Police Officer Shot.

Von Smallhausen · 31-12-2007, 20:13

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/l...re/7166063.stm

No doubt the debate whetjer to arm police will rear up again. I am just glad she will be ok.

Wellington · 02-01-2008, 19:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Von Smallhausen

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/l...re/7166063.stm

No doubt the debate whetjer to arm police will rear up again. I am just glad she will be ok.

I'm in two minds about whether they should arm police officers, on the for side of things, I believe they should be adequately equipped to deal with modern day crime (Increasing Knife and Gun). However I'm concerned that they will give any old officer a gun, and no offence to the officers here (your at least semi sensible

) but there's way too many officers who shouldn't be armed with anything more than a teaspoon.

Please note that I do have a great respect for our police force, it's a job that I wouldn't want to do and it takes alot to do it well!

iCraig · 02-01-2008, 20:19

Indeed, as with any profession, there are bad eggs. I'm sure there are officers on the force who should not be given a deadly weapon. Yet how do you get around that and arm the ones who should be? Should they even be armed? Well, in my opinion, yes they should. As long as they're trained properly and shoot to disable rather than to kill (unless absolutely necessary) I don't see a problem. I trust police officers driving fast behind the wheel of what is basically a deadly weapon in itself, so I also trust them carrying arms.

Matblack · 02-01-2008, 20:49

I don't see the necessity to arm the British police, the balance we have at the moment is pretty much OK as far as I am concerned. You put guns on every cop and you make the into mobile gun dispensers for criminals, how many cops in the UK? Thats a lot of guns on the street which can be stolen/ wrestled off the legitimate user and then turned against them. The police in this country have the ability to call in a fire arms team and more and more are getting non deadly disabling weapons, I'd feel a lot less safe with every copper armed, not because I don't trust them but because I don't trust the criminal fraternity not to procure these weapons and/ or arm up in response.

MB

MarcLister · 02-01-2008, 20:59

I agree with Matblack, we don't need to arm all of the police officers on the streets. However I think we should increase the numbers that are so that should a police officer need a firearms response team, either for their own protection or for some kind of public protection, then they know that because the number of firearms officers is higher they will be joined by more firearms officers and faster than before.

A common argument against arming all police officers is that the criminals would then want to be armed in a stupid response. OK so the police officers would have the legal powers to posess and use firearms and the criminals wouldn't, but they won't see it that way.

Von Smallhausen · 10-01-2008, 22:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matblack

I The police in this country have the ability to call in a fire arms team and more and more are getting non deadly disabling weapons, .
MB

That is not the case for every force Mat, at least not in terms of quick and rapid response.

What I mean is that the Met for example is a city of 7 million people with a larger police force to boot and it has better responses than most. If a police officer in London shouts for assistance and that assistance is an armed option then there are numerous Trojan units that can travel and be there relatively quickly. There may be incidents where the officer faces an imminent threat then and there and by definition a firearms incident could be someone with a sword and not neccessarily a firearm.

Where I work, the force area has a population of 600,000 with 24/7 armed coverage of 4 police officers manning 2 x ARVs. Armed assistance can often be 20-30 minutes away and the need for a tactical option above section 5 incapacitant spray or baton may be required at that very moment. This is why I support the further introduction of Taser beyond armed officers as ARVs are not always available when you need it.

I do not support routine arming but I do support the wider introduction of Taser.

Matblack · 10-01-2008, 22:40

I think we're singing off the same hymn sheet here and I stand by my statement.

If we keep firearms off our streets (including out of the hands of the majority of police) then the relatively small number of incidents can be dealt with by specialist firearms units. The relatively small number if firearms incidents in the UK seems to bear this out.

I'm totally behind the increase in non lethal rehabilitating weapons though especially things such as tazers which leave a substantial evidence trail. However if you bring in more firearms officers you actually increase the risk to public and police alike.

MB

jmc41 · 10-01-2008, 23:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by iCraig

As long as they're trained properly and shoot to disable rather than to kill (unless absolutely necessary) I don't see a problem.

Don't they train them to aim for the largest area of the body, ie: the torso.

I guess you could argue that's less likely to kill you than shooting you straight in the head, but hitting a leg is a lot harder (or so I imagine).

I remember a policeman telling me about why they changed handcuffs. The old ones were dangerous because they could - and were used to attack an arresting officer a number of times; almost a serrated edge.

Whatever you take out on the streets can be used against you.

MarcLister · 10-01-2008, 23:22

jmc41 - I think they are trained to aim for the head, the torso or any other part of the body depending on the situation.

If someone is posing an immediate danger to the public or the police officers, then the firearms officers can aim at the head or the torso in an attempt to end the threat to life. However if someone isn't posing so much of a threat then they could be shot in the leg or the arm to try and disarm them.

And there is that secretive Operation Kratos the Met Police use for suspected terrorists. Because there are concerns a bullet to the torso could set off a concealed bomb the firearms officers can use the Operation Kratos rules which states a clear head shot. I think the firearms officers would need to be given permission by a senior officer to use the Kratos rules though.

And about the handcuffs, don't they just wrap the joining part in a leather case almost?

jmc41 · 10-01-2008, 23:49

Well I'm by no means an expert

I think it was something about restricting how much they could open up (ie: < 180 degrees) and blunting the connection. I imagine they're continually making them harder to get out of. I remembering meeting at least one guy who had done it.

31-12-2007, 20:13	#1
Von Smallhausen I'm Free Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Tyneside Posts: 3,061	Police Officer Shot. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/l...re/7166063.stm No doubt the debate whetjer to arm police will rear up again. I am just glad she will be ok. __________________ " Well, old bean, life is really so bloody awful that I feel it’s my absolute duty to be chirpy and try and make everybody else happy too." David Niven, 1910-1983.

02-01-2008, 20:19	#3
iCraig iCustom User Title Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 2,250	Indeed, as with any profession, there are bad eggs. I'm sure there are officers on the force who should not be given a deadly weapon. Yet how do you get around that and arm the ones who should be? Should they even be armed? Well, in my opinion, yes they should. As long as they're trained properly and shoot to disable rather than to kill (unless absolutely necessary) I don't see a problem. I trust police officers driving fast behind the wheel of what is basically a deadly weapon in itself, so I also trust them carrying arms. __________________

02-01-2008, 20:49	#4
Matblack Baby Bore Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Svalbard Posts: 9,770	I don't see the necessity to arm the British police, the balance we have at the moment is pretty much OK as far as I am concerned. You put guns on every cop and you make the into mobile gun dispensers for criminals, how many cops in the UK? Thats a lot of guns on the street which can be stolen/ wrestled off the legitimate user and then turned against them. The police in this country have the ability to call in a fire arms team and more and more are getting non deadly disabling weapons, I'd feel a lot less safe with every copper armed, not because I don't trust them but because I don't trust the criminal fraternity not to procure these weapons and/ or arm up in response. MB __________________ "we had roots that grew towards each other underground, and when all the pretty blossom had fallen from our branches we found that we were one tree and not two"

10-01-2008, 22:40	#7
Matblack Baby Bore Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Svalbard Posts: 9,770	I think we're singing off the same hymn sheet here and I stand by my statement. If we keep firearms off our streets (including out of the hands of the majority of police) then the relatively small number of incidents can be dealt with by specialist firearms units. The relatively small number if firearms incidents in the UK seems to bear this out. I'm totally behind the increase in non lethal rehabilitating weapons though especially things such as tazers which leave a substantial evidence trail. However if you bring in more firearms officers you actually increase the risk to public and police alike. MB __________________ "we had roots that grew towards each other underground, and when all the pretty blossom had fallen from our branches we found that we were one tree and not two"

02-01-2008, 20:59	#5
MarcLister Absinthe Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Leighton Buzzard Posts: 1,282	I agree with Matblack, we don't need to arm all of the police officers on the streets. However I think we should increase the numbers that are so that should a police officer need a firearms response team, either for their own protection or for some kind of public protection, then they know that because the number of firearms officers is higher they will be joined by more firearms officers and faster than before. A common argument against arming all police officers is that the criminals would then want to be armed in a stupid response. OK so the police officers would have the legal powers to posess and use firearms and the criminals wouldn't, but they won't see it that way.

10-01-2008, 23:22	#9
MarcLister Absinthe Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Leighton Buzzard Posts: 1,282	jmc41 - I think they are trained to aim for the head, the torso or any other part of the body depending on the situation. If someone is posing an immediate danger to the public or the police officers, then the firearms officers can aim at the head or the torso in an attempt to end the threat to life. However if someone isn't posing so much of a threat then they could be shot in the leg or the arm to try and disarm them. And there is that secretive Operation Kratos the Met Police use for suspected terrorists. Because there are concerns a bullet to the torso could set off a concealed bomb the firearms officers can use the Operation Kratos rules which states a clear head shot. I think the firearms officers would need to be given permission by a senior officer to use the Kratos rules though. And about the handcuffs, don't they just wrap the joining part in a leather case almost?

10-01-2008, 23:49	#10
jmc41 Absinthe Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 1,070	Well I'm by no means an expert I think it was something about restricting how much they could open up (ie: < 180 degrees) and blunting the connection. I imagine they're continually making them harder to get out of. I remembering meeting at least one guy who had done it.