2 Police Officers shot and killed in Manchester

[Will21st]

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

So you think the public in practically every other country in Europe,or the West for that matter,behave and abide by the law only because they may get shot or threatened with a gun if they don't?
Sorry Chris,you are smart enough to know that what you typed there is just plain nonsense.
Policing by consent is such a lofty concept,but what does it exactly mean in the real world? By your definition I take it that you object to the police carrying spray and batons as well,yes? Those are used when you don't comply,are they not?
It's funny that you should insinuate,without giving me the time of day to address me directly,that I do not understand the principle of 'policing by consent'. I guess I am in good company as that very principle is being questioned and talked about by front line cops on the Gadget Blog.

By the way,did you know that French police have to salute you before talking to you? They are also armed.... but I guess they are oppressive and could turn into violent thugs at a moments notice,too? After all,they don't police by consent,right? Neither does German police,right? Spanish,Italian? All rent-a-thugs?
Don't think so.

Policing by consent means that you consent to being policed,not how you are being policed. In fact,I don't see any difference to principles of policing in Germany.Or the states.Or wherever.....

---------- Post added at 13:27 ---------- Previous post was at 13:26 ----------

Originally Posted by Itshim

Sorry can not pick up quote referring to Police blog

Which is ?

Inspector Gadget

---------- Post added at 13:32 ---------- Previous post was at 13:27 ----------

Originally Posted by danielf

Yes, I think I pointed that out myself.



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.

This seems to be something parts of the British public are unwilling or unable to understand. Somehow British policing is 'special' and not being armed is a tradition worth holding onto out of some sort of pig-headed nostalgia.

I wonder though how Manchester could ever have gotten to be known as Gunchester? I mean,since the cops are unarmed criminals don't use guns,do they?

[Vieil Homme]

The police have arrested a 22 year old male from the Netherley area over a Facebook page that praised Greegan and wrote: he should be awarded an OBE and went on to suggest more officers should be killed. There are others who have set-up Facebook pages, so they may be getting a Knock at the door shortly.

I'm so glad the Police can act and arrest people who write such things on social media sites.

[Itshim]

Originally Posted by Vieil Homme

The police have arrested a 22 year old male from the Netherley area over a Facebook page that praised Greegan and wrote: he should be awarded an OBE and went on to suggest more officers should be killed. There are others who have set-up Facebook pages, so they may be getting a Knock at the door shortly.

I'm so glad the Police can act and arrest people who write such things on social media sites.

Whilst I deplore the comments made. I start to wonder more & more about "free speech" and this country becoming a heavily censored police state.
This should start a triad no doubt.
However I leave the point in the air. perhaps not giving them "oxygen" would be a better line to take ?

Originally Posted by Will21st

So you think the public in practically every other country in Europe,or the West for that matter,behave and abide by the law only because they may get shot or threatened with a gun if they don't?
Sorry Chris,you are smart enough to know that what you typed there is just plain nonsense.
Policing by consent is such a lofty concept,but what does it exactly mean in the real world? By your definition I take it that you object to the police carrying spray and batons as well,yes? Those are used when you don't comply,are they not?
It's funny that you should insinuate,without giving me the time of day to address me directly,that I do not understand the principle of 'policing by consent'. I guess I am in good company as that very principle is being questioned and talked about by front line cops on the Gadget Blog.
<etc, rant snipped>

Good afternoon Will. You perhaps missed the post yesterday in which I specifically pointed out that I wasn't giving anyone the time of day due to other pressing commitments. That's easily done; it was a very brief post. However, if the lack of a quote box in my eventual reply gets you this cross, you should perhaps re-think your use of this medium to carry on discussions. I've seen far worse. As it happens I intended to address various posts I had earlier read and didn't have the time to fiddle about multi-quoting. Clearly you got the gist anyway, so perhaps you should wind your neck in a bit and stick to the issue at hand.

And on that subject - I have not insinuated anything about your understanding of 'policing by consent'. You yourself said in an earlier post that you 'don't get it'. Perhaps you would like to clarify that statement. In the absence of any clarification, I think it's quite reasonable for me to reply with the working assumption that when someone says 'policing by consent', you in fact 'don't get it'. It's not rocket science.

Both you and Daniel have made constant references to various foreign police forces and protest that they don't turn into oppressive maniacs just because they have guns. Frankly, I don't care what they do or do not do. My sole concern is the UK, because that's where I live.

You refer to the tools necessary to do the job, rarely required but good to have when the time comes. My view, as one who consents to being policed, is that lethal firearms are so rarely required that the streets are safer if they are not being carried about in numbers. I've come across statistics for the number of officers shot with their own weapons in various other places online over the past couple of days. I suspect you have too, so I'm not proposing to go digging for them again now.

Further, with reference to your German anecdote yesterday, I like living in a society where lethal force cannot be applied, or threatened, where there is not reasonable excuse to do so. I don't care whether that's how they do it in Germany. It's not how we do it here. And, though it has been said over and over again this week, no amount of firepower would have prevented the ambush which resulted in the deaths of the two PCs this week. Whatever routine arming *might* be a solution for, it *isn't* a solution to the kind of situation that we witnessed this week.

Gunchester, I expect, is so called for the same reason as Shottingham gained that nickname a few years ago. It's a specific place with a specific problem. Increased use of armed patrols, plus other tactics I'm not qualified to speculate about, might well address this specific issue in these specific places. Routine arming of the police, which by definition would include foot patrols in leafy suburbia and the outlying villages as well as the problem zones, would not solve the problem.

Unarmed police who have access to firearms units where required is as far as I'm concerned a far more intelligent response to the question of where, when and how lethal force should be available to the police. It might not be as straightforward as simply giving every officer a gun, but it is safer.

^^

Especially since in scenarios such as this ambush having a gun would not protect the police either...

Originally Posted by Will21st

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 ----------



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.

you would have to ask the Police Federation, who represent 124,000 Constables, Sergeants, Inspectors, and Chief Inspectors, that question, as they carried out the poll....

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Vieil Homme

The police have arrested a 22 year old male from the Netherley area over a Facebook page that praised Greegan and wrote: he should be awarded an OBE and went on to suggest more officers should be killed. There are others who have set-up Facebook pages, so they may be getting a Knock at the door shortly.

I'm so glad the Police can act and arrest people who write such things on social media sites.

Agreed, I am amazed that some think that they cannot be traced on the Internet.

Originally Posted by Rob

Firstly, RIP to the officers.

I too have to question whether routing arming of the police could have prevented these murders. I doubt it. If they were lured to the property, on which the police say they had no prior intelligence, it seems to me that the offender always had an intention to kill. All that might have changed with routine arming, is for the murders to become "suicide by cop"

I reckon the evil sod new that in the near future he was going to end up inside for the rest of his life so he set out to kill these police women so that when he gets inside he will live like a king

Originally Posted by Sparkle

The US is a different situation however, where everyone is armed the police needs to be. Not so in this country.

There are countless instances of accidental shootings by police in the US, everything from mistaken identity to dogs being shot by police.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012...g-address?lite
Its not exactly rocket science, when you arm the police and firearms are present at every call out, more people are going to die.

I'm always against using America as a argument for or against arming the police because the yanks have a constitution that gives everyone the right to have a gun ,i think it's been restricted a lot more these days but back in the day everyone carried a gun so it was natural to arm the police.Our history is a little different and we have no such right to own or carry a gun so it has never been required for the police to be routinely armed .

I think things are vastly different these days ,the ease in getting hold of deadly weapons like guns and grenades makes it almost inevitable that one day soon police will be armed routinely imo

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by martyh

I reckon the evil sod new that in the near future he was going to end up inside for the rest of his life so he set out to kill these police women so that when he gets inside he will live like a king

Unlike the 2 police officers he murdered, and that's what annoys me the most that he will continue to live and they will not.

[Will21st]

Originally Posted by Chris

Good afternoon Will.

Good afternoon Chris. Neck wound in and please accept my apologies.

Originally Posted by Chris

And on that subject - I have not insinuated anything about your understanding of 'policing by consent'. You yourself said in an earlier post that you 'don't get it'. Perhaps you would like to clarify that statement. In the absence of any clarification, I think it's quite reasonable for me to reply with the working assumption that when someone says 'policing by consent', you in fact 'don't get it'. It's not rocket science.

'Policing by consent' doesn't just apply to UK police.... those rules are quite simply applicable to other countries as well.At least the ones I've lived in.

'I don't get it' is referring to how anyone can assume that 'policing by consent' means 'unarmed police' ?
Sure the police shouldn't go overboard,but an appropriate response is necessary,and police need the right tools for the job.Sometimes that is a firearm,unfortunately.

Originally Posted by Chris

Both you and Daniel have made constant references to various foreign police forces and protest that they don't turn into oppressive maniacs just because they have guns. Frankly, I don't care what they do or do not do. My sole concern is the UK, because that's where I live.

Yes,and maybe the UK needs to learn a thing or two from others? Cause quite frankly,British policing isn't what it used to be,sadly.

By the way,do you realise that german policing was actually modelled on British policing?

Originally Posted by Chris

You refer to the tools necessary to do the job, rarely required but good to have when the time comes. My view, as one who consents to being policed, is that lethal firearms are so rarely required that the streets are safer if they are not being carried about in numbers. I've come across statistics for the number of officers shot with their own weapons in various other places online over the past couple of days. I suspect you have too, so I'm not proposing to go digging for them again now.

You consent to being policed,correct. The **** in custody doesn't. Full Stop. He has a firearm and a grenade. So,how should police respond? As rare as these instances may be,a gun is just another tool in the arsenal.

By the way,do you actually consent to telescope sticks and pepper spray or whatever it is our cops have to make do with? Those tools are also used on those who don't 'consent' to their being policed.

Originally Posted by Chris

Further, with reference to your German anecdote yesterday, I like living in a society where lethal force cannot be applied, or threatened, where there is not reasonable excuse to do so. I don't care whether that's how they do it in Germany. It's not how we do it here. And, though it has been said over and over again this week, no amount of firepower would have prevented the ambush which resulted in the deaths of the two PCs this week. Whatever routine arming *might* be a solution for, it *isn't* a solution to the kind of situation that we witnessed this week.

Ok,so continental police just shoot anyone,do they? Serious question.
Also,how do you know that 'no amount of firepower' would have saved the WPC's? You do realise a taser was found lying on the ground? You can't win a firefight with a taser.... but you can win it with a Glock,especially when it's two against one. Of course we don't know the injuries they sustained through the grenade. So it is all speculation.
What isn't speculation however is that Derek Bird shot 9 more people after being confronted by unarmed police. No ARV in sight...

Originally Posted by Chris

Gunchester, I expect, is so called for the same reason as Shottingham gained that nickname a few years ago. It's a specific place with a specific problem. Increased use of armed patrols, plus other tactics I'm not qualified to speculate about, might well address this specific issue in these specific places. Routine arming of the police, which by definition would include foot patrols in leafy suburbia and the outlying villages as well as the problem zones, would not solve the problem.

What I was getting at was the irony that British cities gained those nicknames when apparently British criminals don't use guns cause the police don't have them.... not the case,I think.
I know that Manchester and Nottingham's gun culture is very much prohibition related and will not dwell further on the issue.

Originally Posted by Chris

Unarmed police who have access to firearms units where required is as far as I'm concerned a far more intelligent response to the question of where, when and how lethal force should be available to the police. It might not be as straightforward as simply giving every officer a gun, but it is safer.

Your 'intelligent' response is in fact unworkable and costs lives. The question of 'where,when and how' lethal force should be available to police is sometimes a decision that needs to be made in seconds....
see the WPC's shooing , Derek Bird, the recent example of cops being mauled by a dog in London and many others as situations where a sidearm is needed there and then,not some commander in a control room somewhere taking precious minutes to decide while police officers lives are on the line.

I see your points but unfortunately they are invalid to me. In fact I don't really see where your concerns come from other than never having been exposed to an armed police force over a reasonable period of time.
I've had both and my conclusion is that British policing is outdated and not fit for purpose. I just think it's incredible that even the corpses of police and public alike are not sufficient to sway those who make the decisions....

Let's see how many more have to die.... after all it took a fair few stabbings before stab vests were issued,I just pray to god that not many more police will have to die before we 'consent' to give our boys and girls the tools they need to police the UK effectively.

Originally Posted by Sirius

Unlike the 2 police officers he murdered, and that's what annoys me the most that he will continue to live and they will not.

For two good police officers with their whole lives in front of them to lose their lives because some lowlife wants to live in relative luxury as a hero in prison is for me the most tragic part of this ,i will have no problem if the guards keep him in solitary for the rest of his life .,probably be against his 'uman rights though

[Hom3r]

Originally Posted by Derek

Balls. Do all petty criminals carry a knife or baseball bat now? Does every petty criminal in Northern Ireland carry a gun?

99.99% of the time the Police will never need to use or draw it but for that 1 times you need it it's better the Police have a gun rather than end up dead in the street.

It's my belief that if the police where armed then a lot of the 'hardened crims' who wouldn't think twice about doing somebody with a baseball bat would become quivering cowards when faced by two armed cops ,sure some would fight back but most are natural cowards when the playing field has been leveled.

---------- Post added at 19:52 ---------- Previous post was at 19:51 ----------

and i notice that the usual police hating suspects are absent from the thread

[Peter_]

I certainly do not hate the police and hopefully this guy will get sorted in prison as per my comment on page one.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by martyh

and i notice that the usual police hating suspects are absent from the thread

Thats because they dont have the guts to so up

---------- Post added at 20:47 ---------- Previous post was at 20:44 ----------

[/COLOR]

Originally Posted by martyh

,probably be against his 'uman rights though

He will have many a defender when he gets in jail from those who still feel our jails are to hard on the *******s.

---------- Post added at 20:48 ---------- Previous post was at 20:47 ----------

Originally Posted by Peter_

I certainly do not hate the police and hopefully this guy will get sorted in prison as per my comment on page one.

no one said you did ?