighbourhood team, or you’d have a couple you could crew together. Equally, last time I checked, this was a disciplined, rank structured organisation where orders are given and followed. The Home Office says to ACPO we carry, the Chiefs pass the message onto us as an Order. Simples.
You obviously don’t work the city anymore, or at least, not somewhere like the swamp, because most of my patch the Police are as popular as peadophiles.
Good idea re the neighbourhood team but take it one step further; for the don’t carry/won’t carry lame and lazy squad, put them in a PCSO uniform. Hey presto, a ready-made pool of PCSO candidates that don’t require any training and will remain non-confrontational.
Hello
My condolences to the family.I would like you all to note that if I’d been able to,I’d have shot him.
Maybe they wouldn’t have wanted you to compound the tragedy by shooting him?
I have read a good chunk of the comments.
Firstly we must expect knee jerk changes in legislation. Shotgun licences and those still lucky enough to have a s1 ticket will see some issues soon.
On the subject of ARV response times, it is clear that more armed officers are needed. I agree with those that say we cannot arm all officers, many would be dangerous! More armed officers available more quickly and with less of the standing around flapping about health & safety will make things a bit safer.
Add to that a mandatory life sentence for ANY firearms enabled offence and we might get somewhere…
“More armed officers available more quickly and with less of the standing around flapping about health & safety will make things a bit safer. Add to that a mandatory life sentence for ANY firearms enabled offence.”
Uh huh and while you’re at it how about wishing for world peace.
Be easier to just routinely arm.
Sorry Paul & Lirish, I have to disagree with you here. This is exactly what happens when you have an unarmed constabulary and an unarmed civilian population. Someone goes on a shooting spree for almost four hours, kills 12 people and wounds 25 others, then tops himself. NOT ONE person could stop him. It’s happened in the UK before. Hungerford (16 people shot dead, including an unarmed copper), Dunblane (16 children shot dead, including a teacher), and now this? Since 1996, when all handguns were banned in the UK, gun crime has increased by 92%.
I emigrated from the UK to Canada, where all police officers routinely carry sidearms, and this country is far from becoming a “police state” as you have suggested might happen in the UK. What makes a country a “police state” is when a government strips away the right of its citizens to defend themselves, their homes and their families from dangerous criminals, then puts into place laws that are so petty and oppressive, people can be arrested, detained and charged for almost trivial reasons.
Back to Cumbria. We have a largely unarmed constabulary in the UK (apart from a few specialist units), and a citizenry that cannot legally own handguns, never mind carry them around. All it would have taken was one well aimed shot from an armed police officer, or even a private citizen who was trained and armed, to stop Derrick Bird. As it happens, he drove around, covering a distance of 35 miles, then shot dead 12 innocent people and wounded 25 others. Nobody had a gun. Nobody could stop him. And he still had enough time to abandon his car, walk into a secluded area and shot himself.
Liriash, you ask why citizens should own guns. How about – self defence? Is that good enough? Or don’t you trust anybody at all? Here in Canada, we have over seven million gun owners. None of them killed anybody yesterday, or even last year.
Speaking for myself, I own a Beretta Storm 9mm semi-automatic handgun. I hope to add a Glock and a Browning 9mm hi-power to my collection. I am a former member of the British Army, own a security service here in Calgary and also work as a licenced private investigator. I can own as many guns as I like and keep them at home in a gun safe. A law abiding, armed citizenry deters violent crime. In the UK the criminals get their guns on the black market and terrorize whole neighbourhoods in our biggest cities while the police walk around unarmed and law abiding citizens cower behind locked doors, barred windows and alarm systems, too afraid to go outdoors after dark. Do think that the armed gangs in London, Manchester or Liverpool care about the rule of law? And I doubt very much that they are afraid of unarmed coppers walking the beat.
How long do you think it would take for some violent thug to kick in my front door and make it into my bedroom? Faster than I could dial ’999,’ or ’911′ on this side of the pond. Just go to YouTube and listen to the number of 911 calls made by terrified women as burglars, stalkers and drugged up criminals break into their homes. Only one thing was able to stop them – a bullet. That is exactly what will happen to anyone who breaks into my home with the express intend of doing harm to my family – they will be staring down the barrel of a handgun (which has a marvelously pacifying effect on criminals).
Unfortunately, the citizens of the UK have no such luxury. Whenever the Derrick Bird’s of the country go on the rampage, law abiding citizens only have one xhoice. get oyut of the way or die. And don’t expect the police to save you – they don’t have any guns either.
Interesting choice of uniform for your security guards Bill. You don’t get your guards to call you ‘Chief Constable’ by any chance?
Look closely at the two pictures of policem… uhhh… ‘security guards’ at the top right and top left of the page, paying attention to height differences and body proportions (ie relative arm length etc).
The guy on the right in the right-hand picture has clearly been made to stand on a box so they look the same height.
That’s… that’s… size-ist!
Good post Bill, for the record if you read my comments and look at my blog. You will see we are in fact in agreement on this issue.
Isn’t this all classic risk theory: probability very very low – impact, very, very high.
officer and a lady, i agree with you. Our thoughts and prayers should be with the victims and their families of this terrible event.
Bill
‘And ffs those who’ve said things along the lines of ‘ I’d be happy to carry a 9 milly’ have a word with yourself. ‘
I did – and in reply I said “I called it a 9 milly 13 years ago when I first learnt to fire one in HM’s armed forces, so I’ll call it a 9 milly now. Having a stupid name for it does not mean I’m unaware of its purpose”.
In short – stop being such a patronising arse, we’re all entitled to our opinions, and yours are no more valid (possibly even less so) because you get to swan about with a firearm now.
Been armed since I joined in the early 80′s here in N’Iron .
It’s a no issue matter when you have/get the proper training .
You don’t even realise you are carrying it as it is a basic part of your uniform .
but I do find it a bit stupid those guys who strut about for the TV/cameras with their I’ve got a big cock gun ego. They just look like proper dicks especially well after the event .
Having lived in Northern Ireland for nearly 60 years I have to say I agree with your stance Gadget.
Police should be armed. I’m not a Loyalist, a Catholic in fact. I’ve never felt in all my interactions with the RUC/PSNI that their being armed ever made them less of a force for good.
Are there not two separate issues?
(i) You will never prevent a maniac from killing people: he could drive his car into a queue of people, attack with a knife or hammer (21 dead and 90 injured in China this year) or administer lethal drugs. Police cannot prevent such an event, be they armed or not.
(ii) Whether the police should be routinely armed has little bearing on today’s appalling events. What makes me uneasy about their carrying guns is the thought of a policeman being forced to act as society’s executioner.
Much as I find the idea of capital punishment distasteful, it is judges who should be responsible for pronouncing a death sentence, and that should be carried out by a public official: the hangman. The responsibility for taking a life should not be foisted onto the ordinary police officer so that a squeamish judiciary can sleep more easily.
“The police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.”
I’m a MOP as you are, but your task is to prevent and protect , you can only do that if you are there when it happens and if you have the correct tool for the job .
I would like to see every officer carrying a Taser to start with and gradually introducing ballistic weapons over a period of time with the appropriate training .
As a MOP it is my duty to support my community and I would have no problem with MOPs being armed , if they are licensed, regulated, have training and only allowed low caliber weapons that can be identified if fired . Possibilly special / deputised constables .
You guys just cant be everywhere at once, we need new ideas for policing.
I work on the fringes of a large urban force with lots of ARV’s. However, my patch has seen a growing number of armed robberies over the last few years. We are targeted precisely because the ARV’s are deployed to the city centre and the offenders know that they will have about an hour to make their escape if they brandish a firearm. I suspect that today’s events in Cumbria could have been either avoided or brought to a speedier conclusion if ARV’s / armed officers were closer to hand (I believe that the ARV’s work from ****** – ** mins drive away).
The public should know that Police officers cannot protect them in cases such as this – we will try to ‘detect’ the crime afterwards. Until this ridiculous policy of centralising specialist units ends – we will see more of these incidents and more innocents will be killed or injured.
Each Police Station should have an armoury and trained officers who can self-issue and deploy to incidents such as this.
(Armed Response location and times edited – sorry! IG)
“Each Police Station should have an armoury and trained officers who can self-issue and deploy to incidents such as this.”
Excellent idea.
Not too long ago there used to be a safe at my nick with 6 Glocks and some Model 10′s for the old sweats along with some holsters and ammunition sadly they all got taken away.
Some still do in the UK. A borough a couple along from mine has an armoury and divisional shots.
When only the crims and the crazies have guns, the public are merely targets, as was proved today. Arming the citizenry is now the only logical course of action now that increased gun control has been shown to be an abject failure.
PCSO’s aren’t coppers, most of them seem to want to be ‘proper coppers’ and are using PCSO-ism to move towards that role, some shouldn’t be allowed to handle an elastic band .. but that’s just my opinion. The UK used to be an armed society prior to the 1920′s so we used to be trusted by the govt , but no more .
MoPS and PCSO’s dont have the power to arrest – quite right too but MoPs should be able to step in to ‘defend’ their community/home etc if no police are available . If some ‘nutjob’ is shooting people, and there are no armed coppers around Im ok with farmer giles shooting the nutjob. sure its not ideal, and not Pot correct ..but if it works ..
Society needs to be able to defend itself, so we have a police force, but we also have to be able to defend our communities if you guys are in the next town /village/city .
“Anyone may arrest without a warrant anyone who is in the act of committing an arrestable offence, or anyone whom he or she has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be committing such an offence. Where an arrestable offence has been committed, anyone may arrest without a warrant anyone who is guilty of the offence, or anyone he or she has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be guilty of it”
I spoke to my Guvnor today and he proudly told me he’d passed the last Shield Run (500m in Riot Kit) of his service.
He then told me that several PC’s had been sent back to their Units for FAILING to get round in the time allowed.
My point is if some Officers can’t put enough effort in to pass a basic physical test how can they be expected to be safe and competent with a firearm? I can see vast legions of “not fit for street duty” wasters being created to add to those already in existence.
I think arming of Response Officers is long overdue. They should have the lot: Sidearm, Taser, Spray and have the quality training to go with the responsibility.
It’ll never happen though, imagine the cost? They couldn’t even afford radios that work inside buildings or uniforms that a smart AND practical.
A telephone interview on the Torygraph website refers to a police officer directing traffic ‘while having his arm bandaged’, which the caller rather touchingly described as being a bit unusual.
I wonder if that is due to injuries sustained from the gunman, or whether it was something more mundane.
Here in Oz, we are armed. I carried a Glock Model 22. 40 calibre, 15 round mag. Plain clothes staff carry the model 23, 9 round mag. Its smaller and can fit in ankle and pancake holsters.
I have drawn my firearm about 4-5 times in 13 years. Our holsters have double locking mechanism, which basically means you have two distinct movements using your thumb to get the firearm out. It will not fall out during struggles with offenders on the ground.
As others have stated, it becomes part of your kit, you get used to it.
On a side issue, the tragic events of today and other mass shootings around the world, highlights that regardless of the best systems, policing practices, cultural factors etc, mental illness and depression affects persons in very stange ways and their behaviour accordingly.
How many gun massacres occurred before shotgun certificates were even introduced?
Gun bans have done absolutely zero.
Do you know the answer to your rhetorical question, or are you just hazarding a guess?
Routinely arm the police?
Really?
I’m not against there being more armed police on the street who are properly trained and psychologically fit to carry out the role but over the years I have met some very strange police officers. (As well as a large majority who do appear sound of mind!)
Would any of you want the strange to routinely carry a gun?
I was in the UK and now I’m in Canada. I draw my pistol once a month on average. ALWAYS when I stop a stolen vehicle. ALWAYS when there’s a good possibility someone has a knife. ALWAYS when doing a warrant on a drugs house. MOST OF THE TIME when searching for burglars in buildings or yards.
We have access to the range and as much ammunition as we can realistically use 24/7.
I used to admire police in the UK for doing their jobs despite knife/gun cime rates rising. Now I think you’re all nuts.
Oh, and I have a Remington 870 (the one with the short barrel) and an AR15 at home.
Starsky – Er, no. They just call me “sir.” Officially, I’m the C.E.O., or Chief Executive Officer.
Chief Constable? I can only dream.
By the way, you should see MY uniform!
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=3843913&id=734456584
All those in favour of routinely arming the police might like to be reminded of a little US anecdote in a Sunday magazine a good few years ago.
On being shown round one of those nuclear launch silos out in the midwest, a journalist was shown the security procedures – two men, two keys, simultaneous action. He enquired why they were armed (not on them – I think it was in a locked case). He was informed that if one went crazy and attempted to launch, the other would use it to shoot him.
He asked what would happen if the crazy man shot first. He didn’t receive a satisfactory reply…
So, what would happen if we routinely armed the police, and one of them was the next mad gunman? After all, it’s happened before…
If there’s a case for routinely arming the police, it shouldn’t be in response to this case. Not should it be seen as the magic bullet (pun intended) that would have prevented this from happening.
Those are just ‘maybes’ and ‘what ifs’…
…except that any crazy officer would be far-outnumbered by sane officers, and that, although each life is precious, the highest potential casualty rates and possible political fallout could not approach the real and political destruction even a single nuclear missle could if it met its target. Kind of an analogy fail.
“If there’s a case for routinely arming the police, it shouldn’t be in response to this case. Not should it be seen as the magic bullet (pun intended) that would have prevented this from happening.”
I think you’ve definitely got a point there, though.
‘If there’s a case for routinely arming the police, it shouldn’t be in response to this case. Not should it be seen as the magic bullet (pun intended) that would have prevented this from happening.”
The most sensible thing that’s been written on this blog in the last 24 hours.
As an ordinary MOP: my OH is Dutch, with parents who live in Germany, so i’ve been able to see how police forces are armed in two other countries apart from here. I also live in Manchester, not the roughest part, but not the best part either. I feel far safer in both the Netherlands, and in Germany, with armed police officers around. I’ve had to call the police, several times, at home, because of what is euphemistically termed “Anti-social behaviour”, ranging from someone chucking a brick at my OH, through to someone kicking in the communal front door (we live in flats). Every single time, the police response – if there has been one – has been, at the minimum, 4 hours later, simply because they were so busy elsewhere – and often, there hasn’t been one at all. We just get a crime number.. and deal with the cleanup ourselves.
While i do support the arming of police officers (along a similar model to that of the Netherlands/Germany, where drawing of/use of the weapon can only be undertaken in VERY specific circumstances) i also believe that several other things need to happen either at the same time as arming, or before:
1) many of the other problems that Gadget writes about, with regard to the justice system being so heavily weighted on the side of the offender need to be dealt with.
2) The media: the government *has* to stop pandering to the media, stop pandering to this whole “something must be done!” ethos that has become so prevalent during the last 16 years.
[as an example, and while i send condolences to the families of those who died and were injured today, I sincerely hope that no action *is* taken against licensed gun owners after today, regardless of whether it is found that the perpetrator was licensed or not, because ultimately, if someone has cracked psychologically to the extent that they are driven to murder 12 people and injure many others then they will find some means to do so, whether or not they have a gun. Licensing is a red herring in this matter.]
3) police officers need to be supported, not just by the government, but by the public. I’m talking now of a wholesale change of attitudes, similar to the change of attitudes towards the armed forces that has taken place (thankfully) in the last few years. I can remember when people were rude to recovering soldiers who were using a local swimming pool. I can’t imagine anyone doing anything similar now.
Above all, if arming is going to happen, what must happen, is that if incidents happen, particularly if such incidents are fatal, that the police officer concerned is fully supported, not second guessed or questioned (except by those whose duty it is to do so) until such time as evidence is clear that he/she was wrong and then they should be treated as any other criminal would be – due process etc. Its bad enough knowing that you’re responsible for someone else’s death, even if that shooting was justified, even if said shooting saved someone else’s life – the thought, the regret, will always be there, and i don’t believe its fair to have that regret made worse for the purpose of selling newspapers.
Gadget: you and your colleagues do an incredibly hard, thankless job, and i just hope and pray that the new government will go some way towards making your (collective) lives a little easier, and get to grips with some of the problems plaguing the uk, problems you write about, and that i see on my doorstep every day.
According to (apparently consistent) press reports, this killer spent quite some time driving his car around and stopping to lure victims to him. During that period would it have been OK for any armed officer who happened to see a “Grey or silver Picasso”, to shoot the driver?
They were given the correct registration of the car after the shooting at the taxi rank, as stated by the witness who gave it , and I believe as stated by the DCC.
Gadget old chap. You have a problem.
This “reply” button is all very good, BUT I do not wish to re-read 188 posts to find the one I wish to reply to.
“QUOTE” would be better. THEN we could all read them in order.
As it is at present, it makes absolutely no sense.
Yes, as a sometimes commenter, but avid reader, when a subject that I am particularly interested in shows a number of “hits” since my last viewing, then I too, don’t want to scroll through previously read comments to find the newer ones.
I am sure having an armed police force would be of great benifit in very rare situations like this. I am also sure it would have a couple of other effects.
1. An increase in the numbers of people killed by the police. Some of those may deserve it but there will also be many that do not. The police are only human and even without assuming any mallice I am sure there will be plenty of incidents where someone ends up being shot when the situation could have been dealt with in a non-lethal way.
2. An increase in the numbers of people killed by criminals. An armed police force is going to make criminals more likely to arm themselves to deal with the threat, and to be more ready to shoot first so that the police don’t get the chance to use their guns.
The solution I would prefer is for all Police to be trained to use firearms on a regular basis and for Police stations to have a supply of arms on hand. That way when a situation occurs where an armed response is required guns can be quickly issued to the local police rather than having to wait for a specialist team to arrive from somewhere else. If neccessary guns could even be locked in police cars, with the police officers authised to access it under pre-defined circumstances.
I agree with you to a degree but, in my experience, most criminals struggle to find anything to arm themselves with beyond a screwdriver or a jif lemon full of ammonia.
I’m not sure it’s that easy for your average knacker to find a gun.
Ok, huge, HUGE flaw in your plan there. When you are at an incident and you need a firearm NOW then what?? You call up the station in the hope that there is someone on duty authorised to release and then use a firerm and then get to you? What happens if everyone turned out for the job do you send a unit back thereby reducing the units you have on the ground who are trying to deal with a firearms incident? Even if there is someone there that will probably take longer than having more ARV’s on duty anyway. The only way around that would be to have everyone on the shift firearm trained just in case, then have someone permanently at the station with the keys to the gun store, who will that be? The cost alone for every nick would be more than the training and cost for routine arming. People seriously over estimate the numbers of officers on duty in a given area especially at night when most of the serious jobs happen. The only answer is to have response teams permanently armed and appropriately trained, there’s not exactly lots anyway so you will never be paying for all 130k officers, at most you’d have 40k across the entire country.
You got it MCM. That is the not too distant plan – and if it isn’t, some arses at the top need binning.
An awful lot of the posts on this thread miss the point. We already have 3 fully armed Police Forces in this country – without any of the ‘doomsday’ scenarios happening. The Police are armed – it’s just a matter of numbers.
The question everyone should be asking is “How long am I prepared to wait for an EFFECTIVE Police response if there is an armed incident in MY street or involving MY loved ones?”
If your answer is under 10 mins. (standard urban response time) then ALL response / front line officers need to be armed.
If you’re prepared to wait about 45 – 60mins, we leave things as they are.
Finally, If you’re happy to wait 2-3 hours then the specialist (very) highly trained officers can be brought on-scene
I am an ex British Bobby, i now serve in Oz, where we are all armed with Glocks. Its really no big deal, its just something else that hangs off your belt (the holster is also useful for hanging hats from), and you almost forget you are wearing it after a while. It seems to be a British cultural issue with arming the police, everyone is afraid to, and i really can’t see why.
The only people it will upset are some of my ex British firearms collegues, who thought that because they carried a firearm they were the dogs bollocks. When everyone else is armed, they will suddenly realize that the secret is out, that its really not such a big deal, it does not make you better than anyone else, and they will have to go back to shift and deal with shitty domestics along with the rest of us.
Anyone care to take a bet on how long it is before the Police are blamed for the shootings?
At the moment, it’s the NHS mental health services in the line of fire.
Earlier, it was the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority.
Wait your turn. They’ll get round to you in a bit.
No, but I did have a private bet with myself that someone would make a cretinous remark like that sooner or later.
Thanks. I think I’ll buy a pint with the proceeds.
Well, we will see who is the cretin eh Guernican?
Shall we say 3-weeks?
from bbc…
4. At 1:08pm on 03 Jun 2010, TheTreboethTerror wrote:
I’ve just heard a similar debate on jeremy vine, which also included blaming the police for this.
lol… slightly less than 3- weeks eh cretin?
Every oth er country in the world that has similar violant ceime rates to the uk has armed their police for some time now. Things are not getting any better, in fact they are only getting worse, why are those who’s job it is to protect us and enforce the law not armed?
A stick and a can of pepper is not enough anymore!!
The criminals of this country are routinely arming themselves, and many have proven already that they will not hesitate to use those weapons against the police.
Simply denying the truth, and wishing for a return for the ‘good old days’ is not enough and is costing lives. The here and now needs to dealt with and our police need to be given the tools to do their job.
you waste your time angrydave…
We will NEVER be armed…
NEVER times a million.
No government has the balls.
No gun for me thanks! Not because I don’t think I need one, or trust myself to use one. I just don’t trust the procedures I’d have to go through if I actually did shoot someone.
here, here.
Having done a bit of firearms work in my time I can understand where this post is coming from. However, this bloke flipped and there is little that could have been done to prvent that. Whilst if armed officers had been about maybe the magnitute of the event might have been minimised, but that is just speculation.
As for general arming of the police I’m against it, though I’d give everyone a tasar as a half way house- but clearly that would have been no use here.
Just a word to say that I’d like to support the Cumbrian Lads and lasses who did a decent job- I hope the press don’t try to blame the cops for what has gone on here etc. The bottom line is this nutter is to blame full stop!
I do not want to carry a firearm every day, however i would like to be trained and have access to one should i need it (in my vehicle, not at a station). As some other posts have said, one of the most worrying issues is how i would be dealt with should i have to use it. Unfortunately in the Police we are not like the general public. We are Guilty until proven inocent.
We won’t be carrying firearms any time soon. TASER ‘rollout’ confirms this. Our division hasn’t even been trained yet (1 year after they were agreed and officers selected) and the divisions that have them only parade 1 officer on shift with a TASER, and this is a big city force!
If the cost of TASER is prohibitive, then what would the price of arming the police, the maintenance, armouries, additional training etc etc.
In the current economic climate it will not happen.
I shudder to think what would happen in my Farce should an officer have to shoot someone. My lot have more leaflets in front offices on making a complaint than on crime prevention and at a recent large scale city centre demonstration they actualy had PSD officers in a Community Van with “make your complaint against the police here” banners on it!.
If you even drew a weapon it would be a paperwork shitstorm and a year on restricted duties cleaning out the property stores.
The only way it would be safe and feasible to routinely arm regular Plod would be if you drameticaly improved the quality of recruits and imposed compulsory fitness levels. But that would be discriminatory towards females and BME’s (or so we were told when the standards were dropped).
I would happily do the training but if they would suspend me for doing as I was trained or put me along side some of the muppets I’ve worked with recently as they hold a firearm then they can stick it.
“…imposed compulsory fitness levels. But that would be discriminatory towards females and BME’s (or so we were told when the standards were dropped). “
Females I can understand, but BMEs..?
Don’t they come in as many shapes, sizes and fitness levels as the melanin-deficient?
I agree but that was what was spouted at us when we complained about the drop in standards. They started on about some races being on average smaller and less strong than the average WE/W1. It was also because some people who’s 1st language is not English have less chance of passing the paper sift and more of these are likely to be BME. Crazy but that was what we were told.
Hence some of the officers to come through in the last 5 years or so are absolutely useless. If you gave them a gun they would be a bloody liability.
The dropout rate in the general police recruitment process used to be very high – well in excess of 70%. Now i’m told it’s around 30-40% depending on region and time of year. Two possible conclusions:
1) Overall standards got relaxed.
2) The calibre of individuals applying has gone up.
3) Some tests have been dropped for anyone not WE1.
Make your own decision as to which you believe it was.
And don’t even get me started on how far the papersift has been dumbed down. There isn’t enough space on the wordpress server!
It really does come to something when you realise that even if you call the police to deal with this kind of thing, we can’t help you until a specialist unit arrives from the other side of the county
You’re pontificating and yet you have no idea of the situation here.
There is a specialist armed unit stationed in the area where the shootings took place, the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, who are rountinely armed and joined the manhunt.
Yet he still managed to carry on shooting for 3 hours so maybe giving every copper in Britain a gun is not the magic solution to these very, very rare incidents.
I’m a policeman and the idea of all my colleagues carrying a gun fills me with fear. Some of them aren’t fit to wear the badge let alone carry a gun. Police commit crimes as much as ‘normal’ citizens, and you wouldn’t want all of them routinely armed. What we needed in that situation was someone who stopped thinking about their own safety and tried to stop the killer. I hate to think how many people stared at him in the street thinking ‘oh that’s odd, a man with a gun’ and then watched him drive off again to carry on killing. Did no-one have the opportunity to drive their car into his? I understand people’s shock and fear but I’d rather be shot trying to stop him than saving myself and letting him get on with it.
jtzero – while i’m not so sure about the first couple points – about not being fit to wear a badge – i do know about people thinking “oh, that’s odd, a man with a gun” because i’ve been in that situation.
A few years ago i was travelling on an intercity train, one with one of those quiet carriages, sitting at a table, minding my own business, working on my laptop. the carriage was virtually empty. a man came in and sat next to me, making me feel very uncomfortable (he stank of booze, and there was no need for him to sit next to me – there were so many empty seats, including four at a table on the opposite aisle). i eventually told him i was trying to work, and asked him to move, which he did, sitting at the table on the other side of the aisle. He then pulled out a gun. At this point, you’d think we’d all be yelling “GUN!” and diving for cover, but my brain just stopped working. I remember thinking “oh. he’s got a gun.” a man opposite me told him to put that thing away and not to be so silly. the kept waving it around, drinking cider, and then the ticket guy came around. And i still wasn’t thinking too clearly, just trying to think of a way to get his attention – the man had put his gun away at this point. I did think of trying to write a message to him on my laptop, but the way the situation was set up, the man would’ve seen if i had, and it could’ve made things worse. After the ticket guy left the carriage, the man got up and went forward to the buffet car. I breathed a sigh of relief, and when the ticket guy came back, i told him the man had a gun. Shortly after that, at the next station, the train stopped and apologies came over the loudspeaker, that there was a problem with the line and that the company had provided buses for us to get to the next station. We all packed up and walked through to the station concourse. I looked back and saw the gunman behind me, then saw a police officer and tried to tell her about it, but she just waved me through, then i got to the ticket office and saw the sheer number of big burly police officers waiting for us and i breathed a huge sigh of relief. Looked back once more just as i left the ticket office in time to see the man being jumped on by all those big burly officers!
Apparently the guy had gone into the buffet car and had tried to hold up the buffet car attendant for more booze. The gun was a fake, but no one knew that – it looked pretty realistic to me, and i’m sure it did to the buffet car attendant as well. The case went to court – i was a witness – and the guy was found guilty. I don’t remember how long he got though.
The point to this long meander is that the mind does really strange things to itself when confronted with things like this. I’ve never forgotten the sheer calmness that came over me when i saw that weapon, just dismissing it, almost, with.. “oh, its a gun”. It never once crossed my mind that i could wind up dead, funnily enough, more that someone else could get hurt (do we all think we’re invincible?). and then worrying about trying to get a message through to the people waiting to pick me up at the other end that there was going to be a delay! silly, i know. I do understand no one ramming into the car to try to stop him. I’m willing to bet that in most cases, by the time the brain had recognised that the guy had a gun and that he could hurt people (if someone hadn’t been hurt in front of them already) he was most likely gone. and at that point, all you can do is tell someone.. which i’m sure they did.
No, definitely not time to arm the police.
I would be nearly as afraid of a more widespread armed police force as I am of the spree killers such as yesterday’s awful incident, which fortunately seem to happen once a decade or so here.
Don’t use such isolated incidents to support your agenda. I think it’s a very sad thing that we have an overt armed police presence in many places as standard these days (and from that comment you can surmise that I don’t really have a problem with covert armed security for protecting HVTs).
The best argument for routine arming of our police is to prevent any officers experiencing not be armed and not being able to stop activity by armed people or protect themselves. I drew considerable comfort from carrying a gun in circumstances in which it was reasonable to expect the enemy to have one.
The only question worth contemplating as to whether we should arm all officers is whether this would escalate an ‘armed criminality’ – all the human rights/civil liberties stuff is bogus.
The other question is what to do about people gone nutter with guns. A fairly senior cop actually went to his gun club and stole the gun he killed his mother-in-law with (does he do contracts?). Despite this, it would seem that having people sign out weapons might be better than letting them keep them at home. The public should not otherwise have access, but evidence from Switzerland suggests those gone nutter will plan to steal weapons.
Broadly, our human and civil rights would be improved by arming the police generally, unless cops going nutter is a more serious problem than that posed in the general public. I doubt that and am also struck that we’d be better defended against terrorism.
a week/month/year/decade later those who should be making the right decisions will continue to have their heads buried in the sands living like the Eygptian —
in denial
I think more Officers should be routinely armed, but as jtzero has stated some, not all, should not be carrying a warrant card let alone a gun.
I have have been routinely armed in my previous force and hope to again. Rather than all Officers becoming AFO’s there should be more ARV’s. Rather than 2 or 3 cars covering the county you should have a car that covers each Borough/INA, that responds to normal incidents aswell as possible Firearms incidents. That way travel time is cut considerably.
I work in an area that has huge rural areas aswell as big inner city population, if your stuck on the outskirts in the middle of no-where it can take upto 35-40 mins to get to a scene on Grade 1 response, as generally the ARV’s cover the cities/towns.
ARV’s in each Borough/INA would significantly cut down on the time to respond, would not cost the force a fortune and all areas are covered by a fast, proficient armed capability. Of course it would probably never happen in my force but the thought is there.
SW Copper
As for arming the local populace, NO THANKS, i dont trust most of the MoP’s in my area with a cotton bud let alone a firearm.
No offense to those normal MoP’s who would be responsible but I dont think it would be safe to let an untrained person to handle a gun of any sort.
SW Copper
Only the UK would put up with it.
First off, let me extend my condolences and wishes to all that lost a loved one, were injured or involved in this awful, awful shooting.
Again, a UK police blog is wracked by arguments the routine arming of the Police and the routine arming of the ordinary citizen. And, yet again, part of it appears to be a “UK vs US” slanging match.
Comparing the UK and the US is definitely not a case of comparing apples and oranges, more like comparing apples and rutabagas. Or apples and coal-scuttles.
Why not compare the UK to the Australian experience? Our laws are very similar, our culture and life-style is roughly the same and our model of Policing is based firmly on Peel (in fact, some of our Police Forces are older than almost all the others in the world, including many in the UK), the only difference being is that the Police here are routinely armed.
The Police being routinely armed means that if you are pulled over by the Police for speeding, the Police Officer that gives you the on-the-spot fine will be armed. When the Police come to your house to tell you to keep the noise down, they will be armed. When you go to the Police Station to report the theft of your bicycle, the Police Officer that takes your report, will be armed.
And, when the Police respond to an incident involving someone wielding a knife, we will be armed.
And yet, we still Police by consent. My authority to Police derives from my status as a Constable along with the statutory powers that I’ve been given.
Not once, when I’ve gone to someone’s house has anyone said to me “You’re not coming in here, armed to the teeth like that! I’ve got kids and a sick mother in here!” Nor have they called me a “stormtrooper” for doing so. (Though, if they did, they’d probably be thinking of Darth’s not, Adolph’s.)
Australia does not have iconic Policing images to live up to. There is no “Dixon of Dock Green”, firmly, yet, fairly, talking an armed criminal in to giving himself up, nor is there a “Dirty Harry” dispensing justice from the barrel of “the most powerful handgun in the world.” Which way is better? Well, you could have endless arguments about it, much the same way as you could about which country’s version of “The Office” you prefer and achieve nothing.
My department is being overrun with ex-pat UK coppers (thanks mostly due to the nu-Labour and their EU-centric, yooman-right-based policies…) and not one of them objects to being armed. I can’t imagine what would happen if they did… There are no operational areas that are unarmed.
And, not one of them, since becoming routinely armed has become some, crazed, gun-nut, seeing the weapon as a hammer and every problem they faced as a Australian cop as being a nail.
I think the UK Police (that remain behind) will need to carefully re-examine whether or not they wish to be routinely armed, because your country is changing and not for the better. You may not wish to do so and your reasons might be personal and I’ve read them all in various fora; you’d no longer be Policing by consent, you don’t want to become Dirty Harry, you don’t want to be seen as an unapproachable Nazi Storm Trooper, you don’t trust some of your co-workers with a pen, let alone a firearm, it’s not the British way and that you won’t be supported in a Police shooting.
You can still be armed and Police by consent. You need only look to Australia to see that. And, even in the US, do you think with all those privately owned firearms, if people didn’t want to be Policed they way they are, they’d take matters into their own hands? You won’t become Dirty Harry, the experiences of the ex-pat UK Australian coppers shows that. You won’t be a Nazi Stormtrooper. Your co-workers won’t be shooting everything they see if they are armed (again the ex-pat experience shows that) and despite the fact that your Constabulary may not come out publicly and support you, I’m sure you won’t be left to fend for yourselves. How much support does your Constabulary show you (or one of your co-workers) should you, God forbid, accidentally kill someone on a blues-and-twos run? Yet, how many of you are saying “I refuse to drive in a Police car because I won’t be supported if I have an accident”?
As for it not being the British way, perhaps you need to ask yourself, “what is the British way”? Letting other cultures ride roughshod over your own? Letting your country be filled up with foreign criminals who, ironically and annoyingly, hide behind the law they don’t respect to avoid being deported? The same, foreign criminals who are more than happy to shoot unarmed Police officers, responding to their crimes and then flee the country, hiding in their sister’s bourqua? Religious-fascists who are more than happy to blow themselves up to kill kaffir and try to create a Muslim state? Cheap Police-a-likes being used to fool the public into thinking their are more Police, whilst you are all stuck in offices chasing cheap and easy detections to meet Home Office targets as your discretion is whittled away to nothing?
This is the British way as it is today, and quite frankly, it screams out for armed Police.
The past is like a foreign country. They do things differently there.
As for firearms in the general public, again, comparing the UK and US is like apples and anteaters. This is the Australian experience.
Over a decade ago, a young man, who was suffering from a mental illness went on a shooting rampage with several legally obtained and owned firearms in a sleepy, Tasmanian tourist area. 35 people were killed, and many others were injured. It was a tragedy on a world scale (this being before the events of September 11, 2001).
Armed Police responded, he was trapped in a barn and brought out alive (after he stupidly set fire to the barn) and is currently rotting in jail.
In response, the Australian Federal government, in collaboration with the various State governments, tightened Firearms laws and made them uniform across the country. Up until that point, Firearms laws were different from State to State; what might be legal in one jurisdiction could be illegal in another. One jurisdiction might require registration and licensing, another may not. Eight States and Territories agreed to uniformity in relation to Firearms. What was illegal in one jurisdiction was now illegal in all of them.
Most of what became illegal were semi-automatic rifles (like one used in the shooting rampage, a Chinese knockoff of a SKS, which was only legal in the states of Tasmania and Queensland) and certain other longarms. Handguns, which were already tightly controlled, became even more tightly controlled.
And, the Federal government instituted a ‘gun buyback’. Obviously, in some jurisdictions, firearms that were once lawful, now became illegal. So, the owners brought their firearms in to Police Stations across the country and handed them in to the Police who (ultimately) issued a cheque for it. (The value varied depending on the individual firearm). The buyback was funded by a once-off increase in the ‘Medicare Levy’.
700,000 firearms were taken away and melted down.
I can almost hear the US readers screaming about the “right to bear arms” and the Government having no right to take them away and it being unconstitutional. There is no right to bear arms in Australia. There is no constitution as the US knows it, here either. (There is an Australian Constitution, but it deals more with how the various States and Territories deal with the Federal Goverment, not ascribing rights to the citizens.)
For the most part, people were happy to hand in their firearms and take the money. Some used the money they were given to buy other, legal firearms. Some spent their money on other things. There was little protest about it and certainly no talk along the lines of “prying my gun from my cold, dead fingers” or other such bumper-sticker slogans.
In the years since the buy-back happened, exactly NONE of the following things happened.
* The government instituted totalitarian rule.
* The UN came in to Australia and implemented a New World Order.
* The King of England invaded and the citizens were not able to resist (or any country invaded, for that matter)
* Books were burned en masse, education camps created and citizens marched into them.
And, perhaps most importantly…
* Another firearms massacre.
(Some years ago, I remember seeing an NRA infomercial about the buy-back and how it would lead to ‘bad things’… Rather like the bad things I just mentioned. I laughed derisively then, and I laugh derisively now.)
In the election after this occurred there was no voter backlash against the Federal Government for doing this, (a pointless exercise as it was a bi-partisan stance, the opposition party supporting the buy-back) and the next two elections. It was a non-issue as far as the average voter was concerned. The opposition party is now in power and it has not changed it back to the way it was.
Also, there has been a reduction in firearm related deaths. I’m not going to endlessly quote statistics, because a) this is response to a blog entry, not a post-doctoral thesis and b) no one believes them, but I will supply several links and you can make up your own mind as to the effect of the buy-back.
http://www.usyd.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=1502
http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/gunaus.htm
There is no ‘gun culture’ in Australia. People who collect firearms are viewed in the same sort of regard as people who use ham radios or who trainspot; loners and oddballs.
This is not to say that Australia doesn’t have criminals. And that it doesn’t have gun related crime. It does. Just not to the same extent as the US.
I’m going to point out the obvious. Criminals will always resort to firearms to commit crimes, if they can get them. In a society which has easy access to them, then it will be easy for criminals to get them. Whether by fraud, stealing them from legitimate owners or by other unlawful means. Conversely, in a society which makes it difficult for anyone to get access to firearms, then it will be harder for criminals to obtain them and use. Fewer firearms in circulation can only mean fewer to steal. This means fewer armed criminals.
And for those that are armed? Why, that’s what the Police are for.
I know what sort of society I want to live in… A society where my neighbour isn’t routinely armed and the Police are. Thankfully, I do.
Unfortunately, all the Aussie forces have stopped their recruitment in the UK. The ship has left.
@Antipodean.
Bloody well said.
Well said.
I would disagree slightly with the comparison if I might.
I dont think that there are any problems is because the police here in Oz have been armed for a long time and thus has become part of the ‘public consciousnes’ of what a police officer is. An eyebrow is more likely to be raised if a police officer is seen _without_ a gun hanging from their webbing belt.
But try to supply the police with new kit, and we get exactly the same howling and shrieking being seen with the UK officers having firearms. The prime example was with the introduction of stun guns (tasers).
Hooo boy – the screech monkeys were howling at full volume with the usual words of ‘stormtrooper’, ‘Nazi’, ‘thug’, etc being flung around. Limp-wristed politicians were falling over each other to ‘express concern’, lawyers were lining up to sue, the tabloid news was printing horror stories of ‘Cops gone wild with tasers’ every day.
So I am not certain that AU/UK are quite that different, just that Oz was lucky enough to get on the bus and had armed officers long before the concept of ‘Law Enforcement’ was taken over by politically correct hand wringers.
There were no screech-monkeys to be heard when my force went from decades old S&W .357 revolvers to .40 semi-autos. So, I don’t buy that argument for Australia.
(Having said that, not long after Rodney King, we lost our PR-24s and now use ASP expandable tickling sticks.)
Nice piece.
My sincere condolences to those who’ve lost a loved one, and a speedy recovery to those injured.
Should the police be armed? I’m just a MoP, I don’t know. I’ll leave that to you guys. Although it seems you can’t agree – some of the bickering above makes me want to bang heads together.
If you think you need guns, then I’ll go along with it. Armed police in other countries don’t scare me so much any more (although the Italian Carabinieri were a bit fierce looking), so I daresay I’d get used to it.
Sorry I don’t want routinely armed police. I don’t believe they would help. USA deaths certainly don’t suggest that would be the case.
We need more restriction of guns and ammunition.
For me the logic of carrying a firearm is the same as carrying a condom: I would rather have one and not need it than need it and not have one…
But if you happen to fire Blanks……………………………
Blanks ain’t gonna stop cockrot or the clap!!!
Xx 2. An increase in the numbers of people killed by criminals. An armed police force is going to make criminals more likely to arm themselves to deal with the threat, and to be more ready to shoot first so that the police don’t get the chance to use their guns. XX
as an example, and others have also said it.
One point you miss, the crims ARE carrying guns NOW. In fact it is becoming a “matter ofnormality” for them to do so.
XX Hera
We need more restriction of guns and ammunition. XX
Because if that happens the arsehole crims are going to get RIGHT upset and all go to the local cop shop to hand themselves, and their guns in, right?
Get fekin REAL!
You already have more draconian gun laws the even nazi Germany and Stalins Soviet Union had. Yet you STILL get the likes of this Cumbria job.
Another point. You not only have to arm the police. You have to allow them to USE those arms.
We are armed here. But you even THINK of pulling that gun, and it’s the Spanish bloody inquisition.
People always want what they cannot have,
Perps will Always have GUNs, Sellers like having a monopoly on the supply, better profits, the gun totter loves having a monopoly , gives them an total advantage , as there is no one will ague with them.
No one starts a fight unless they be NUTS when the odds are against them, they will try other tactics.
Every one keeps Mentioning the USA, Crime with guns only happens when the Perp thinks he has the advantage, I have always felt safe here even on at least two occasions guns were drawn on me, once when my car was identical to a car that was involved with a hit and run , another time when I failed to deactivate a silent alarm in a factory where I was working, It is a bit scary to look around to see a big Alsatian with his keeper toting a pump, but the man was doing his job, in making sure that millions of dollars of equipment was not taking off for greener pastures.
I feel for the Bobby, so many with criminal intent find the Isles so lucrative, with free bed and breakfast and goodies for the taking without asking or paying, and then there will always be those that the brain is misfiring, will go off the deep end.
Man is the only animal that saves the dysfunctional and destroys the industrious.
Hmm
Not sure what use armed police would have been, unless one had happened to be standing near the taxi rank when it started.
God knows how our farce would cope with something like this. I suppose they were helped by the fact that it happened between 9 and 5.
If it had happened in our force area last night at 0200hrs we had three units covering 800 square miles. Nearest firearms unit 30 miles away. Second firearms unit 60 miles away.
20+ crime scenes? Don’t make me laugh.
It may have helped having localised AFO’s in the area. Granted one or two may have died, which is obviously no consolation but possibly nowhere near the number that have been injured/killed.
This is obviously all a knee jerk reaction to another horrendous incident, it always happens when something of the nature happens, but i think we should all get real and realise that a totally armed Force will NEVER happen.
I do however think that the idea that I proposed above would work, unless anyone else has a negative side to it?
“Totally armed Force will NEVER happen”,
never say never, it will,
when some well connected named one gets done in and The ARV arrive when the deed is done and all the evidence fails the CPS test.
I’ve been living here in Germany for three years now and can’t say that I find myself particularly intimidated by the Police being armed. It’s just routine, and if you’re having a party and the music’s too loud, the Polizei will turn up and politely ask you to turn it down. Nobody panics that a man with a gun has turned up at the door.
I’m also not aware that the gun laws here are any less stringent than in the UK, although the regulations do appear more lenient when it comes to imitation firearms. (I guess that if you know you’re going to come up against Polizei with real weapons, you’re not going to try and rob the local petrol station with your fake pistol, so it has a deterrent affect).
Personally, I’d rather the Police be armed, after all, as a law abiding citizen, I see the Police as being there to defend people like me against people that wish to do me wrong or harm.
For me, the argument that an armed police force will just cause an escalation in the number of criminals with guns doesn’t hold water. The really dangerous ones most likely already have access to, and willingness to use, firearms anyhow.
First off thoughts with those killed and injured in Cumbria.
As for arming .. there is a need for more local arming to enable a quick containment in my opinion. ARV’s still take too long to get to the scene to do this.
As one who after minimal drill training ended up as a 19 year old 4 week army recruit, standing guard duty armed to the teeth with 7.62′s – there are sufficient personnel to draw from within the police who could complete more basic training. The tactical options to be done by ARV’s once they arrive.
I have several AFO’s still holding their ticket on response – so why not go back to having firearms on Division, within a gun safe in a car?
Cumbria shows what could happen in a Bombai type shooting spree – As a TFC I think we are still unprepared to deal effectively and my ARV’s do tend to turn up within 10 minutes.
As a MoP I see this discussion as being premature until such time the Politicians, ACPO, CPS and Judiciary put protection of the citizen first!
A big thank you to all you policemen and women on the front line.
As an MOP I generally support the police.
I try to know my duties and responsibilities as a subject of her majesty.
But quite frankly I would not support the arming of the police without at least the repealing of the 1997 Firearms act.
I can use lethal force without a firearm quite easily.
As can any other person.
I was taught that the police are held to the same standards of use of force that I would be held to in any case of self defence or use of force.
That the police were citizens devoted to the preservation of the Queens peace full time.
Was this a lie?
Are the police in fact agents of the goverment here to keep us surly clots inline?
The current response strategy and “acceptable losses” points to the latter.
Safe to say that whatever happens in the rest of the country, in metro city the police WILL remain unarmed. Having carried an acrylic baton for four years after discovering that the GFLB was crap, i now have to go back to it as The Boss has decided that the fixed batons are too intimidating.
I can only imagine a return to tunics and Dixon of Dock Green happy endings coming to an 020 area near you soon.
as for arming
I go on holiday to a city where the possession of ANY firearm by the public is prohibited and has been for decades. The police are routinely armed and have been for decades. The city state is the same population as London and the police are the same size.
British common law is the basic law there and police have more or less the same powers (lawful liability) as here.
The crime rate is approx one tenth of that of London.
Gun crime is virtually non existant.
Arming police here would not turn us into US style mavericks blazing our wa through the estates. It would enable your average 1st responder to actually respond.
Hongkong?
What gave it away?
Apart from the red herring about “possession of ANY firearm by the public [being] prohibited” (not actually so, just extremely restricted), the other details such as armed police, same population as (non-Greater) London, size of Police Force (yes, Force), law, police powers and crime rate would only fit that city.
Plus, there was your (possibly Freudian) mention of “basic law”.
On the topic of arming standards and professionalism, the Hongkong Police even require their Auxiliary Police (the equivalent of British special constables) to be routinely armed.
Enjoy your holidays.
I have to tell you all a ditty my tutor told me more than 20-years ago.
‘The public get the Police they want’.
At the moment, they don’t want armed officers, sure they don’t mind going abroad on holiday etc, but not here.
This is because by and large, the average English bloke/ess is the most anti-establishment, authority hating person in the Western world.
They riot at the drop of a hat, treat the people that put themselves on the line day in day out with suspicion and often contempt.
They think of their own rights before any responsibility, look at the way we react to speed cameras and fines for mobile ‘phone use. A position endorsed by ‘leading journalists’ like Mr Clarkeson.
The media in this country is a disgrace. They constantly attack the Emergency services for what they see as corruption and bad practice-and in the same breath plead they are ‘repressed’ and want no formal watchdog. The Press complaints auth is a joke-a toothless paper tiger.
They think of themselves as the cultural leaders of the world-when the world has no real need for them.
Scary really…
Worst of all, I can only see it getting worse.
@Guernican.
You’ve taken my comment completely out of context. It was directed at the previous commenter only.
…furthermore…and anyone with half a brain would have realised exactly what I was saying!
@ Antipodean
Like what you say
. It will NEVER happen in this UK.
Reasons being, politicians, ACPO and the majority of SMT have NO backbone. Simple. It doesn’t matter how much this country goes to rack ‘n’ ruin, they have not got the bollocks to sort it out.
Like you Gadget I carried a weapon while in Ulster. There is no way that that situation can be portrayed as every day life in Britain today.
The arming of every police officer is simply out of the question and a knee jerk response to an outlandish event.
I don’t know how many people died in RTC’s yesterday but no one would suggest that such an everyday happening would warrant the banning of motor vehicles.
One of the few things that we have in this country that we can be justly proud of is an unarmed and approachable police force, sorry, service. Long may it remain so.
I have to say, I dont support the ‘arming’ of the public but the banning of firearms in clubs made no sense to me.
The illegal weapons havent gone…
Pensioner: quite right but generally speaking none of the above have public protection in mind anymore, while they may tout it, it’s not what theyre about. It’s all about blame and accountability organisationally speaking now, not protection or justice.
The CJS can best be described these days as a crippled hound, a hamstrung and spayed cerberus more concerned with gnashing it’s teeth at the other heads than protecting the public.
Sir,
your topic has definitely rattled a few cages. I don’t know how long it will take you to read all those entries, but it is one story that is food for thought
Said it before and I say it again, the media run how this country is ran. If the media decide that we are to be armed then it will be done. I always thought that it would be after an out cry due to the number of Officers being killed and injured, but it could just as easily be after a rare event like this.
A couple of posters have mentioned that should all Police be armed, then yearly deaths at Police hands would rise above those saved.
Well, too bloody true it would and should. Why should I have to take on a man with a knife at close distance? Every week across the country response Officers return to base and wonder how they got away with that one, and how close they came to not going home at the end of that shift.
The Public would learn blooming quick that it is not acceptable to use us as targets for their rage, and not to try to run us over etc.
Should you not wish to carry a firearm due to not wanting to kill someone, then you do not truly appreciate the capabilities of the equipment you are already issued with.
If you are telling me that you would not hit someone who was killing me or a member of the public, around the head with your baton, then I question if you have considered the job that you are doing.
I am not saying that you should want to do it, but you should consider that you may have to do it.
It is no different to carrying a gun, lethal force is lethal force no matter which tool is used to deliver it.
I am for routine arming, I am also for concealed carry permits for civilians.
For those who are amazed that Officers should even consider such a thought, please do some research on the matter before making your replies based on personal prejudices and misinformation.
Should you look in the right places, there are many stories coming from communities where concealed carry is permitted, of civilians stopping armed and violent crime. More often than not with just a show of force being enough.
999 = Government sponsored dial a prayer
Hi,
having lived in Germany for a long time,been in the Military,and been around guns most of my life I can only say that our attitude towards guns is noit up to date.
Of course the police should be armed,because it is the job of the cops to protect the public,first and foremost. How can an unarmed copper protect me from an armed robber?
Also,the publics attitude towards armed police doesn’t surprise me,since it seems to be either overkill or no guns at all.UK Firearms officers seem to be kitted out like a German SWAT team (SEK).
What’s wrong with every officer carrying a sidearm and every patrol car having a SMG or Assault rifle/Shotgun on board?
I certainly would’nt trust the police less and I’d feel safer….
and finally…. i DO believe the public should be allowed firarms,but that’s just me ;o)
greeting from a staunch Libertarian
People just dont trust us william…
Its that simple.
I ask myself why? My guess is that most people, just have never had the word ‘no’ said to them or not said enough.
They ‘grow up’ and become adults-then along comes someone that says the dreaded word ‘no!’-might be the boss, a teacher anyone in authority.
It matters not that they are in the wrong or have committed a crime even. They just dont like anyone – especially a Police opps I mean ‘Law enforcement Administrator’ comes along and say ‘sir/madam – you cant do that…’
They just dont like them.
And thats why, I think…
In response to my post at 7.49pm about the press blaming the police:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1283764/CUMBRIA-SHOOTINGS-Derrick-Birds-son-agony-police-probe-reasons-massacre.html
7:49pm yesterday of course I should have added
No, sorry IG I cannot agree. the amount of training that every response officer would need would denude any force of the number of proper coppers on the street. Next time you speak to a gunbunny ask them about the training and requalification regime. Even if given a gun most officers would baulk at using it (good thing) but would feel that they could put themselves in harms way because they were armed (bad thing) scum never hesitate
You are asking that we legislate for a lone nutter, no it cannot work like that. Hard cases make bad law.
However the deployment of armed response should not be left to some arsepolisher but should be a preauthorised “actions on” with no comebacks.
I saw the video of the woman in Sevenoaks on my PIMs refresher. Any idea why no less than lethal. The instructor said Kent did not have any The Met did and the were only at Swanley (8 miles away)
It is also the fault of the police that this happened:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1283700/Mother-Rachael-Slack-son-murdered-frenzied-knife-attack-ex-lover.html
that would surely have been a CPS decision to release without charge.
first of all,I didn’t even mention the victim’s in my first post…. Shijuro,I followed your link,saw the photos and all I can say is: R.I.P.!!! ;o(
Shijuro,re: your post…. I don’t know if the public doesn’t trust the police?
I’d find it sad if they didn’t.What you wrote about growing up and authority is very true! I would like to think that the ‘price’ of civilisation is to follow orders from authorities when they are reasonable,of course.Sometimes,when i see the way people is this country treat police I’m a bit ashamed for my fellow countrymen and women.
Equally I find sometimes you lot could be more assertive and authoratative,let the naughty MoP’s (and particularly the perps) know who’s boss.
By the way,do the Peelien principles of policing speak against routine arming?
never happen- we arent Police here…
we are law enforcement administrators…
“A couple of posters have mentioned that should all Police be armed, then yearly deaths at Police hands would rise above those saved.
Well, too bloody true it would and should.”
Few lives would be saved, simply because of the circumstances in which sudden shootings occur. There isn’t a scenario where the Lone Ranger rides in to shoot dead the villain and save lives.
More innocents would die because of rashness on the part of police over-reacting under pressure and panic, and also woundings on those occasions when they mistakenly shoot their own colleagues in confusion.
So in your cosy world- you would arm the army with sticks?
and have others with rifles ‘in case the enemy fire back?’
christ on a bike…
Antipodean……..great post.
The routine arming of the Police will happen about 5 years after it needs to. No Govt would want to admit that crime had gone that far out of control.
It sounds as if one part of the enquiry will centre on the length of time it took Firearms Officers to arrive.
I am sure the public think that every Police Station has a cupboard full of them ready for action. If Cumbria is anything like my old Force, the Firearms Officers would have had to come from distances 30 or 40 miles away.
Then they have to RV together, get briefed and go to their points.
One solution might be more Officers trained in the use of firearms who could go back to the station draw a gun (and all the body armour and equipment) and help out.
It`s time that we faced facts and accepted that the fantasy Dixon of Dock Green days – if they ever existed, have long gone.
Every force in England and Wales is hamstrung, not only by paperwork but by overreliance on long outdated traditions and practices. The custodian helmet, wearing a shirt and tie, single crewing policies – just some examples.
We live in a violent and frequently dangerous society, and yet mainstream opinion continues to cling onto an outmoded, and overly optimistic view that an unarmed police service is something to be cherished. In the twenty-first century, we need to be equipped and trained appropriately to deal with the tasks demanded of us.
Organised Criminal factions already have access to substantial firepower, and the frontline officer on the street is already at a substantial disadvantage. The common argument that arming the police would lead to criminals arming in return, is a fallacy.
Taser is a excellent step in the right direction, but we need to let go of sentimentality, let Dixon retire once and for all, and finally arm frontline officers routinely.
We don’t live in a violent and dangerous society. It’s tame, dull and safe. The safer it is, the more any act of violence seems an outrage.
Try living in South Africa. With a figure of 50 homicides a day, in a population of nearly 50m, that’s violent.
Try reading some history. We used to hang, draw and quarter people. Disputes in small communities often devolved into axes fracturing skulls, and multiple deaths. Routinely beating people for breaking rules or making mistakes was seen as acceptable.
You don’t usually see that in 21st century Europe.
Wonder what the crime rate was!
Thoughts to everyone involved in yesterdays events.
Sadly it is time to arm our Police. Society gets the police force it deserves. That is now am armed force (not service).
Once again the British emergency services rise to the challenge.
Antipodean is wrong about no Aussie Dixon of Dock Green. I remember Bluey, played by blue comedian Lucky Grills. The fan club used to guess his waistline to the nearest yard and he brought down struggs using dustbin lids hurled like a bolas. Granada played the series late night years back.
Given our supposed preparedness for terrorism, this incident raises a lot of questions about ow prepared we can be without our cops being armed at whatever sub-divisions have become.
Well… I don’t actually think people WANT Bluey as an iconic Aussie cop. Of course, I preferred Bargearse, myself.
Australians tend to iconify the criminals more than the Police. Think of the Jolly Swagman, Chopper and Ned Kelly.
Donuts! Big chocolate covered donuts! Falling from the sky! And then I slam into a 20 foot Polly Waffle!
And who hasn’t ever answered the phone in their office as “Detective Glenn Twenty speaking…”?
Having served in a fully armed police force – where Uniform Branch officers draw their weapons for their duty periods and CID and other officers have personal issue weapons – I fully support GADGET in that all police officers in the United Kingdom should be armed as a matter of course.
The days of PC Dixon and the “traditional unarmed police” are long behind us.
Do we arm PCSOs too?
Hello
Does anyone who thinks the gun laws need tightening know the procedure for gaining a legal firearm in this country?
I’d like to know.
MARK
criminals do not need to know the law , they only need to know who has one for his use.
BIRD was NOT a criminal until he decided to use those lawfully obtained weapons for nefarious use
Is getting a suspended sentance not = a criminal?
No idea. Look it up – try the Countryside Alliance website or somthing like that.
Guv, long time follower of yours but my first time posting.
Over the last two days I have read and re-read the posts on this issue. I few things have jumped out time and again. Mainly the options seem to be:
1) Arm all the Police
2)Arm the People
3)More ARVs
The main issues with these options seems to be:
1) Police skills or lack of
2)Cost
3)Training
4)Every day Policing compared to once a decade incidents
5) Criminals uping the ante
6)Police state
7)Treatment of officers after an incident
With regards to the options I can see another option. Why not have officers apply to be AFOs but stay on their unit/team like other courses. On my team there are around 50 officers, only a handful of these can drive the area car, a few more can drive carriers etc. Some have lock pick skills, ABE interviewing, FIT testing, Public order training, Medic etc.
I believe this would address many of the issues as well. The application would only be available to officers that had a certain level of experience (like driving courses), this would avoid trigger happy probationers which several people seem to worry about. Applications would need to be signed off by Inspectors etc so if any of the twats on team applied they could be binned at this stage by their responsible line managers only the quality officers would be put forward. The successful applicant would then need to pass a course and re-classify as well. This procedure is already in place for firearms and many other skills, Medic, Driving, public order. This would keep skills up and enable up to date training
This method would have a cost but it would be less than arming all officers and probably less than extra ARVs (those 5 series Beemers aren’t cheap). Whats more, once passed the officers would be back on response team where they could respond quicker than ARVs. Whether the firearms would be carried or in a car safe could be argued at a later date.
Personally I think for 98% of Policing Firearms are not necessary but as someone said earlier: Rather have it and not use it rather than not have it and need it. I also don’t believe it would cause a problem in normal roll arounds etc. I don’t know of this being a big problem in other countries and someone mentioned special holsters earlier to stop the gun falling out.
I also don’t think arming officers would avoid the Cumbria type incident, although it may have been possible to reduce the death toll. If someone flips like that they are going to hurt/kill several people regardless of whether guns are available and police are present armed or not. We can’t predict the future and there are no real indicators for this thing so we are always reacting after an initial incident. Even in Metrocity we have a 12 min response target, even if I was armed with a sharp stick I could kill or maim several people in that time if I was so inclined.
I understand the argument for arming citizens but I just feel that it falls short in a number of areas. Mainly training, accountability and responsibility. Persoanlly I can’t think of a bigger responsibilty than being a parent but lots of people do not treat this role with the respect it deserves. Even using filters like referees and criminal record screening will not guarantee 100% quality citizens. How long before someone pulls a Glock to settle a neighbour dispute? It’s like being an electrician or gas fitter, some amateurs can do a job as well as a pro but lots more can’t so for public safety it is best left to trained, accountable professionals. To quote Star Trek the needs of the many outnumber the needs of the few.
As to criminals arming up, I have never got this. If you are planning for example an armed robbery which carries a potential life sentence are you going to worry about infringing a gun law? Your not a law abiding citizen in the first place. Why do the robbery with a bat or knife and risk maybe fighting someone when you could use a gun and gain that extra level of control. Secondly criminals already use guns or imitations for crime in this country anyway. Most criminals use guns to either gain control or protect themselves from other criminals. I don’t see criminals going ok the Police have cuffs, a baton and and CS lets get that. Police have never carried knives but plenty of knife related crime happens. The guns, knives etc are tools to get the job done easier for the criminal not in response to Police equipment.
Police state, easy one. Most countries (more than 50%) have armed Police. With a few exceptions (North Korea) they are not Police states. Please see an earlier post about Policing in Australia for reference. We already have armed Police and it isn’t a Police state. The argument is whether we increase numbers of armed officers not guns/no guns.
The only issue I worry about is the treatment of officers post incident. I refer readers to Sgt Smellie after the ‘slap’ cleared of any wrong doing after a year of grief and media grilling. Imagine the circus after a shooting. I wouldn’t fancy a year on suspension although I appreciate things need to be reviewed, surely it could be speeded up though and if people waited for the end of the process rather than rush to conclusions on a few seconds of footage they saw on the news.
Apologies for long piece, just my thoughts based on the posts. Finally why do people seem to think that Police can’t be trusted with a pencil, but that the army or ex army types are mustard? Surely they recruit from the same pool the difference being training. If the army training is better fair enough, improve the Police training to match. Also why does physical fitness seem to matter? Surely from a policing point of view the issue is making the correct decision and using policing skills (communication, risk assessment, tactical option etc) not how fast you can run 100m. Not all the best coppers are 6’7″ brick shit house ninjas. Sometimes how you speak and act can do far more than your ability to pulp someone or run a marathon.
Thanks Guv, keep up the good work!
The proposition is that because one man in Cumbria becomes a spree killer, a tipping point has been reached somehow. I don’t get what is so different about society today that tomorrow I need to carry a gun to work.
I did my job without a gun on Wednesday.
12 people are dead and you are not in West Cumbria?
Guv I am plus stripes and minus a suit for a while. Rocking a big hat and the bright yellow armoured waistcoat of truth.
Okay, loads of comments, some of which I must admit I’ve not read in their entireity. However……Yes, time to arm the front line. Not necessarily to handle military spec weapons firing heavy rounds but an armed, immediate response is indicated, I think.
It is my fate that, sometimes, I have to deal with shit-loads of individuals who choose to shoot, stab and batter one another into oblivion. For those who have not experienced the joy, a blade is possibly more dangerous then a fire-arm; they make no noise and never run out of ammunition. Do you know the frequency with which knives are used and their effect? Maybe you should think about that. To those who may want the stats, I don’t have them but I do know that it is only modern surgical skill that stops the murder rate being higher than it is.
My personal bottom line is – I must protect. Hate me all you want, I’ll still risk my life for you if you’re threatened but I may need the tools to do this. I’m no good to you if I’m lying next to you, bleeding my life away and as for risk assessments, I’ve ignored so many I’m amazed I still hold the rank I do but I’ve never failed to produce the goods (professionally speaking.)
I’ve made this plea so many times I even bore myself………………trust us, please. I know what I’m doing and so do my guys. I know there are reservations about some bobbies and I would probably raise the entry standard needed – I have always taken the view that the cream will float and, if we remove the artificial restraints, there will be a Police Force unsurpassed.
Re .Tired and Fed Up
Well said, that man.
“and as for risk assessments, I’ve ignored so many I’m amazed I still hold the rank”
You have not ignored them, you have just carried out “dynamic risk assessments” in these instances. This it what it is all about. In my mind it’s no different than making the decision whether to pull the trigger or not. It’s your decision and yours alone.
if we remove the artificial restraints, there will be a Police Force unsurpassed.
Totally agree.
I am just a MOP the only guns I have played with were pellet guns,but arm the police on a daily basis my answer is NO,your not superhero’s your bound by the same problems, your human,what makes you think because you wear a uniform and are/will be trained with guns that you can’t end up doing the same,more people with guns ,I suppose it makes more chances of it happening,you have ARV’s good idea,it’s obvious da management don’t trust you with guns maybe they think you will lead the people into an armed insurrection against the political elite or maybe it’s just cheaper,easier to train people to high standards,I doubt if da management and others haven’t gone through the same scenarios with what if’s etc,if the police get guns then I think we the public should be armed tell you what lets go for the nuclear option and arm all police and citizens with nuclear weapons,what happened to the police being members of the public has that gone by the board and we now have you and us,answer is still NO
What da hell are you on?
At the risk of turning into The History Man-in the 70s and 80s pre Hungerford,virtually every police station in my old force had AFOs working on section many of them ex squddies some had been in ww2 had shot people and been shot at.If a firearm situation arose a couple of fficers went back to the nick were issued guns by the Inspector and within minutes you had firepower further back up was provided by a small team from FHQ-of course a lot of these people retired(muttering the jobs fucked by the way) so the number of people who were able or wanted to carry guns reduced.
Subsequently Hungerford came along and one of the conclusions was that it had taken too long to get armed officers to the scene from FHQ and there were no AFOs available locally.So ARVs were born along with firearms teams who when not training were back up to the sections.In my force there were originally 3 ARVs on duty at anyone time-it was cut to 2 now very often it is only one.
So we are back to the same scenario of the 80s where armed back up takes too long to arrive.
If the police are armed then of course it would mean a complete revamping of selection procedures for recruits longer more expensive training and refreshers double crewed cars with secure boxes for weapons and ammo etc.
It would mean a complete reordering of current policing-you would need to get rid of the indecisive the unfit the ones that wont go out after dark etc.It would cost money so it just wont happen-and if by some slim chance it does-it will last as long as it takes for some copper to shot an “innocent” Daily Mail reader.
And just as an afterthought-some people here have stated that the age of “Dixon” would be over if the police were armed-I am not sure what they mean but I live abroad where the police are armed-I see them in my local bat having their morning coffee “tooled up” and generally involved in conversation with the locals and always give and receive handshakes and kisses.They are the inheritors of Dixon and in the UK we need to restablish that close link between the police and public and this can be achieved whether the police are armed or not.
By the way if I wanted to turn into a terrorist I wouldnt bother with complicated plots using chemicals and months of preparation-I would just pop along to any large city where I could buy a gun go to the nearest shopping centre and start firing at random-in the UK how long do you think it would be before I was shot dead by police-20,30,40 minutes?.Where I live if I lasted 5 mins it would be good going-because the police are armed and are actually there on the streets with local police stations as opposed to coming from some station miles away.
“The firearms officers boarded the train and it was initially claimed they challenged the suspect, though later report indicates he was not challenged According to Hotel 3, Menezes then stood up and advanced towards the officers and Hotel 3, at which point Hotel 3 grabbed him, pinned his arms against his torso, and pushed him back into the seat. Although Menezes was being restrained, his body was straight and not in a natural sitting position. Hotel 3 heard a shot close to his ear, and was dragged away on to the floor of the carriage. He shouted ‘Police!’ and with hands raised was dragged out of the carriage by one of the armed officers who had boarded the train. Hotel 3 then heard several gunshots while being dragged out. Two officers fired a total of eleven shots according to the number of empty shell casings found on the floor of the train afterwards. Menezes was shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder at close range, and died at the scene. An eyewitness later said that the eleven shots were fired over a thirty second period, at three second intervals”
Your point being that… what? Accidents happen, things go wrong, especially in high-stress situations? Absolutely. Live with it. Or die with it, if you’re a brazilian electrician. Perhaps armed police should only attend *low* risk situations – you know, the kind that probably don’t need firearms.
Do not expect fallible people to be infallible decision makers. Trust them to always do their best, and give them as much support and training as they need to help them make good decisions under pressure. Support them when they are put in a position where they have had to make a decision. Set recruitment standards based on the the qualities needed for a good officer, not a diversity policy.
If we can’t trust the police, who can we trust? I have the pleasure of being involved with training new recruits and from my experience of them, I trust all of them to be genuinely committed to doing good things for their communities. Even the ones who are total muppets, bless ‘em.
So Anonymous Panda you trust even the total muppets do you?
I would suggest that you need to be weeding these muppets out now cos in a couple of years time the taxpayer will be paying for them to be sitting in an office because they cant be trusted to go out.
I said that I trust that they genuinely want to do something good. I didn’t say that I trusted them to be very good police officers.
Then again, I only deal with one specific part of the role so it is wrong of me to generalise.
John
The Demenenzes shooting was above all a complete and utter failure of management planning and poor leadership on the day-I understand that the IPCC were ready to prosecute Cressida Dick until an untimely intervention by the jury at the Mets H&S trial.
If the officers on the ground had been armed and they had been allowed to act on what they saw as the best course of action-ie stopping him outside the tube then Demenezes would be alive today.
This is the problem when you get social workers and bank clerks masquerading as senior police officers.
ooooh John,a copy and paste from wikipedia, it must be true. Try if you might, to indulge us with your own opinion.
The police need to be able to protect the public at all times in ANY situation. It would appear that in the cumbria case and many other documented shootings that we were unable to do so. It is time for a radical rethink on the balance between cute and cuddly neighbourhood style policing and public protection. I suspect that any county force in the UK would have struggled to provide a suitable armed response to this incident due to numbers of armed police, lack of exposure to incidents of this nature and operational deployment procedure. As an ARV officer myself I know the demands of the training and responsibilty of carrying a firearm and it will not be possible for everyone to reach the required standard. The appetite for the UK governement and ACPO is against arming of the police and even taser is still not issued to all UK officers. On pretty much every shift I hear unarmed repsonse officers being sent to calls to suspects with knives or domestic arguments in which the householder has a shotgun at his home and ARV’s are left at RV points. I believe this is because certain ranks do not want the possibilty of a Post incident procedure on their record and somehow the deployment of armed police is seen as a negative action to resolve the issue. We need to rethink the balance
In my county there are X Armed vehicles, of which Y are in chav city and Z cover the rest. I don’t quote the numbers out of respect for IGs stance earlier, but they are frighteningly small. I’d love to know if there is co-operation with neighbouring forces, because that’s the way the faster roads go. I fear it would be a brave supervisor who called on the next county while his own team were still fifteen minutes away. And then think of the paperwork.
MoP here, with an interest from having a close relative on response.
They will end up shooting other accidentally, especially when you have a split second to think whether you should pull the trigger or not.
There was an entire facility filled with armed officers,specialist armed special weapons teams operated by the CnC just down the road…all very well trained in the use of firearms.Why oh why didnt they beg the CnC to leave the gates and start setting up armed roadblocks or perimeters hours earlier,a disaster would still have happened but with the forces onhand at sellafield im almost certain a strong armed response couldve occured much faster.
Let’s be honest. In the situation that unfolded in cumbria there wouldn’t be a damn thing that the police could do. Reports indicated that after the taxi driver (a likeable rogue?!) was shot, police raced out of the station to the scene. It is suggested that they may have run past the offender. Had they been armed it would have made no difference. The shooter then went on an apparently random killing spree around the county. How on earth could the police, armed or otherwise, second guess where he was going. It’s all well and good saying that we should all be armed or we should have more ARVs for VCPs, but where would they have gone? It’s not as if anyone knew what he was going to do next.
Regarding ex-squaddies being firearms officers. Do not make the mistake of believing that being ex-services means you will make a good Firearms officer, just because you can shoot straight. Whilst accuracy and weapon handling skills are important, it is just as important to know when not to shoot as to be able to shoot. I spent ten years in the Army seeing some colleagues who you would only trust to hit the enemy if they emptied the whole magazine at them. I would like to think that the selection procedure that Firearms Officers go through is a little more rigorous than that.
This may have been said but I’m afraid it’s too sunny to read all the above comments so here goes;
If, by chance, all officers carried a Glock on their belt would this outrage have been averted.
I suspect not. How many officers are on duty in rural Cumbria (or urban Cumbria for that matter) on any weekday morning?
Enough to pursue and contain a maniac in a moving vehicle? Doubt it.
Enough to drive all possible routes and thus contain? Unlikely.
This blog, the Police in general and I included, have cried foul at knee jerk reactions after single incidents where we have been condemned without a fair debate. Isn’t this situation the same, reversed? If we are to call for arms shouldn’t that call be based on a day to day need rather than a random tragedy?
Routine arming of every officer isn’t the answer. I am not sure what the whole answer is, but if we want a culture that allows people to own and store guns then we take the risk of somone flipping like this.
A call to arms will up the anti from criminals against the police. By all means increase the number of armed officers, but the only way this could have been stopped in real time is if an armed officer had confronted and shot dead the suspect.
There will be great hope that something like this tragedy doesn’t occur again for some years. With low budgets there will be a reluctance to increase ARV’s.
We will know when the time to increase arms comes, when police officers doing their daily duty find themselves victims of shootings.
I hope that time doesn’t come but really we don’t know for sure how the trends in the criminal use of firearms will progress.
As they say;
“Learn how to shoot, then learn when not to shoot”.
We don’t need to arm the citizenry at all. We don’t need to routinely arm the police, so long as there is an armed response unit in every force.
Let’s have the police on the street more, not in cars but on foot. They should patrol on their own and not in pairs so we get more coverage.
When i see a cop, it’s usually in a kebab shop or in Sainsburys buying lots of food.
Incidentally, the caliber of officers isn’t always good. I’ve seen critically obese cops, 4ft nothing (male) cops, and very petite (although very hot) waif-like female cops that can’t handle themselves.
Cops that won’t jump in and rescue downing people cos ‘it’s not their job’. Cops that take 24hrs to turn up if you’ve been burgled.
Plastics are outright pointless. They mill around in large groups unable to deal with anything. They hide in bushes pen and paper in hand watching as groups of kids beat up on dog walkers.
A re-evaluation of the entry requirements, a five mile run each week, weight training, with regular fitness testing should be implimented.
Michael, not only are you ignorent, you are also stupid.
You don’t want police officers in cars? Let hope you don’t ever have to ring 999 then. If you were in real danger, would you rather I raced to you in a car, or walked a few miles? If you were bleeding to death, maybe you might re-consider your position.
If you are unhappy with response times at the moment, how much longer would they be if every cop walked everywhere? Your burglary – if there is no suspect present – will get put on a list and attended when there is someone available. You are no more important than anyone else. If you were an officer, you would know that there are far more calls to police than there are police officers. Unfortunately when you ring in, we cannot open a new box of police officers or cut overselves in half.
Why do you think you see ‘cops’ in Sainsbruys? You trying working a 12 hour shift without a break for food, and then be expected to be fully functioning and responsive to critical incidents. We rountinely get no break at all because there are too many calls to attend. Do you starve yourself everyday?
Maybe if you did the job you’d understand. Instead you come accross like Kelvin McKenzie – out for a cheap line with no understanding. Get your head out of the tabloids.
Tosser.
Michael,
Try bursting the bubble you live in.
If we were all on foot how would we cover the vast areas that we are meant to police?
We don’t all have the same officer numbers as the Met but you wouldn’t know that as you obviously base you research on Sunhill Police station.
I work for a rural force with few officers covering a county not too dissimilar in size to Cumbria. If, and god forbid I pray not, an incident happened in my county similar to the awful events of this week, if we were all on foot it would take us weeks to attend.
Also it wouldn’t be me in the Kebab shop or Sainsbury’s, as there aren’t any on my patch. Pity I could do with the Nectar points.
I think you will find you have based all your facts on reading too much of the Mail. I have yet to meet a colleague who wouldn’t jump in water to save somebody, so try widening your thoughts a little and not get all your information from the gutter press.
I hope in whatever job you do they never introduce numpty tests as you would be a winner every time. (Oh and its implement)
They buy food because they are Humans believe it or not.
Michael, You’re talking shite, and here’s why -
“Let’s have the police on the street more, not in cars but on foot. They should patrol on their own and not in pairs so we get more coverage.”
Good idea for a small village where nothing happens, extremely bad idea in a city or where you need to be anywhere within 10 minutes if someone calls 999 at any point during your 12 hour shift, you can also guarantee sods law will make your destination as far away as possible from where you are. Walking around in Police uniform is lovely for photographs and when you have nothing to go to – if you need to get somewhere it takes twice as long as walking normally because people want to stop and talk to you, even when you say “sorry, I’m on my way to a call” Working on your own is also counter productive, it’s proven to reduce the number of stop searches and arrests and is also proven to have a negative impact at court because two officers statements on an incident is better than one. It also elevates risk in dealing with confrontational jobs because someone is more likely to try and take an officer on by themselves than if they have back up with them.
“When i see a cop, it’s usually in a kebab shop or in Sainsburys buying lots of food”
Fuck off. Don’t you ever eat?? Have you tried working a 60 hour week without eating a damn thing or having a drink? what about having an entire week of cold food so you take the opportunity to grab something hot but the only places open are a kebab shop or a Chinese. Heaven forbid we sat down to eat, your head would probably explode. I’m sure you’d be the first person to step up to defend a Police officer who lost his temper with someone or made a bad decision resulting in someones injury because they hadn’t had a break or eaten for ten hours. Yeah, I’m sure you would. Most Police stations don’t have canteens anymore because whinging fucks complained they didn’t see the police enough so we now have to go out and get food or eat it in the car.
“Incidentally, the caliber of officers isn’t always good. I’ve seen critically obese cops, 4ft nothing (male) cops, and very petite (although very hot) waif-like female cops that can’t handle themselves”
Firstly, it’s calibre. There is no excuse for someone being so fat that they can’t climb a flight of stairs without breaking a sweat, but height is rarely a problem. I’ve been in jobs where the only person who could calm down a group of blokes intent on fighting was the 5’0″ 7 stone waif. As they say it’s not the size of the dog in the fight, its the size of the fight in the dog. Being a 6’3″ 16 stone rugby player I’ve had christ knows how many people try and have a go just because I’ve turned up, height isn’t always an advantage. Plus I smack my head on door frames a lot and that hurts.
“Cops that won’t jump in and rescue downing people cos ‘it’s not their job’. Cops that take 24hrs to turn up if you’ve been burgled”
I’ve been in the Thames (and the sea) a couple of times in direct contravention of orders to get mental patients or drunk stupid fuckwits out. I’ve never known any officer walk away from trying to save someone in any circumstances, and yet you think this happens a lot just because it gets in the paper maybe twice a year?? How many jobs do you think we deal with every day? Incidentally it’s about 13,000 every single day in London alone, with about 2,000 officers in total to deal with them. Which brings me to the next point about burglaries – do you think we get a list and just decide “nah, it’s just a burglary, I’ll do that tomorrow” We have no idea what is stacked up, we get deployed job by job by a control room who have oversight of all the calls coming in. A 999 which is graded as needing police attendance NOW for an emergency takes priority over everything. If you had someone breaking into your house and you called would you be happy if the only officer free went to a burglary that was reported yesterday instead? Thought not. Incidentally, a lot of people LIE when they phone us to try and get us to attend, nice for you again if you told the truth and someone lied and got a police attendance instead of you. About 80% of the jobs we turn up to are nothing like the call or as serious as the caller made out to be.
“Plastics are outright pointless. They mill around in large groups unable to deal with anything. They hide in bushes pen and paper in hand watching as groups of kids beat up on dog walkers”
PCSO’s are a waste of time, but they are also tasked by neighbourhood forums, you know the members of the public who go to neighbourhood watch meetings to discuss to local problems for the police to deal with. If groups of kids hanging around or people letting their dogs shit all over the pavements or parks without cleaning up are decided BY THE PUBLIC as being the local priorities, then that’s what the neighbourhood teams and PCOS’s deal with even if the actual problems in that area are drug dealing and burglary.
“A re-evaluation of the entry requirements, a five mile run each week, weight training, with regular fitness testing should be implimented”
I agree, but when should we train?? I work 12 hour shifts, work an average of 2 out of 5 rest days and last year averaged 60 hours a week over the whole year. When I’m not at work I try and have some family life and sleep. I would LOVE to be able to train at work, but thanks to spending most of my life at work dealing with calls and the results from calls the most I get is a run before I go to bed and the gym when I’m on rest days. Don’t forget EVERY other organisation (military and fire brigades) who have minimum fitness expectations and regular testing allow all their personnel to train ON DUTY, they in fact require it. We ain’t going to be getting to more calls if we’re in the gym are we?
I believe it would be unneccessary to arm the police if we removed the cause of the violence in the first place.
Again; it comes back to the failed social engineering by politicans over the recent years – where people are tragically frustrated and angered with the world they live it – that has caused a state where the police require to be armed. We remove the cause, we solve the problem.
The “problem” is endemic to society.
Too many people wanting everything and realising they are unable to have it.
Arming the police as routine would only mean that the police are armed, it would stop nothing.
Deterrent ?
No.
A person willing to die for their cause/campaign will not be deterred by armed police.
Back to De-Menezes: 11 shots. Definitely effective, after that he would not have detonated the bombs; that he was not carrying.
Will it fail to happen again if all officers are routinely armed ?
It will not only happen again, it will happen more often.
And would routinely-armed officers have stopped Cumbria ?
No.
Yes but not everyone who carries a gun, is willing to die for their cause. Thats just on the telly you have been watching and basing your facts on.
Most people who carry them use them to threaten, maim or kill, for the purpose of crime, and not to die themselves.
Also are you from Cumbria? No, I suspect not, so how the hell do you know who may or may not have been able to attend the incident if the officers had been routinely armed, or if they may have been able to stop it.
You think you know it all, but oh so little….
Anyway, from another blog:
“If that was the case here, as my newsagent remarked yesterday before even this was known, it was a pity Bird expended his energies on largely innocent people. It was a shame, he said, that he had not put his anger to more productive use and run amok in the Inland Revenue offices or the local town hall”
Routinely-armed police could at least stand-guard on the town hall !
Wow that really intelligent.
Lets mock the events, what if it had been your place of work or where you live. Cretin.
That’s pretty inappropriate considering that 13 people have been killed and many more injured. Lets just hope none of the families see it.
You should be utterly ashamed of yourself for posting that remark. Trying to hide behind it being a quote from another blog just makes it worse.
I fail to see how armed police would have prevented this or even cut down the scale of it.
The first the police saw of this bloke was when he had already shot himself.
How do you know, were you there?
So many ******* know it alls
PC S – Does that comment include the CC of Cumbria?
“At no stage did any police officer have the chance to end this any sooner,” Mr Mackey said. (Telegraph 5 June)
First I wasnt aware of that quote when I made my post, but if it makes you feel better thanks for pointing it out.
Still it does not make any difference to the point I was making, as I was talking about the fact if all officers had been routinely armed, the incident may have ended differently, as there were a lot more officers on duty on the day than there were AFO’s or ARV’s.
I read this blog daily but never comment. I was an officer in the UK for many years, always on response and then on the forces Tactical Firearms team. I am now a cop in a Canadian Force along with many ex-pats.
As with the Australian comparison above, Canada is very similar to the UK in terms of laws and guns are restricted much more than to the US further south. We also have much lower crime rate than the US, and the UK i think, but dont quote me on that.
The one main difference is that we are all armed with a 40 cal glock. We carry a pump action shotgun in the car, some cars carry a carbine and we can take a taser for good measures.
Could this disaster have been prevented if it were here?? Possibly not, like every incident it depends on the timely information coming into dispatch and getting out to the officers on the streets.
The policies in the UK were very restrictive and would need reviewing if arming all police was to be effective. On a call we would go to RVP’s (which could be miles away), receiving a briefing by the Inspector and Tac Ad (who needed to get to the control room). Eventually we could attend and help the unarmed officers search for someone who was normally by now long gone.
We would then return to hq to have a debrief about it, why? we hadn’t done anything. It was very frustrating, we wanted to be quick and help but the Silver who was in charge would want time to consider everything (normally his pension).
Here from day one you receive shooting/handling training then your tactics training includes all use of forms options of which your gun is just another thing. All rookies therefore get used to choosing the suitable option.
That said the standard of qualifications are much lower, and some have to work hard to pass that. The force has looked at stats. about usual distance of officer shootings (mainly from the usa) etc etc and believe the qual is reasonable in everyday policing to allow officers to protect themselves, public etc. We still have a swat team for protracted jobs.
Once a call comes in there is no delay on briefing/analysing/authorising firearms, the nearest units (gps) react and can deal with it as they see fit. There is a sgt who can chip in with some tactics, containment points etc if required. But the only delay is actually getting there.
And it is up to the officers on the ground to make decisions and get on with it.
The bosses here are ready and willing (here is the big difference) to defend officers who have to do their job and use lethal force. I work in a city of about 1 million people and in the last 2 years there have probably been 4 Officer shootings. Each case, within a few hrs the chief will brief the media on the events and then go on to stress that his officers face this kind of danger daily and they are well trained and that he is confident that they took the correct course of actions. The officers will get some time off to get over it with lots of support and then come back to work. There is an independant enquiry which takes a few months but the force fully supports the officers.
SMT even sets policy to ensure our safety. When going to knife incidents back home we could be deployed on taser only deployments. No firearms, even though we were trained, and statistics tell you that knives can be more deadly than guns.
Here policy says that if an offender has a knife, you WILL cover him with lethal force option, you WILL NOT use a taser unless there is another officer with lethal cover AND you have a barrier between you and the offender.
The SMT here think logically and not afraid of what the media says. They put into place what needs to be done.
I think the UK forces should be armed, but there are a lot of changes to be put into place first, starting with strong management to tell government what needs to be done. Will that happen, sadly probably not.
canadacop
What a fantastic post! thanks for writing it. Its nice to hear some sensible, well crafted dialogue over this issue.
Let me say though, my first thoughts are with the families and friends.
That said we owe it to those who have died to make sure they did not die in vein, and to use a nulabour cliche that “lessons have been learnt”
I am onside with canadacop one hundred percent. the Liberalist attitude is the first thing that needs diluting. Then we need to calmly and quietly set about getting the practice in with handguns. I simply cannot buy into the argument that arming the police is not a good thing when virtually EVERY other euroopean force is armed, and with little issue.
They are not police states – we take our families on holidays there.
officers very rarely have their weapons taken off them – because they are trained in retention no doubt.
What is unneeded is all the frothing at the mouth by the liberals about it.
wever tried it your way for a long time. At least give this way a chance, for the sake of those who ahve so so tragically been killed.
Do you think they would have wanted a armed or unarmed copper?
get over your political stance for once and think about that one…..
Bloody good post Canadacop, agreed that your force(s) over there do many things right by the sound of it. Sadly trying to effect real change within the UK public sector at the moment is akin to jumping in front of a speeding train and shouting ‘stop’! Not going to end well…
52 people were killed by other people who died for their “cause”
Loads were injured.
Would armed police have stopped that ?
No.
Would they have stopped Cumbria ?
No.
How do you know and whats your point?
Anymore disitastefull quotes to come from other blogs??
With you all the way, “Retired Sgt , John The De Menezes shooting was above all a complete and utter failure of management planning and poor leadership on the day-I understand that the IPCC were ready to prosecute Cressida Dick until an untimely intervention by the jury at the Mets H&S trial.
If the officers on the ground had been armed and they had been allowed to act on what they saw as the best course of action-ie stopping him outside the tube then Demenezes would be alive today. This is the problem when you get social workers and bank clerks masquerading as senior police officers.”
Cressida Dick, in my opinion, has walked away lightly. She has been quiet though! Wonder why? She wears the crowns or pips, she took the decisions, the buck stops there; it is sometimes wholly wrong to blame the front line.
She wears the crossed tipstaves and crown of an AC!!
This is from the Daily Mail, and is a quote from a victim:
“He added: ‘I was really close to a police station and two policewomen came running out. They rushed me inside the station and they were shouting at other members of the public to get inside.”
People say he could not of been stopped by police who were armed, well….
In a farce near me, very recently a 16 year old boy was challenged in a town centre late at night after some minor disorder. He was chased by an officer on foot when he made off from the group involved in the disorder. After a hundred meters or so, the boy stopped and pulled out a sawn off double barreled shotgun that he leveled at the officer who was feet from him. He told the officer to “back off or will kill you”. The officer backed off and then followed at distance into the town bus station where the boy confronted two other youths, discharging the shotgun at them but fortunately missing both other victims. The boy then made off on foot again and was then challenged by armed officers a street away. The boy was arrested and the weapon recovered with one cartridge still in the chamber with a firing pin strike on the loaded cartridge. The cartridge may have been struck when it was being pointed at the officer. We do not know! The case has just been to court and the result was a paltry 4 year prison sentence for the discharge of the gun in a public bus station and 2 years for threatening to kill the officer to run concurrent! Until the judiciary decide to deal with such incidents in a draconian fashion, there is no deterrent to people who would contemplate criminal use of firearms. Anyone intent on murder by any method whatsoever followed by suicide is never going to be deterred by the consequences of the criminal justice system, especially with judgments and disposals like the one above.
I think number of people have made the valid point that there are a number of warranted PC’s you just couldn’t trust with firearms. On my team I can think of at least 10 I really wouldn’t want going near a gun. (either shot themselves in the foot or have an N/D whilst practising their “draw” in front of a mirror ;o) However by a process of natural wastage most of these will be whittled away from response work and sent up to office based jobs/SNT etc.
It’s not practicable to arm all officers for reasons of time/cost/what do you do with the ones who can’t pass the course??? Also those who are warming chairs in CMU/Bean counting/CID roles don’t really need them.
How about (at least in the Met) putting armed officers in every borough R/T car and a couple of IRV’s with a minimum number of firearms trained officers and a car or two in every constabulary OCU equivalent. That way you have a more agile armed response capability without arming the numptys.
We’ve got to get to the stage where the MPA let us have tasers in the R/T cars first!
Having just listened to the Chief Constable of Cumbria on ITN news, is anyone else raising an eyebrow at the statement that Cumrbia deployed every one of its AFOs, all 47 of them, to the incident? That sounds really impressive…..but how many were actually on duty ready to respond to the call and how many had to be called in? More smoke and mirror BS from management.
Not too sure on this, but I think the news said total number of AFOs was around the 90 mark, with 42 deployed to this incident. To me, this sounds like quite a high number for such a rural force.
I think even in the Met we’d struggle to amass 42 AFOs in an outer borough in a short space of time!
Whilst I generally have a lot of sympathy for most of the police (mostly of Inspector rank downwards) who do a damned difficult job in almost impossible circumstances, I recall a recent Scottish cop who jumped on a driver for blowing his nose whilst stationary: I would definitely be having serious misgivings if such as he were routinely trawling around with one of Smith & Wesson’s finest…
I don’t see how we can legislate for people going nutter. God knows what it would be like on our Swamp if guns were more available. We should restrict guns to gun clubs and it should be illegal to otherwise be in possession. The same should be true for professionals – on the job only (with exceptions for conditions such as those in NI). Our cops should be routinely armed and allowed to opt out.
All the rest I hear is bullshit, though I’d listen to anything sensible I haven’t heard trolled out before. I’m disturbed Cumbria cops seem to have gone into denial so soon. I think, as someone above pointed out on Stockwell, that we are always better off letting cops on the ground get on with their decisions. Seen some madness at the sharp end, but less than the SMTurnips manage. A substantial and routine armed presence would help this.
Frightening what one mad taxi driver could do, and this bodes ill for our alleged terrorist readiness.
Arming the police in Britain would overturn century old traditions and upend the social contract, and result in many people being issued guns who are not trained, equipped, or well tempered to use them.
Better to use PCSOs for it then.
It pains me to disagree.
But how many people were already dead before the police were first involved? How close to the moron with the gun did they get before he offed himself?
I can perhaps see that armed police might have stopped this particular outrage perhaps half way through, and that is obviously better than what happened. But it would have achieved nothing in Dunblane or Hungerford, and the huge negative consequences across the rest of the country and all the other events that might happen and the relationship with the public are a terrible long-term price to pay for what might have been a partial solution to this horror.
BTW, serious condelences to the victim’s families
Correct me if I’m wrong, but one of the people killed by Ryan in Hungerford was a PC, and quite early on too. He may well have been able to put a stop to the days events if he had the means. We’ll never know.
John – If you had just read Canadcop’s post, armed police officers in the UK would most certainly had stopped Derrick Bird if they were in the vicinty of one of his shootings, rather than scoot people out of the way and yell at other members of the public to “take cover.”
I was chatting with an ex-UK copper today (now serving here in Calgary) about Cumbria, and he is also of the opinion that more UK police officers should be routinely armed. I have seen Canadian cops in action and your “average” constable here (they are all heroes to me) will not hesitate to put his or her life on the line to protect innocent members of the public from the Derrick Bird’s of the world.
At least every Canadian copper has a gun to even the odds!
Bill
http://www.regentprotection.com
Dave and Canadiancop – are either of you in Calgary?
Bill
http://www.regentprotection.com
Hi Bill, yes i am serving in Calgary.
Hi Bill, yes i am serving here in Calgary
Paul – Yes I looked at your blog. Good to see another ex-squaddie on here. However, I couldn’t see anywhere I could send you a personal email? I was doing a spot of shooting at one of our city ranges recently. They even have an SLR and a Sterling SMG here! Move to Canada mate. I’ll even give you a job and buy you your own handgun.
Responsible gun ownership and the right to self-defence should be the absolute right of every citizen that lives in the free world. Britain’s gun laws have become so ridiculous, even the UK Olympic shooting team has to practise outside the country. Why can’t an army base or even a police shooting range be made available for them to practise? In my own humble opinion, when a citizenry has had the right removed to defend itself from violent criminals, then that citizenry is no longer free.
To change the subject a bit, Canada is at least moving with the times regarding security agencies. Here in Alberta, we can now carry 21inch telescopic “Asp” batons, handcuffs and wear Kevlar vests. There are some places in Calgary where we need them too. However dedicated police officers here like Canadiancop and Dave are on the beat and react very quickly indeed when we need them. In Toronto, Ontario, some banks and upscale jewelry stores have armed security guards, so while gun toting security guards are rare here compared to the USA, I predict that it will become more commonplace in the future.
Bill
http://www.regentprotection.com
“…when a citizenry has had the right removed to defend itself from violent criminals, then that citizenry is no longer free. …”
I feel it is somewhat worse than that:- the citizenry here in the UK have had the right removed to defend themselves from a despotic – even if presently subtle – ruling class.
This is not an accidental by-product of other legislation.
Inspector Gadget, I say this sincerely, I have respect for you, your blog raises valid issues. Not many Inspectors dare ask questions. Keep going boss. People outside need to know the truth. Thoughts are with the families of victims.
Starsky and Anonymous Panda, to answer your questions about the website:
A). I went with the UK police uniforms because they are unique to us on this side of the Atlantic, and (B) we cannot be confused with any police service or security agency on this side of the pond. However, the 200 ex-UK police officers now serving here tend to do a double-take when they see us walking around!
Regarding the two officers in the yellow hi-viz jackets, they are actually both part of a group of 62 national police officers and military personnel we hired from the Philippines to work here on a two-year contract. The photo was taken at a low angle, so no-one was standing on a box to look tall!
By the way, the Filipino’s are outstanding. They are professional, well trained, polite, efficient, and don’t lose their bottle when dealing with gits. I am trying to extend their visas so we can keep them long-term.
Cheers,
Bill
http://www.regentprotection.com
Bill
Nobody seems to be calling for the heads of the police yet…
“Police said on Friday they had no opportunity to end the killings sooner.
All available armed officers – a total of 42 – were deployed as soon as the shooting was reported and efforts were made to contain him.
Chief Constable Craig Mackey said that police and RAF helicopters were drafted into the area to find Bird as he drove through the county, as part of a “massive land and air search” ”
BBC news.
john- you didnt listen to jeremy vine then…
As ever, the debate in the comments on this blog are as interesting as the article itself.
Firstly, for those questioning how life on their given ‘swamp’ would be different if guns were more readily available: They are readily available now. I live just outside Birmingham, and I’m a good citizen these days, but after a wild period in my youth I know the areas to go to if I want a gun, and who to talk to once there. There’s any one of half a dozen places I could drive to now with a couple of hundred quid, and walk out with gun and ammo.
So would life be all that different on our troubled estates if guns were more available? Probably not, really.
As for arming the police en-masse… Go to London, there’s men with guns on every other street, at least, that’s how it feels. I hate that this happened without there being any debate about it, the numbers just steadily grew post 9/11 and 7/7.
Personally I would support more ARV’s, perhaps even to the extent of weapons in every car. I just can’t stand the thought of every policeman on the street carrying a weapon, there are too many bad/lazy officers that I just wouldn’t trust with them.
I also feel (and this is just a feeling, not based on any evidence) that it separates them from the public. Many people just aren’t comfortable around guns or the people that carry them. Further separation between the police and the communities they serve cannot be a good thing.
There is also something to be said for a practical approach. More guns available in the areas they are most likely to be needed, that probably wouldn’t have prevented the scenes in Cumbria, normally a placid town filled with decent people. The officers patrolling, say, Handsworth and Aston here in Birmingham have more of a need for firearms than those in nicer parts of the country/city.
The comments about alienating the public come up again and again, and while I agree it’s not something we want to be doing, I don’t think it’s the obstacle some people make it out to be.
-Members of the public often ask me where my gun is. Many refuse to believe that I do not have access to one.
-Members of the public have no idea how frequent firearms jobs are, because the brass like to keep it quiet to protect their promotion/bonus.
-People made the same fuss about CS spray, and about PR24 batons, and pretty much everything the police have ever been given. I accept that guns are a bigger step than most, but it’s not a quantum leap.
-The public are FAR more supportive of the police than the media seem to make out. As is usual for the British public sector, we let our priorities be set by unrepresentative focus groups and loud minorities.
As I have said before I do not live in the UK-where I live the officers are armed-they and the public have no problem interacting they are in bars having a coffee chatting to locals and receiving handshakes.
In the UK there is an unarmed force but never have I sensed such a wide gulf between the police and the policed
“I also feel (and this is just a feeling, not based on any evidence) that it separates them from the public. Many people just aren’t comfortable around guns or the people that carry them. Further separation between the police and the communities they serve cannot be a good thing…”
I have lived in the States 40+ yrs. I like Diners and Cafes for eating ,I always see the Men in Blue and have never felt fear of them the way I did of Prefects at school and the beatings got from these privileged folk.
People will do “What” pleases them “period”, unless the pain they give gets a bigger perceived pain in return.
Bad guys are too self-centered to know better, that is why they keep the same MO, it pleases them.
As for the Cumbria Disaster It was unpredictable,[there will always be these problems] but if Every Policeman had a device to disable him, it might have prevented the size of this horrible tragedy but his actions indicate he did not care about anything except himself.
In the swamps dothe vermin live but also some beautiful birds and other animals but we are so focused on being alligator dinner that we fail to see them the good side.
By banning the “whatevers” or making this or that unlawful, that will never stop the insane from doing the things we hate. That is why the Bobby should chosen for his ability to think on his feet, not because he is PC but is a good PC, and not wait for another member the body to decide action, Every organisation makes errors of picking inappropriate employees, but that is why there are supervisers to weed out the ineffective, so the argument not provide defense weapons because they not have the brains to use them just indicates that the powers to be wish not to have a Police force. As for those that are good Coppers but believe themselves not able to hit a barn door, will find that they can if they want to live, motivation?
There will always be evil, the question is, can we limit the the numbers to under 5%, or 1%? This small percentage gets the attention of media jackals, never the 80% of the good people.
‘The public are FAR more supportive of the police than the media seem to make out’
Err… no they aren’t…
I should go and have a look at the comments on the Daily Wail (sic) site if I were you. The paper is getting a kicking over blaming the police for not stopping Cumbria sooner.
They are where I work in Metrocity.
The antis are usually just a very vocal minority.
The old cliche about people receiving good service telling only one person – but bad service means telling several – rings true in my experience.
What about a system where say 2 out of every 10 officers were armed? Maybe a certain rank (does the police work like that?), with the appropriate training/testing, would take on the responsibility of being armed. Then you don’t have armed coppers everywhere, but you do have someone within response distance who has the resources to shoot an individual who is a threat. In an environment where only criminals are allowed to be armed, then regardless of the politics, it would be fairly handy to know that within 10 miles there is someone who’s job it is to drop the perpetrator before me and mine end up on the news under a blanket.
The balance of fear in favour of criminals IS utterly wrong, but baby steps. People are too prone to extreme behaviour to allow us all to go around like cowboys, lets start with making criminals aware that we can injure them to a point of say, immobility if they threaten someone,, leave going prepared a no no for now, and make criminals scared of breaking the law?
Not practical I’m afraid, you’d still have to train everyone because of situations like courses, deployments, sickness, annual leave, attachments etc. The only way to ensure you had a constant 20% ratio would be to train everyone then decide at the beginning of the shift who was armed. Then in order to keep the ratio available you couldn’t deploy them to 99% of the calls that came in unless officers requested armed backup, then bingo you’ve just lost 20% of your deployable resources for all the other calls that come in. As for training it’s nothing to do with rank, nearly all specialists are PC’s, only things like hostage negotiators, or some search roles are rank specific.
Thank you.
Train everyone, have the 20% active, as routine, if they are called out, activate another detail, and so on. ie on ‘busy’ gun crime days, you have more gun crime response units active? In the worst scenario, every officer would be armed, but it would be in response to the scale of the threat.
Obviously, the getting the resources to implement something is another discussion, but there has to be a practical means to demonstrate to the public that armed police aren’t necessarily bad, and to armed criminals that its not entirely one sided in their favour.
Just as many people would have died if the police had guns.
Great post, well thought out and backed up with hard facts.
A good retort, countered by a well thought out response, backed up with hard facts!
What the hell is wrong with you people? You are having to confront violent suspects with nothing but a baton and pepper spray. Are you not concerned with your safety? What kind of feeling do you get as an officer when you have to hide from armed suspects while they go on a rampage?
If you are worried about weapons retention, there are many very good holsters with three levels of movement required to draw them. These are very safe and yet still let you draw quickly. They have saved many US cops.
Cops all over Europe are armed and it seems to work out fine. I think that you guys are risking your lives for the sake of a political statement and it is a shame.
Johnny,
What’s more likely?
That my force would go out and buy the best equipment it could and hire the best trainers (ex-commandos and such) it possible could: Or would it do what it does not and equip and train it’s officers to a budget?
I am concerned with my safety, but the fact of the matter is that even on the post 50′s run-down council estate in the middle of a large(ish) city that I work in I haven’t encountered that many gun toting suspects. I certainly haven’t come accross any rampaging armed maniacs either. Inspector Gadget is using the senario that occurred in Cumbria to argue that all police should be armed.
I would respectfully disagree with him. That kind of incident (horrific though it is) just doesn’t happen often enough to justify fundamentally changing (and it would) the way that policing in this country works.
The only reasonable case that you can make for regularly arming response officers is that their day to day duties (as opposed to once in a career/maybe never horror stories) have changed so much and become so much more dangerous that arming them is the only option. I simply don’t think this is the case.
I have always been happy to go out and patrol without a firearm and have really never felt that I needed to carry one.
How many suspects have you run into that carry knives or clubs? They can kill you just as well. I am not going to take on a knife with a baton. Just not going to happen.
So 3.5% of their staff were actually able to pursue this guy? 1200 staff, 42 armed officers and thats the end result. I suspect a much larger percentage of officers available on that day were response officers.
No earlier opportunity? No, because all the response officers will have been told to keep well clear.
Just as an aside, why didnt they deploy armed officers in the helicopters? Twisty windy roads are no match for a helicopter and cell site analysis.
Assuming you had his mobile number, and that he had it on him and that the cell site analysis came through quickly enough. Even the counter terrorism teams tracking the bombers from London to Glasgow after the Haymarket attempt were still a few minutes behind because of the delay in the cell site data, going by Birds MO that was still enough time for him to shoot and move on. A couple of firearms officers reckoned they were 30-60 seconds behind him and that still wasn’t enough.
The Chief said in his press briefing they were using cell site data to track his location. It wouldnt have been too hard to obtain his phone number. I don’t want to go into technical detail on here for obvious reasons, but that could be done very quickly and put to very speedy use. Unlike the bomb plotters you refer, their numbers would have been more difficult to obtain.
If you had a bird in the air with armed officers on board it would have been much more dynamic. A car on these country roads that are so terrible (apparently) would be no match for a)ground speed of a helicopter b) the speed a large area can be searched. The ‘few minutes’ would have become a few seconds.
The Daily Fail has them deploying armed officers ahead of him in ambush, by helo. When Bird pranged his car he made off on foot rendering their position superfluous.
I imagine getting accurate triangulation by cell info becomes more difficult when the target is moving in a vehicle in a rural (and thus more patchily covered) area.
Ok, so I have thought about this now a lot and I found this article http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article53805.ece which to me has tipped the balance. if the first officers on the scene had been armed, instead of having to call up forARV’s, the outcome would have been completely different.
Sorry, one may only surmise this. No way of knowing, for certain, what may have happened if officers were armed.
Forgive me if the point’s been made: haven’t read all the comments … but surely the mere fact of possessing a sidearm, would give officers the confidence to engage any number of situations which are inherently dangerous?
I don’t think this debate is about whether a PC with a 9m Glock would have ended Cumbria any sooner, but whether they might have tried, safer in the knowledge that the had a weapon.
Of course, senior officers are responsible for determining the appropriate number / nature of armed officers in their areas and are at liberty to have more than they currently do if they think it justified. In some forces, they only arm specialist firearms teams whilst others routinely arm dual role officers who undertake traffic / arv / fast-response duties.
So maybe someone will focus this question at the Chief Constables maybe it will have a reasonable answer or maybe it won’t: “on what basis did you believe that current numbers of armed officers and the specialist / dual nature of their deployment was sufficient to anticipate your local need?”
No sir: Senior officers are not at liberty to increase the numbers – not without approval from the Police Authority who have to pay for the training and weaponry. Chiefs may like to think they are barons (baronesses) of all they survey, but in these financial and generally straightened times, it isn’t that easy.
Of course, Bird may not have taken to the streets in the first place if he knew that it was likely he would bump into an armed officer.
If you take a gun out onto the streets in Europe, you are likely to get into “contact” very very quickly, as every local gendarme/polizei etc blasts away at you!
Come on, you’re getting a little spurious now.
Canadacop – thanks for replying. Drop by the office anytime for a coffe (we brew Tim Horton’s here!)
Cheers,
Bill
http://www.regentprotection.com
Every time the debate resurfaces abou routine arming
of the Police in the UK, I still don’t ‘get’ the comparisons to either US Police Forces or various European Neighbours.
Although we all do things in similar ways, the culture is very different, both in policing and criminality.
Surely the best comparison is with Australian Forces? Our Aussie colleagues still police by consent, yet are all routinely armed. They have a proportionately lower crime level than the UK in the vast majority of cases, and most of their laws are based on the old British laws.
We even play “cop swapsie” with Australia – well, lots of us move out there to work. We even share a caution (although we messed with ours to add more bumf. I still know the old caution better).
The Australian policing model, although not ideal, is the one that best matches up the UK one. And they manage not to shoot every other suspect they stop.
To all those ‘even if they were armed they may not have been able to stop him’ people… from BBC..
‘Three unarmed police officers saw Derrick Bird during his shooting rampage in Whitehaven but were unable to stop him, police have confirmed.
An officer based at Whitehaven Police Station, in Scotch Street, heard shots fired at 1033 BST on Wednesday and ran out of the station to assist.
He said the first officer saw Bird shooting the driver of another taxi, as Bird drove past in the grey taxi.
Bird killed 12 people on the rampage in west Cumbria before shooting himself.
Deputy Chief Constable Stuart Hyde said that “at no point” did officers “have the opportunity to end the killings sooner”.
Shame they weren’t armed eh? 10 people may still be alive now…
here is the link..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cumbria/10257836.stm
I had suspected this might be the case. I honesly believe that if all officers were armed, it would not have taken Bird’s suicide to stop the violence.
The final lines of the BBC report interest me though.
“He said 42 officers were armed and deployed to the scene within two minutes of the first call.”
Frankly, I do not believe this. I would be surprised if I could get 42 armed officers to an incident in 120 seconds in suburban London, let alone in Cumbria. Another BBC report states they only had 42 armed officers available in total, so I suspect the above statement is simply a misunderstanding.
Shijuro. Was about to post the same thing.
Nicely done.
Lucky an armed officer was on scene to prevent more that 13 dying in a shooting tragedy.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33678801/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/
Only it was in a country where the use of force to prevent further death by nutter doesn’t conflict with any notion of civil liberties.
I’m just chugging through the system and got to see an ASP today for the first time. That’d have been brilliant against Mr Bird…
I should clarify – it was an armed police officer who stopped this individual. The military shrink who went psycho was using civilian-bought weapons and ammo.
The soldiers were defenceless as their weapons and ammo was safely tucked away in an armoury, where it was largely useless to prevent further injury to the innocent.
Sounds familiar?
Even if every officer in Cumbria was armed I doubt the scale of the tragedy would have been much less.
The fact of the matter is that the only person to blame is Derrick Bird. He was the killer and no one else.
As an aside please spare a thought for the officer(s) who dealt with Bird’s shotgun application, renewal and .22 grant.
Would you be able to deduce in a twenty minute interview that your sat in the lounge of a potential nutter?
My heartfelt condolences to the families of the victims and the people of Cumbria.
I love how cops spend most of their time telling people to be passive in the face of violence, and then moan when the public complain about poor protection! What do you exspect mate? Tell your senior officers to stop disarming people and promising super-human service.
As an American, I have not seen that allowing the “law-abiding” citizenry to own and carry guns has made any sort of a go at preventing crime. In one incident, a boy was horribly injured by his brother (both of whom were young) when they were playing with a gun they found behind a couch in their grandfather’s house. The gun was loaded and had no safety.
As for the police… I don’t know. I personally think that, with the exception of hunting rifles, NO guns should be allowed, regardless of whether one is a collector or a hobbyist. I know that’s a bit extreme, but guns are designed not to hinder or stop people but to kill them.