2 Police Officers shot and killed in Manchester

[Will21st]

Originally Posted by Pierre

How often?

too often

Originally Posted by Pierre

As I have set out previously, there many non-lethal methods available.

Yeah,ask a cop how effective they are... don't just consult your Hill Street Blues

Originally Posted by Pierre

there's no guarantee a weapon will always fire.

Yeah,but a bullet or two will stop the perp.... unlike a taser,which was my point.

Originally Posted by Pierre

I think there is.

Good for you.Got anything to actually contribute? You know,something based in reality,not Hill Street Blues.

Originally Posted by Pierre

It was really good.

I bet it was.Shame it seems to be your only point of reference in this discussion.

Originally Posted by Will21st

too often



Yeah,ask a cop how effective they are... don't just consult your Hill Street Blues

Yeah,but a bullet or two will stop the perp.... unlike a taser,which was my point.

Good for you.Got anything to actually contribute? You know,something based in reality,not Hill Street Blues.


I bet it was.Shame it seems to be your only point of reference in this discussion.

Sky

However, a 2006 survey carried out by the Police Federation found that 82% of officers questioned were not in favour of being routinely armed.

Similar polls in 2003 and 1995 showed police were overwhelming against being forced to carry a gun.

[Itshim]

Originally Posted by Sparkle

I've been asked this many times too. "Don't need them over there, isn't that great?" is my reply. I then follow on to say (tongue in cheek) "You see that's one reason why I moved to Britain, the Brits are freedom loving. They sure do know what freedom means.". That usually winds them up nicely.

Next time one of your American friends asks you if its true that UK cops don't carry guns, just consider it your duty to inform them that from September 2000 through to September 2010, 511 American cops died as a result of hostile gunfire.
In that same time frame, just three British policemen (excluding N. Ireland) died as a result of hostile gunfire. Amazing what we can achieve when we apply a little common sense to gun ownership.

http://www.denverpost.com/nationworl...250?source=rss

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...e_line_of_duty

Just to clear up a point they are both close family & friends, & it great that guns are not thought to be needed in the UK.

Personally I have no problem with the police carrying them & when I am home in the states I am happier to see them on the street with a gun than with out. I have never suggested that they should however be routinely used in the UK. Different cultures . As I have stated before & just to be clear - When in the States have a gun in my home (Before you ask it is kept at a firing range when I am here) & yes it has been used in - anger / self defense -he fired first & missed said it was meant to missed on reflection it was so wide as to be true , I missed - dark- not that awake. Was caught by police, He thought that as I was a "brit" i would be an easy target. Had only just moved into that house,I moved on after that. First thing we did was put Old Glory up the flag pole Mistake putting a Union & a Welsh flag before

[Pierre]

Just a quick google, comes up with this wiki page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...e_line_of_duty

Remembering that it's a wiki page so don't expect to be 100% accurate, but good enough for this forum.

Since 1900, amongst other causes:

approx 24 police have been killed by being stabbed

Approx 71 police have been killed by being shot (not including PSNI)

and approx 21 have been killed in police car pursuits.

so in 112 years 96 police have been shot or stabbed.

If you look at this site:
http://www.citizensreportuk.org/repo...-firearms.html

From 2005 the police have shot and killed 20 civillians, and of those 20 civillians 8 either had no weapon on them or had an imitation weapon.

Not such a good strike rate.

and that's only the last 7 years.

[Itshim]

Just a thought have "they" now stated they were shot- last heard talk of killed by a grenade. If so you really have little chance, even with a gun of winning that "fight"

Regarding the principle of "Policing by Consent" ... for those that profess not to understand it, yet are keen to jump with such enthusiasm into a debate which hinges on it, can I suggest a little background reading - the sort of reading that can be done after the most perfunctory of Googles:

The Nine Principles of Policing: http://www.civitas.org.uk/pubs/policeNine.php

1. To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment. 2. To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.
3. To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.
4. To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.
5. To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion; but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour; and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.
6. To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.
7. To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
8. To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.
9. To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.

"Policing by consent" means running the operation in a way that causes the public to co-operate because the public agrees with and supports the police and not because they have at the back of their minds that they might face violence, or the threat of it, if they do not.

An observation on how "Policing by consent" was seen to have applied during the recent Games in London:

http://www.acpo.police.uk/ThePoliceC...rdfromSHO.aspx

[danielf]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19641398

An interesting read, which also provides some background to the current situation. Interestingly, according to a 2004 poll, 47% of the public support the police being routinely armed. According to a 2006 poll, 82% of police officers opposed...

---------- Post added at 16:26 ---------- Previous post was at 16:24 ----------

Originally Posted by Itshim

Just a thought have "they" now stated they were shot- last heard talk of killed by a grenade. If so you really have little chance, even with a gun of winning that "fight"

The BBC now says 'gun and grenade attack', so it's not clear.

---------- Post added at 16:30 ---------- Previous post was at 16:26 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

"Policing by consent" means running the operation in a way that causes the public to co-operate because the public agrees with and supports the police and not because they have at the back of their minds that they might face violence, or the threat of it, if they do not.

An observation on how "Policing by consent" was seen to have applied during the recent Games in London:

http://www.acpo.police.uk/ThePoliceC...rdfromSHO.aspx

I think that the point that Will and I are making is that it's not impossible for an armed police force to 'police by consent'. It really isn't the case that most continental police forces consist of gun toting idiots that command no respect from the public other than through the fact that they carry a firearm.

[Sparkle]

Originally Posted by danielf

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19641398

An interesting read, which also provides some background to the current situation. Interestingly, according to a 2004 poll, 47% of the public support the police being routinely armed.

I'm suspicious of any poll which asks such a specific question using such vague terminology. As the poll is being bantered by the BBC as being evidence that 47% of people (polled) support giving the police guns, it seems like the poll must have been asking a specific question.
Unless I'm missing something, "armed" does not exclusively refer to firearms. The poll suggests 47% of people support arming police, but nowhere in the poll is the word "firearm" or "gun" mentioned. I find that rather odd.

http://www.icmresearch.com/pdfs/2004...orism_poll.pdf

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Sparkle

I'm suspicious of any poll which asks such a specific question using such vague terminology. As the poll is being bantered by the BBC as being evidence that 47% of people (polled) support giving the police guns, it seems like the poll must have been asking a specific question.
Unless I'm missing something, "armed" does not exclusively refer to firearms. The poll suggests 47% of people support arming police, but nowhere in the poll is the word "firearm" or "gun" mentioned. I find that rather odd.

http://www.icmresearch.com/pdfs/2004...orism_poll.pdf

I hadn't looked at the actual poll, but looking at it, it does seem that the wording is a little ambiguous. It's also worth bearing in mind that the wider poll is about what measures are acceptable in combatting terrorism, which is likely to skew the results. Having said that, it wouldn't surprise me if approximately half the population wouldn't object to the police routinely carrying firearms.

Originally Posted by danielf

I hadn't looked at the actual poll, but looking at it, it does seem that the wording is a little ambiguous. It's also worth bearing in mind that the wider poll is about what measures are acceptable in combatting terrorism, which is likely to skew the results. Having said that, it wouldn't surprise me if approximately half the population wouldn't object to the police routinely carrying firearms.

Context is king, as Sparkle rightly pointed out. If you ask people if they think the polis should be routinely armed at the same time as you're making them remember all the nasty things terrorists can do, it's not surprising if you get a healthy level of support for the proposition.

Note, however, that the BBC also observes this afternoon that the idea of routine arming enjoys really rather low levels of support amongst the police themselves, comments from serving officers in this thread notwithstanding.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Chris

Context is king, as Sparkle rightly pointed out. If you ask people if they think the polis should be routinely armed at the same time as you're making them remember all the nasty things terrorists can do, it's not surprising if you get a healthy level of support for the proposition.

Yes, I think I pointed that out myself.

Note, however, that the BBC also observes this afternoon that the idea of routine arming enjoys really rather low levels of support amongst the police themselves, comments from serving officers in this thread notwithstanding.

Yes. I specifically mentioned that in an earlier post. I have no beef with it either way. As I said earlier, I like the idea that the police doesn't carry arms routinely, but I'd have no problem with it if they did. I think it's largely a matter of what you're used to, and there are many continental police forces that have fine relations with the public despite carrying arms. I know. I lived there for around 30 years. Police forces don't suddenly turn into ninja-style paramilitary units when they carry guns.

[Hom3r]

The question about arming cops people have forgotten is this.

Do they all want to be armed. I would guess many wouldn't.

[Will21st]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Sky

Does that poll include the pen pushers,ACPO types and other office dwellers who don't serve the front line? I would guess so. Just go to the usual police blogs to see the general mood amongst the front line.

---------- Post added at 13:12 ---------- Previous post was at 13:09 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

Just a quick google, comes up with this wiki page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...e_line_of_duty

Remembering that it's a wiki page so don't expect to be 100% accurate, but good enough for this forum.

Since 1900, amongst other causes:

approx 24 police have been killed by being stabbed

Approx 71 police have been killed by being shot (not including PSNI)

and approx 21 have been killed in police car pursuits.

so in 112 years 96 police have been shot or stabbed.

If you look at this site:
http://www.citizensreportuk.org/repo...-firearms.html

From 2005 the police have shot and killed 20 civillians, and of those 20 civillians 8 either had no weapon on them or had an imitation weapon.

Not such a good strike rate.

and that's only the last 7 years.

Ok,so those officers shot or stabbed had no means of effectively defending themselves.... being armed they may have stood a chance.
Many more cops who were injured in the line of duty could've gotten away unharmed if they had the right tools to do the job.

Also,being shot having an imitation firearm is one of the possible consequences of carrying an imitation firearm.That doesn't go against the police.

[Russ]

Polls that ask the public if they want to see Police armed are IMO largely redundant.

You ask 1000 people if they should be awarded £1m by the government as their next birthday present, they're likely to all say yes however that does not necessarily mean it should happen.

Yes it's a different context but in this sort of situation it would be what the police want, not just the public. The population is full of (well-meaning) armchair experts who think they know what would happen in a particular scenario, but have no actual idea of what it's like.

[Itshim]

Sorry can not pick up quote referring to Police blog

Which is ?