Britain - The Official Thread

[AbeFroman75]

There's no such thing unless they're on ceremonial duties (in which case there's very likely a number of armed units nearby).

A bit of hyperbole, you guys have cops that are unarmed. Many of them. It makes no sense and I always wondered what is their purpose

 

[Lizard]

A bit of hyperbole, you guys have cops that are unarmed. Many of them. It makes no sense and I always wondered what is their purpose

What is the need of armed police? Most people here do not carry weapons and those that do it is known in advance. You aren't meant to be scared of the police here if you aren't guilty of something.

We were one of the first nations to develop a police force that wasn't the army, and we have kept the ideas that it was founded on with a bit of minor modernisation.

 

[Liquid]

They're armed but not with guns. A riot baton is still a weapon.

And hurts like 🤬.

 

[Lizard]

They're armed but not with guns. A riot baton is still a weapon.

And hurts like 🤬.

Plus a lot carry tasers.

 

[Mr Tree]

A bit of hyperbole, you guys have cops that are unarmed. Many of them. It makes no sense and I always wondered what is their purpose

You say unarmed they reply obly on ceremonial occasions. Then you go of and say it's a hyperbole and many are unarmed.

Is a gun the only weapon you consider a weapon? Belgian comps wear guns I wish our policeforce was more like britain armed with riot batons instead.

It hurts like hell when you get hit by one. The feeling described by one of my dormbuddys said it felt so bad it really imobilised you.

 

[baldgye]

Plus a lot carry tasers.

And pepper spray. But most importantly they are trained.

That said, it’s a shame that policing in the U.K. has been so ruined by successive governments to the point where more armed police are required.

 

[MatskiMonk]

A bit of hyperbole, you guys have cops that are unarmed. Many of them. It makes no sense and I always wondered what is their purpose

Oh brother

 

[Lizard]

You say unarmed they reply obly on ceremonial occasions. Then you go of and say it's a hyperbole and many are unarmed.

Is a gun the only weapon you consider a weapon? Belgian comps wear guns I wish our policeforce was more like britain armed with riot batons instead.

It hurts like hell when you get hit by one. The feeling described by one of my dormbuddys said it felt so bad it really imobilised you.

Actually that reminds me of my trip to Berlin.

Someone got something stolen and they were going to contact to police. Everyone in my group filled their trousers as the police carried pistols. Here no one would really care except the guy who did it.

 

[UKMikey]

Following @Ten's example and moving this over from the Auto forum.

But see it's really simple. Here we have the right of self-preservation. You would be allowed to run over that scumbag, or if you lived in a free-state, you could shoot that animal. I have a few co-workers that are Brits and when I asked them "The cops that only carry a whistle, what is their purpose they're essentially useless?" They only answer was "We can't even figure that one out."

If being a functioning democracy means everybody going around running over or shooting scumbags like it was the Wild West then maybe it's not all it's cracked up to be. Luckily this isn't the primary criterion for judging what is and isn't a democracy.

No really. It surprises so many foreigners.

"Surprised" is one way of putting it. What I'm not surprised about is everyone else you talk to having a similar reaction.

But in the US, thanks to the Constitution, we have freedom of speech in the way that no other country does. The only thing that will land you in jail are calls to action. For example, I can say "I hope that guy gets killed." and be totally fine. What I can't say is "Hey Mikey, see that guy over there, he raped your mother you need to go kill him." That will land me in jail.

Unless I'm mistaken I don't think Europeans are sent to jail for saying they hope someone gets killed. That's a long way from Twitter, Facebook or YouTube banning someone from their own site for inciting other people to kill someone, whether it's written in a constitution or not.

 

[Lizard]

Also, this fear of police certainly isn't doing much for crime. (Lets put aside the argument about whether certain classes or races etc are unfairly arrested for now.)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/06/prisons/html/nn2page1.stm

US has the most people per 100k of the population in jail in the world.

 

[AbeFroman75]

What is the need of armed police? Most people here do not carry weapons and those that do it is known in advance. You aren't meant to be scared of the police here if you aren't guilty of something.

We were one of the first nations to develop a police force that wasn't the army, and we have kept the ideas that it was founded on with a bit of minor modernisation.

Not sure if serious?! So the miscreants phone ahead to let the cops they're going to carry a weapon?

Knife attacks seem to be happening more frequently in London, so what does an unarmed cop do to stop the a-hole? Call for an armed cop and wait while more people get stabbed? It really doesn't make sense. Nearly every department in the US has their officers that are performing the duty of law enforcement (ie not meter maids) to carry a pistol, and a taser on their person. In the car they have a shotgun in between the driver and passenger seat and in the trunk either an AR15 or an MP5 (if the department can afford it they will spring for an M4). That way the officers can handle the majority of situations that are unexpected. They're simply not at a disadvantage.

What does an unarmed cop do to stop someone from inflicting harm against others?

Here in the US, only if you've committed a crime and are going to try to fight should you be afraid of the cops.

Following @Ten's example and moving this over from the Auto forum.


If being a functioning democracy means everybody going around running over or shooting scumbags like it was the Wild West then maybe it's not all it's cracked up to be. Luckily this isn't the primary criterion for judging what is and isn't a democracy.

You're confused, that's not the democracy part. That's just our right to self-preservation. But despite what you may see on the news it's not the wild west.

So you'd rather beg and plead with the POS to not kill you vs. being able to protect yourself or your family? You'd rather run away so that they can possibly kill other people?

"Surprised" is one way of putting it. What I'm not surprised about is everyone else you talk to having a similar reaction.

Unless I'm mistaken I don't think Europeans are sent to jail for saying they hope someone gets killed. That's a long way from Twitter, Facebook or YouTube banning someone from their own site for inciting other people to kill someone, whether it's written in a constitution or not.

That was an explanation of "call to action" Not a specific case that occurred. It seems you can't understand the difference. But yes, you do not have freedom of expression.

Is anything listed here wrong?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom

 

[TenEightyOne]

What does an unarmed cop do to stop someone from inflicting harm against others?

Stops them? It's a surprisingly simple answer to the problem, it seems. I'd point out that British police haven't been unarmed since they began in the 1800s.

Here in the US, only if you've committed a crime and are going to try to fight should you be afraid of the cops.

Do you genuinely think that's the case? It sounds idealistic and, from many public cases over the years, to be far from the case.

You're confused, that's not the democracy part. That's just our right to self-preservation. But despite what you may see on the news it's not the wild west.

Britain also protects that right up to and including homicide.

So you'd rather beg and plead with the POS to not kill you vs. being able to protect yourself or your family? You'd rather run away so that they can possibly kill other people?

Might I suggest that you'd make a terrible police officer? EDIT: Perhaps I'd lost the thrust of your point here, and no... many people don't run away, they perform an arrest.

That was an explanation of "call to action" Not a specific case that occurred. It seems you can't understand the difference. But yes, you do not have freedom of expression.

Yes you do. And, as in the US, you fail to have freedom from all consquence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom

Apart from two odd links to my profile page it seems that you have successfully linked the wiki on Hate Speech Laws in the United Kingdom. Your point was?

 

[AbeFroman75]

Also, this fear of police certainly isn't doing much for crime. (Lets put aside the argument about whether certain classes or races etc are unfairly arrested for now.)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/06/prisons/html/nn2page1.stm

US has the most people per 100k of the population in jail in the world.

Actually it crime has been on the decline*. *There has been an uptick in the last year or two in select cities. In CA the violent crime in LA and SF has gone up dramatically due to bills passed that set inmates free. Baltimore was due to the police essentially being told to not patrol high crime neighborhoods and Chicago is just a hell hole.
https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2016-crime-statistics-released

And the US has a similar violent crime rate to the UK, it's just very difficult to get 100% apples to apples comparison because we don't share the same definitions.

 

[Imari]

Here in the US, only if you've committed a crime and are going to try to fight should you be afraid of the cops.

Clearly you're not black. And have had your head in a hole for the last forty years of police brutality and murders in the US.

 

[Scaff]

Not sure if serious?! So the miscreants phone ahead to let the cops they're going to carry a weapon?

Knife attacks seem to be happening more frequently in London, so what does an unarmed cop do to stop the a-hole? Call for an armed cop and wait while more people get stabbed? It really doesn't make sense. Nearly every department in the US has their officers that are performing the duty of law enforcement (ie not meter maids) to carry a pistol, and a taser on their person. In the car they have a shotgun in between the driver and passenger seat and in the trunk either an AR15 or an MP5 (if the department can afford it they will spring for an M4). That way the officers can handle the majority of situations that are unexpected. They're simply not at a disadvantage.

What does an unarmed cop do to stop someone from inflicting harm against others?

while it was in another thread, I have detailed that UK police do carry a baton, CS and a taser, and are trained specifically in de-escalation.

It works more than well enough.

Here in the US, only if you've committed a crime and are going to try to fight should you be afraid of the cops.

I'm not sure the unarmed people not breaking the law who have been shot would agree.

You're confused, that's not the democracy part. That's just our right to self-preservation. But despite what you may see on the news it's not the wild west.

So you'd rather beg and plead with the POS to not kill you vs. being able to protect yourself or your family? You'd rather run away so that they can possibly kill other people?

We have the exact same right, however with significantly lower levels of gun ownership its rarely required.

If someone breaks into my house and I feel my family/self are at risk and I kill them its self-defence (even if I use what could be considered excessive force under other circumstances).
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/self-defence-and-prevention-crime

That was an explanation of "call to action" Not a specific case that occurred. It seems you can't understand the difference. But yes, you do not have freedom of expression.

Is anything listed here wrong?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom

All freedom of expression laws have limits, as you acknowledge even with the US calls to action are not protected, and therefore are a limit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gag_order#United_States

 

[UKMikey]

So you'd rather beg and plead with the POS to not kill you vs. being able to protect yourself or your family? You'd rather run away so that they can possibly kill other people?

EDIT: Perhaps I'd lost the thrust of your point here, and no... many people don't run away, they perform an arrest.

Unless we take the law into our own hands and gun the criminal down in the street like Paul Kersey we're not a true democracy apparently, hence my comparison to frontier law earlier.

Personally I'd rather leave that sort of thing to one of our police armed response units. They're subject to more checks and balances than the average guy on the street.

 

[Lizard]

Not sure if serious?! So the miscreants phone ahead to let the cops they're going to carry a weapon?

Knife attacks seem to be happening more frequently in London, so what does an unarmed cop do to stop the a-hole? Call for an armed cop and wait while more people get stabbed? It really doesn't make sense. Nearly every department in the US has their officers that are performing the duty of law enforcement (ie not meter maids) to carry a pistol, and a taser on their person. In the car they have a shotgun in between the driver and passenger seat and in the trunk either an AR15 or an MP5 (if the department can afford it they will spring for an M4). That way the officers can handle the majority of situations that are unexpected. They're simply not at a disadvantage.

What does an unarmed cop do to stop someone from inflicting harm against others?

Our police have good intelligence believe it or not and likely know already.
Also the police are trained to calm the situation, it isn't like the movies where someone storms into a building and rescues the hostages. Most of the time it is a guy on the phone to the guy inside that solves the issue. If the policeman is aiming a gun at you, you aren't going to listen to him trying to calm you down.
Plus police do carry tasers. A hit from one of those is going to leave you on the floor no matter how good you are.

Actually it crime has been on the decline*. *There has been an uptick in the last year or two in select cities. In CA the violent crime in LA and SF has gone up dramatically due to bills passed that set inmates free. Baltimore was due to the police essentially being told to not patrol high crime neighborhoods and Chicago is just a hell hole.
https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2016-crime-statistics-released

And the US has a similar violent crime rate to the UK, it's just very difficult to get 100% apples to apples comparison because we don't share the same definitions.

I know it's been on the decline, but still that's a lot of people in jail.

Can you describe said laws in CA? I am not that up to date on state laws since I don't live there.

And Chicago is just a hell hole is it? Yet you use one city to justify your claims? London has a lot of rough areas, it isn't all Buckingham palace as the media would have you believe.

 

[AbeFroman75]

Stops them? It's a surprisingly simple answer to the problem, it seems. I'd point out that British police haven't been unarmed since they began in the 1800s.

How, with kind words? Or do they use their super powers of persuasion to stop them?

Do you genuinely think that's the case? It sounds idealistic and, from many public cases over the years, to be far from the case.

For the vast, vast majority of police shootings, absolutely. And thanks to body cams we're seeing it play out. Just recently there were two black individuals that made false claims against the police that they were harassed/assaulted/raped, but when the body cam footage released it showed absolutely nothing.

This dumb broad
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sherita-dixon-cole-rape-claim-texas-state-trooper-body-camera-video/

And this a-hole
https://www.dailywire.com/news/3064...s-cop-racially-profiling-amanda-prestigiacomo

I know what you guys get over there is nothing but "America (especially cops) are all racist and they go around hunting down innocent blacks (especially cops)" but that is simply not the case. It's a very rare instance where a cop actually screws up and in that situation they are often found guilty. There was a recent one where a cop in I believe S. Carolina killed a fleeing man then planted a gun on him..he was found guilty. The problem is, these rare cases are sensationalized and inflated to make it seem like the norm in order to push an agenda (much like I'm sure the knife killing spree in the UK,)

Britain also protects that right up to and including homicide.

From what I've seen it's kind of a grey area to kill an intruder and to my knowledge you can't carry a weapon (knife, mace, taser, collapsible baton, etc.) on your person for protection in public. If that is the case, you are at the mercy of the attacker. As the saying goes, "When seconds counts, the cops are minutes away."

Might I suggest that you'd make a terrible police officer? EDIT: Perhaps I'd lost the thrust of your point here, and no... many people don't run away, they perform an arrest.

So the desire to not want others to be harmed would make me a terrible police officer? That was what you quoted...jesus, what do you're cops actually do. lol.
They perform an arrest, how? Ask nicely? There are rare cases where an unarmed individual will take down an armed one but it's not the preferred method. You'd rather not have a fair fight correct?

Yes you do. And, as in the US, you fail to have freedom from all consquence.

we'll get to this later.

Apart from two odd links to my profile page it seems that you have successfully linked the wiki on Hate Speech Laws in the United Kingdom. Your point was?

I believe I made it very clear "Is anything listed here wrong?" It was a yes or no. If yes, please list, if no, I let you know that it is perfectly ok to be wrong there is no shame in admitting it.

Our police have good intelligence believe it or not and likely know already.
Also the police are trained to calm the situation, it isn't like the movies where someone storms into a building and rescues the hostages. Most of the time it is a guy on the phone to the guy inside that solves the issue. If the policeman is aiming a gun at you, you aren't going to listen to him trying to calm you down.
Plus police do carry tasers. A hit from one of those is going to leave you on the floor no matter how good you are.

This sound the propaganda the Communists used to say to us when I was a kid "There is no crime, it's the capitalist west that is violent"! lol.
So you're saying that the UK has Pre-Crime where you can know the future...holy shstuf, why don't you share that with the rest of the world!!!
https://letn-media.s3.amazonaws.com...of-precrime-navy-regular-fit-t-shirt-6512.jpg


As for tasers, they don't always work. This could have ended very badly for one of the officers. And, you may think this is cruel, but their life is far more important than that pile of crap. Also, remember, once the zapping stops you are right back up (I'm not sure if you've ever been tased before, it sucks but it goes away once they stop the juice) and if the perp doesn't drop the knife they can and sometimes will come after you. In that case, you want to make sure you've got the gun in a knife fight.

Can you describe said laws in CA? I am not that up to date on state laws since I don't live there.

Yeah, it was Prop 47 and SB9 something or another. Essentially it freed prisoners on certain drug offenses in order to "save money and use it towards rehab" Well, they money they saved went into pensions (a very common thing in CA). It's a complex issue that I don't have all the time right now for but, since those things went into effect we've had a massive spike in violent and property crime in LA, OC, and SF. As well as we've got a gigantic homeless issue in this state..think crap (literal crap) in the streets kind of thing.

And Chicago is just a hell hole is it? Yet you use one city to justify your claims? London has a lot of rough areas, it isn't all Buckingham palace as the media would have you believe.

yes, parts of Chicago are complete and total hell holes. The police were told to no longer patrol certain areas or they are in fear to do so. Nearly every weekend you've got several people killed in gang violence. The policies of the Mayor Rahm Emanuel have really screwed that place up.

Dude, I listed LA, SF, Chicago, and Baltimore (there are a couple of others that have seen spikes but those were off the top of my head). 4 > 1. C'mon you don't need to lie.

I've been to London several times, not this year but last year 3 times on business and god knows how many more in the years prior. I'm well aware that London has some really crap areas.

 

[TenEightyOne]

How, with kind words? Or do they use their super powers of persuasion to stop them?

It's your assertion that the UK police are unarmed and it's pointed out to you repeatedly that they aren't. Of course they use force if necessary - I find it difficult to grasp how you're missing that?

For the vast, vast majority of police shootings, absolutely. And thanks to body cams we're seeing it play out. Just recently there were two black individuals that made false claims against the police that they were harassed/assaulted/raped, but when the body cam footage released it showed absolutely nothing.

This dumb broad
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sherita-dixon-cole-rape-claim-texas-state-trooper-body-camera-video/

And this a-hole
https://www.dailywire.com/news/3064...s-cop-racially-profiling-amanda-prestigiacomo

And that's a good thing, nobody's saying all cops are bad. It remains undeniable that there have been instances (in every country) where citizens working as police officers have crossed boundaries and acted inappropriately in the face of different situations. The sad thing about some of the cases we've discussed at this very forum is that those officers have fatally discharged firearms because they either over-reacted or because they weren't trained to deal with a particular situation.

I know what you guys get over there is nothing but "America (especially cops) are all racist and they go around hunting down innocent blacks (especially cops)" but that is simply not the case.

I'm not sure how you can 'know' something that's so patently untrue. Is there a news programme in particular that you're basing your view on?

It's a very rare instance where a cop actually screws up and in that situation they are often found guilty.

Historically that seems not to have been the case.

(much like I'm sure the knife killing spree in the UK,)

Those killings aren't a single person (and therefore not a spree) and largely physical assaults with knives not visited on the public in general. The number of knife killings has fallen, incidentally, not risen.

So the desire to not want others to be harmed would make me a terrible police officer? That was what you quoted...jesus, what do you're cops actually do. lol.
They perform an arrest, how? Ask nicely? There are rare cases where an unarmed individual will take down an armed one but it's not the preferred method. You'd rather not have a fair fight correct?

I think I answered that already.

As for tasers, they don't always work. This could have ended very badly for one of the officers. And, you may think this is cruel, but their life is far more important than that pile of crap. Also, remember, once the zapping stops you are right back up (I'm not sure if you've ever been tased before, it sucks but it goes away once they stop the juice) and if the perp doesn't drop the knife they can and sometimes will come after you. In that case, you want to make sure you've got the gun in a knife fight.

You're correct that Taser doesn't always work but it's rare for it to be employed in a one-on-one situation. Officers have other weapons too of course. Armed officers are always on duty but their deployment to incidents remains very low because it's not usually required.

Yeah, it was Prop 47 and SB9 something or another. Essentially it freed prisoners on certain drug offenses in order to "save money and use it towards rehab" Well, they money they saved went into pensions (a very common thing in CA). It's a complex issue that I don't have all the time right now for but, since those things went into effect we've had a massive spike in violent and property crime in LA, OC, and SF. As well as we've got a gigantic homeless issue in this state..think crap (literal crap) in the streets kind of thing.

People convicted of minor theft or embezzlements totalling under $950 were freed. A number of academic studies have found no correlation between those releases and the crime figures. Really not that complicated.

The homeless figures are being driven largely by the huge increase in average property prices, particularly in LA which has always had an astonishing number of homeless people. The state average rose by 1% last year.

Yyes, parts of Chicago are complete and total hell holes. The police were told to no longer patrol certain areas or they are in fear to do so. Nearly every weekend you've got several people killed in gang violence. The policies of the Mayor Rahm Emanuel have really screwed that place up.

Do you have a source for regular officers being told not to patrol areas or was it just the unarmed Aviation officers?

Dude, I listed LA, SF, Chicago, and Baltimore (there are a couple of others that have seen spikes but those were off the top of my head). 4 > 1. C'mon you don't need to lie.

I've been to London several times, not this year but last year 3 times on business and god knows how many more in the years prior. I'm well aware that London has some really crap areas.

He's lying about what? London, like any dense industrial city, has rough areas. It also has some of the most expensive areas in the world. Which 'crap' areas were you in, as a matter of interest?

If it's the "post-release spike in crime" you're talking about then see the above.

 

[baldgye]

Just recently there were two black individuals

Interesting use of language

 

[novcze]

You aren't meant to be scared of the police here if you aren't guilty of something.

Must be something specific to the UK, where I live people are not scared when they see fully equipped policeman.

 

[AbeFroman75]

It's your assertion that the UK police are unarmed and it's pointed out to you repeatedly that they aren't. Of course they use force if necessary - I find it difficult to grasp how you're missing that?

Not all of them don't carry guns. The ones that don't, need to wait for the ones that do if the situation requires, is that correct?. I believe I've made that abundantly clear. How are you finding it difficult to grasp.

nobody's saying all cops are bad.

That's debatable. But we can move on.

I'm not sure how you can 'know' something that's so patently untrue. Is there a news programme in particular that you're basing your view on?

I don't know, Tea & Crumpets Breakfast TV Cheri'o, I don't memorize all the names of your silly news programs. I've seen enough news reports in the UK regarding American situations involving police as well as the comments made by people on here that seem to have been bothered by the "You don't need to fear cops if you haven't committed a crime and don't fight." As well as comments from friends that live in the UK. If you don't like it, tough.



"Historically that seems not to have been the case."

Like this. Unless you want to be really lame and bring up decades in the past.

Those killings aren't a single person (and therefore not a spree) and largely physical assaults with knives not visited on the public in general. The number of knife killings has fallen, incidentally, not risen.

Good god, really? That's you're argument the use of the word "spree" when you clearly understood what was meant.

Is the information presented here wrong?
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42749089

Since you chose to ignore the other time I've asked you to state whether something was incorrect, I will take your avoidance as you not wanting to admit that you are wrong.

You're correct that Taser doesn't always work but it's rare for it to be employed in a one-on-one situation. Officers have other weapons too of course. Armed officers are always on duty but their deployment to incidents remains very low because it's not usually required.

So there are incidents, how many? % of the times used and were effective, How many officers were present. What was the exact make and model of the taser used and when was the last time they were serviced and/or certified?

I can play silly game as well. But I'm glad you admit that there are cases where it is not effective and the officers and other citizens lives may be put in danger if they can't put the threat down.

People convicted of minor theft or embezzlements totalling under $950 were freed. A number of academic studies have found no correlation between those releases and the crime figures. Really not that complicated.

Ahh the great "Synthetic California study" When you need to make up imaginary states to "prove" something it really doesn't work, that study has been ripped to shreds.

It actually is very complicated because many departments simply don't keep track of these statistics
https://www.ocregister.com/2017/11/...e-democrats-legacy-is-crime-and-homelessness/

The homeless figures are being driven largely by the huge increase in average property prices, particularly in LA which has always had an astonishing number of homeless people. The state average rose by 1% last year.

I don't have access to the NYT nor do I wish to subscribe, but I do know that excuse is very common among the liberals that passed these laws. They simply don't want to take any blame for the situation. I'm sure politicians are the same in your country/county/city.

As I said it is a very complicated situation that can be debated for god knows how long but AB109 and Prop 47 are contributing factors, even if the politicians that passed it don't want to admit it.
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com...ss-california-legislature-20171102-story.html

Do you have a source for regular officers being told not to patrol areas or was it just the unarmed Aviation officers?

Yes, new rules with the involvement of the ACLU and the Mayor have led to officers not patrolling areas
https://nypost.com/2016/07/09/how-the-ferguson-effect-is-destroying-chicago/

He's lying about what? London, like any dense industrial city, has rough areas. It also has some of the most expensive areas in the world. Which 'crap' areas were you in, as a matter of interest?

It's very clear in the post and the previous one. If you don't wish to read it that is your problem not mine.
The ones that look like crap. Since you want to play jr. e-lawyer, please let the record show that I said "I am well aware of the crap areas." Not that I was in them. Please do not put words in my mouth.

 

[baldgye]

I don't know, Tea & Crumpets Breakfast TV Cheri'o, I don't memorize all the names of your silly news programs.

Another interesting use of language.

 

[Obelisk]

Not all of them don't carry guns. The ones that don't, need to wait for the ones that do if the situation requires, is that correct?. I believe I've made that abundantly clear. How are you finding it difficult to grasp.



That's debatable. But we can move on.




I don't know, Tea & Crumpets Breakfast TV Cheri'o, I don't memorize all the names of your silly news programs. I've seen enough news reports in the UK regarding American situations involving police as well as the comments made by people on here that seem to have been bothered by the "You don't need to fear cops if you haven't committed a crime and don't fight." As well as comments from friends that live in the UK. If you don't like it, tough.



"Historically that seems not to have been the case."

Like this. Unless you want to be really lame and bring up decades in the past.



Good god, really? That's you're argument the use of the word "spree" when you clearly understood what was meant.

Is the information presented here wrong?
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42749089

Since you chose to ignore the other time I've asked you to state whether something was incorrect, I will take your avoidance as you not wanting to admit that you are wrong.





So there are incidents, how many? % of the times used and were effective, How many officers were present. What was the exact make and model of the taser used and when was the last time they were serviced and/or certified?

I can play silly game as well. But I'm glad you admit that there are cases where it is not effective and the officers and other citizens lives may be put in danger if they can't put the threat down.



Ahh the great "Synthetic California study" When you need to make up imaginary states to "prove" something it really doesn't work, that study has been ripped to shreds.

It actually is very complicated because many departments simply don't keep track of these statistics
https://www.ocregister.com/2017/11/...e-democrats-legacy-is-crime-and-homelessness/



I don't have access to the NYT nor do I wish to subscribe, but I do know that excuse is very common among the liberals that passed these laws. They simply don't want to take any blame for the situation. I'm sure politicians are the same in your country/county/city.

As I said it is a very complicated situation that can be debated for god knows how long but AB109 and Prop 47 are contributing factors, even if the politicians that passed it don't want to admit it.
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com...ss-california-legislature-20171102-story.html



Yes, new rules with the involvement of the ACLU and the Mayor have led to officers not patrolling areas
https://nypost.com/2016/07/09/how-the-ferguson-effect-is-destroying-chicago/


It's very clear in the post and the previous one. If you don't wish to read it that is your problem not mine.
The ones that look like crap. Since you want to play jr. e-lawyer, please let the record show that I said "I am well aware of the crap areas." Not that I was in them. Please do not put words in my mouth.

Dude, please stop embarassing your fellow Americans with this attitude.

Tea & Crumpets Breakfast TV Cheri'o,

This constitutes a personal attack, doesn't it? Using stereotypes to degrade someone.

 

[MatskiMonk]

This constitutes a personal attack, doesn't it? Using stereotypes to degrade someone.

I'm so ******* incensed that I almost forgot to put cucumber in my Pimms.

 

[Scaff]

Is the information presented here wrong?
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42749089

Nope.

"Although knife crime is on the increase, it should be seen in context. It's relatively unusual for a violent incident to involve a knife, and rarer still for someone to need hospital treatment.

Most violence is caused by people hitting, kicking, shoving or slapping someone, sometimes during a fight and often when they're drunk; the police figures on violence also include crimes of harassment and stalking.

The Crime Survey for England and Wales, which includes offences that aren't reported to police, indicates that overall levels of violence have fallen by 25% since 2013."

It's very clear in the post and the previous one. If you don't wish to read it that is your problem not mine.
The ones that look like crap. Since you want to play jr. e-lawyer, please let the record show that I said "I am well aware of the crap areas." Not that I was in them. Please do not put words in my mouth.

Then please let us know what these crap areas are.

Oh and no on in the UK speaks in the manner you keep using, your continued use of it really doesn't help support any claim your making as quite frankly it make you come across as a bit of a tool.

 

[Obelisk]

I'm so ******* incensed that I almost forgot to put cucumber in my Pimms.

Not sure if joking or not...

@AbeFroman75 for the record, you were incorrectly using the word "unarmed" earlier in your squabble. Unarmed would mean the cop is fighting bare-handed with absolutely nothing. British cops have batons, so they're armed by all definitions of the word.

 

[AbeFroman75]

Another interesting use of language.

What seems to be your problem. Speak up.

Dude, please stop embarassing your fellow Americans with this attitude.


This constitutes a personal attack, doesn't it? Using stereotypes to degrade someone.

Nobody was speaking with you. If you're embarrassed by it, that's your fault.

And that was in no way a "personal attack" nor was it used to "degrade". If the person that it was meant for found it degrading or a personal attack, I will gladly apologize for it being interpreted that way. But you, no.

 

[TexRex]

Dude, please stop embarassing your fellow Americans with this attitude.

Neither fools nor danged fools are representative of the whole.

 

[Scaff]

Not sure if joking or not...

@AbeFroman75 for the record, you were incorrectly using the word "unarmed" earlier in your squabble. Unarmed would mean the cop is fighting bare-handed with absolutely nothing. British cops have batons, so they're armed by all definitions of the word.

And CS and tazers.

It's also slightly misleading in the fact that some areas of the UK has armed officers as the norm (PSNI, CNC, MOD) and all forces have rapid response units on the roads at all times.