The UK Police, what's your opinion?

[Liquid]

And anyway just because they "don't need them" does not mean they should not have them just in case.

Why not give them Jeeps with M16s on the back? They don't need them...

We don't have to compare with the Americans. They have their way of doing things, we have our own. They have a bigger gun culture, we don't.

Anyway if britain is going to flame me and try to make me look like an idiot I will go.

Nothing wrong with two people with conflicting opinions arguing their point(s).

 

[Sureboss]

Why not give them Jeeps with M16s on the back? They don't need them...

We don't have to compare with the Americans. They have their way of doing things, we have our own. They have a bigger gun culture, we don't.

This.

Whilst I think it's a horrible state of affairs with regards to the first shot an SO19 (or is it CO19?) officer fires could be their last, I don't want all of them carrying guns, it's just not neccessary and as others have alluded to, I think it'd just involve criminals arming themselves more and more. Improving armed response unit times would be good.

 

[ExigeEvan]

As in SA80's etc.

Why not is the question if they have guns it deters criminals. And to top that the Roul Moat incedent would most likely have come out better.

The police already have access to weapons such as compacts, carbines and rifles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_UK_police_firearms

And please, how would the Raoul Moat situation have ended any differently!?

 

[Moglet]

And to top that the Roul Moat incedent would most likely have come out better.

He would have shot people in the face no matter what, so the start of the incident would never have been any different. The end would have been different but as it happened, the result was that a murdering rampaging maniac who had no thought for anyone else and didn't think twice about shooting innocent people blew his own head off with a shotgun. That's a pretty good outcome IMO.

 

[ECGadget]

My father was a Sergeant in the Met, and the amount of BS the police have to deal with every day is ridiculous. I hold the police in the highest respect, although you've always got the odd idiot officer in every detachment.

In terms of arms, police here are bang on. SO19 responds when needed, Tactical Response too. And yes, if they discharge a weapon, like Famine said, there is a huge investigation during which the officer is suspended from duty (on full pay). If the shots were not required, that's it for the officer.

Secondly, I don't like that powers officers have. They need more. This is why they don't do small things like Parking tickets etc. Coz they have to write paperwork after each one. And it's a nightmare. If the paperwork was streamlined, the police would be more effective.

 

[lbsf1]

In all I think that the police do a good job, however there are a couple of things that do annoy me about the UK police.

These things usualLy revolve around PCSO's, they do seem to enjoy stopping teenagers for no reason at all, usually to then spout some bs about laws that I'm pretty sure don't exist. For example, at 5pm on a Sunday my mates and I were sitting down outside a supermarket on the High street of out village, there were some benches there and we were just sitting down talking. There were very few members of the public there. I went over to the BP across the road to get some Pepsi, ran back, opened it up when I got back and it went everywhere. A PSCO then comes over, accuses me of vandalism and tells us that he has a right to move us off this public bench as we are being a nusance to the general public and could be sued if someone slipped over on the (small) spillage of pepsi on the floor???

I have many stories like this about PCSO's who just like to stick their nose in constantly just so they feel like they have power over people.

Normal officers on the other hand I have only had good experiences with. After the fireworks display in our village there were about 100 teenagers hanging around outside the earlier mentioned supermarket. We were all being relatively well behaved, and the police allowed themselves to be very approachable, we ended up having a chat with one after trying to get a taxi number for my mate so he could get home. They showed a much more sensible "common sense" attitude where they turned a blind eye to some actions if they weren't really a problem. Where as a PCSO would jump right onto it. The officers realise that his time was better spent gaining trust with the public or chasing actual criminals.


Anyway, hope I managed to get that point across correctly, I feel the actual police act well and I have lots of respect for them, however PCSO's like to swing their power around just because they can, and pick on teenagers as easy targets IMO.

 

[Famine]

And please, how would the Raoul Moat situation have ended any differently!?

He would have shot people in the face no matter what, so the start of the incident would never have been any different. The end would have been different but as it happened, the result was that a murdering rampaging maniac who had no thought for anyone else and didn't think twice about shooting innocent people blew his own head off with a shotgun. That's a pretty good outcome IMO.

PC Rathband wouldn't have hanged himself this week - and he probably wouldn't have separated from his wife either.

An armed police force prevents rapid escalation of situations like Raoul Moat. An armed populace prevents it sooner. As it was, Moat ran unopposed until a huge manhunt cornered him. After being shot with a non-approved shotgun taser (great, blame the police for that too) he shot himself with his own, real one.

 

[Moglet]

PC Rathband wouldn't have hanged himself this week - and he probably wouldn't have separated from his wife either.

He shot Stobbart and Brown first on July 3rd, and then 22 hours later shot Rathband after phoning the police 12 minutes earlier. He simply walked up to his car and shot him in the face. I don't see how having the police or anyone else armed would have changed that. Rathband had said that he would see Moat's face at the same time every morning, and that he 'haunted him'. His issues stemmed from the attack, not the stand-off on the 9th. Sure, an armed populace may have found him sooner (although nobody could find him for nearly a week so that's doubtful) but the initial attack is still likely to have occurred and that is what ultimately lead to Rathband hanging himself.

For what it's worth, I think it would have been a good idea to have an armed populace and police force in that sort of situation, but it's pretty unlikely that it would have had an effect upon Rathband's death.

 

[Azuremen]

You want the police to walk around with SA80s? They're meant to be approachable people who make us feel safe, not unapproachable soldiers.

Why are men with guns unapproachable, especially when they are in the uniform of a public servant? Logic fail - not like they are going to use those on citizens without a serious reason. Or as you Brits tend to say, you have nothing to fear from the government being intrusive/over powered unless you are doing something wrong.

Irony.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Famine covered the rest of it quite well.

 

[Famine]

He shot Stobbart and Brown first on July 3rd, and then 22 hours later shot Rathband after phoning the police 12 minutes earlier.

That's an awful lot of time for a psycho with a shotgun to be wandering around literally unopposed in the belief he's the most powerful man in the country, don't you think?

Would he have thought twice about approaching Rathband's car if he'd known Rathband was armed - rather than knowing he wasn't? Not a massively helpful question when the subject is someone that far over the edge that even Gazza seemed sane, but certainly something of a nugget of truth - criminals know that police aren't armed.


I suspect we should save the armed populace discussion for other threads though. My bad.

 

[Moglet]

That's an awful lot of time for a psycho with a shotgun to be wandering around literally unopposed in the belief he's the most powerful man in the country, don't you think?

Would he have thought twice about approaching Rathband's car if he'd known Rathband was armed - rather than knowing he wasn't? Not a massively helpful question when the subject is someone that far over the edge that even Gazza seemed sane, but certainly something of a nugget of truth - criminals know that police aren't armed.


I suspect we should save the armed populace discussion for other threads though. My bad.

Gazza You're absolutely right, it might have made a difference but as you said he was very....mental? I honestly think that knowing he was up against other armed forces be they police or civilians would have just made it more fun for him.

Although this has very little to do with our opinions on the UK police force so I'll drop it and get back on topic.

My personal experiences with the police have always been good. I've always been under the impression that if you don't act like a tit you won't have a problem. It makes me laugh when you see these chavs on TV getting rowdy and trying to fight the police, shouting abuse at them and resisting arrest who then turn round and say that they're "being aggressive and dis-respectin me innit?"

The problem is that many people these days are bought up believing that people should respect them over anyone else and that they're something special when they're actually just as insignificant as the rest of us. They have no respect for anyone else and knowing that they can pretty much get away with suspended sentences or a fine for everything but the worst crimes doesn't help matters. This makes the job of the police much more difficult and so they get given a bad name when they're actually working their backsides off to stay calm and deal with mindless yobs in a polite manner. Unfortunately most places in the UK are now under chav rule and it's not going to change any time soon.

 

[MarinaDiamandis]

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

With the general trend being, the more guns there are, the more people that die from being shot.

In the U.K the majority of people are scared of guns, they are seen as something bad rather than as a tool.

Most people here haven't grown up around guns, and seeing a police officer carrying one makes them think that there must be a direct threat present, instead of seeing it as a tool that the officer can employ if and when needed.

If a few random shootings were enough to make my country a place where you needed a gun for self-defense, I think i'd rather live elsewhere.

Knife crime is a much bigger issue than gun crime here, and I think tasers would be a good deterrent. Obviously stabbings would still happen (most stabbings are between members of the public) but at least officers dealing with armed criminals could disarm them safely, instead of having to rely on pepper spray and brute force.

 

[Azuremen]

With the general trend being, the more guns there are, the more people that die from being shot.

These two bits are quite related.

Knife crime is a much bigger issue than gun crime here, and I think tasers would be a good deterrent. Obviously stabbings would still happen (most stabbings are between members of the public) but at least officers dealing with armed criminals could disarm them safely, instead of having to rely on pepper spray and brute force.

Basically, people are going to die from being stabbed instead of shot. So again, people kill people, not guns, and they'll use whatever they can find to do so.

 

[berty1979]

Most of my (fairly numerous) dealings with the police have been fairly good. I find there are two different types.

City police- I prefer this type of cop as they are used to dealing with serious criminals every day. When they stop you for speeding they are more likely to use discretion or just ticket you and be done. City cops are generally more helpful and appreciative of interacting with a relativley normal human being (as opposed to a lot of the scum they are used to). I have been let off by city cops for various things in the past and I give a huge 👍 to the jobs they do.

Rural police- My dealings with them have been bad. They seem completely unable to solve a crime My experiences are as follows, I was inadvertently given the name and address of a man that wanted me arrested for threatening behaviour by a dopey PC. I intervened in a fight and act of vandalism and despite me witnessing the crime and reporting it they accepted the confession of the perpetrators girlfriend!
A local PC admitted their job was basically to clean up after a crime. A recent attempted murder case was dropped due to a 'catalogue of errors' by the investigative team. Finally i was issued a ticket once with no date on it (result) making it invalid

In summary I respect the police and think they do a really tough job dealing with the chav idiots that are bred in this country. With more support from the courts and government I think the rozzers could be much more effective, build more prisons and fill them up. Cuddle a hoodie doesnt work and its time to take our cities back by proper sentences and listening to the people that have to live near these fools!

 

[MarinaDiamandis]

Basically, people are going to die from being stabbed instead of shot. So again, people kill people, not guns, and they'll use whatever they can find to do so.

Of course people kill people, i've not yet seen a shotgun load itself, flip its safety off and blow a pheasant out of the sky.

While guns don't kill by themselves, they make killing a lot easier and a lot less personal. The harder it is for somebody to kill, the better chance others have of surviving any attack. A gun has huge potential to kill, even at range, through obstacles, and if you are a good shot there could be one person dead for every round that you fire. Easy peasy.

This would be very difficult for our regular police officers to deal with, but with so few guns in the U.K our limited number of armed police have a better chance of being able to respond to every call they get where a firearm is involved.

 

[Pagey279]

This would be very difficult for our regular police officers to deal with, but with so few guns in the U.K our limited number of armed police have a better chance of being able to respond to every call they get where a firearm is involved.

You might be surprised to know there are around 6 000 000 firearms in the UK. With around 2 million liscenced, and 4 million illegal (rough figures). Of course no body knows exactly how many there are though.

Back on topic I think the main reason some don't respect the police because they resent their authority. The police are there to stop them from doing what they want to. Whether it be treating the roads as a race track, or wandering the streets in drunken gangs causing mayhem or whatever.
And some take it to the extreme and attack police officers, Raul Moat being a prime example, my Dad also told me a story of someone trying to strangle a police officer with a telephone cable, simply because he tried to stop him from hitting his wife.

At the end of the day if you act in a decent manner when you are stopped on the roads or on foot for whatever reason, 99.9% of officers will treat you the same way.

Oh and brett, I'm appalled to hear you have crossed paths with the police many times, shame on you

 

[Azuremen]

Of course people kill people, i've not yet seen a shotgun load itself, flip its safety off and blow a pheasant out of the sky.

While guns don't kill by themselves, they make killing a lot easier and a lot less personal. The harder it is for somebody to kill, the better chance others have of surviving any attack. A gun has huge potential to kill, even at range, through obstacles, and if you are a good shot there could be one person dead for every round that you fire. Easy peasy.

You've clearly never fired a gun before.

You also know what has an amazing potential to kill someone, and is even easier to get?

A car.

You are woefully naive if you think the UK gun ban has done much to detour violent crime, for the reasons I've mentioned, and the fact it isn't particularly difficult to get a gun in the UK anyhow.

 

[Zenith]

^ that times a million.

 

[jaymanji]

Police invite security firms to bid for roles

I'm not particularly comfortable with this idea

 

[ExigeEvan]

PC Rathband wouldn't have hanged himself this week - and he probably wouldn't have separated from his wife either.

An armed police force prevents rapid escalation of situations like Raoul Moat. An armed populace prevents it sooner. As it was, Moat ran unopposed until a huge manhunt cornered him. After being shot with a non-approved shotgun taser (great, blame the police for that too) he shot himself with his own, real one.

That's an awful lot of time for a psycho with a shotgun to be wandering around literally unopposed in the belief he's the most powerful man in the country, don't you think?

Would he have thought twice about approaching Rathband's car if he'd known Rathband was armed - rather than knowing he wasn't? Not a massively helpful question when the subject is someone that far over the edge that even Gazza seemed sane, but certainly something of a nugget of truth - criminals know that police aren't armed.


I suspect we should save the armed populace discussion for other threads though. My bad.

Rathband was caught completely off guard, he wasn't even looking for Moat. He was sat in his car and Moat snuck up on him. It was never a shoot-out. So how you can use that scenario as justification is a gross twisting of the facts and events that occurred that day. And quite frankly goes into the territory of misinformation.


And while I support the idea of an armed populace, it doesn't have anything to do with the current police force.

 

[Tappajakoala]

I have seen few "reality tv shows" about UK police duties and I can say they are quite good with their work but very teethless bulldogs. It's fault of UK justice system.

I personally would give cops right to powersfully smack criminal's face with nightstick about every single swearword and threat what offenders are throwing towards cops.

 

[Famine]

Rathband was caught completely off guard, he wasn't even looking for Moat. He was sat in his car and Moat snuck up on him. It was never a shoot-out. So how you can use that scenario as justification is a gross twisting of the facts and events that occurred that day. And quite frankly goes into the territory of misinformation.

Wow. Way to utterly misread everything. Try this line:

Would he have thought twice about approaching Rathband's car if he'd known Rathband was armed - rather than knowing he wasn't?

You even quoted it...

Notice how there's nothing there about Rathband defending himself? Or a shoot-out? Or Rathband going out looking for Moat? How you can arrive at those conclusions from what I wrote is a gross twisting of the facts. And quite frankly goes into the territory of misrepresentation.

(see how that works? No, it doesn't)


You asked how it would have turned out differently. An armed police force may have changed the events of the day. Moat may have thought twice about targetting someone he knew was armed rather than someone he knew wasn't armed (which would have had the result of Rathband not being very badly damaged by the event to the point of taking his own life). That's not to say that it will have changed the events, just that you cannot state that it won't.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Wow. Way to utterly misread everything. Try this line:

You even quoted it...

Notice how there's nothing there about Rathband defending himself? Or a shoot-out? Or Rathband going out looking for Moat? How you can arrive at those conclusions from what I wrote is a gross twisting of the facts. And quite frankly goes into the territory of misrepresentation.

(see how that works? No, it doesn't)


You asked how it would have turned out differently. An armed police force may have changed the events of the day. Moat may have thought twice about targetting someone he knew was armed rather than someone he knew wasn't armed (which would have had the result of Rathband not being very badly damaged by the event to the point of taking his own life). That's not to say that it will have changed the events, just that you cannot state that it won't.

He snuck up and shot Rathband twice, once in the face, once in the shoulder. Rathband could have had his finger over over a button labelled "unleash nuclear arsenal" and it would have made no difference.

In previous discussions you, and I, have made arguments against anti-gun knee-jerk government legislation. But now you're suggesting arming the police in response to a situation that it would have made no difference in.

 

[Pagey279]

Moat may have thought twice about targetting someone he knew was armed rather than someone he knew wasn't armed

I disagree with this, he was prepared to kill/maim completely innocent people, and he was prepared to shoot himself in the head, as he later proved.
So why would he worry about the officer in the car being armed? He showed he wasn't afraid of death.

And to someone like him it may have given him a thrill to know he had the chance of killing an armed officer.

 

[Famine]

He snuck up and shot Rathband twice, once in the face, once in the shoulder. Rathband could have had his finger over over a button labelled "unleash nuclear arsenal" and it would have made no difference.

Again, not what I'm talking about.

Would he have thought twice about approaching Rathband's car if he'd known Rathband was armed - rather than knowing he wasn't?

Would you threaten the life of someone you absolutely knew was armed with a gun?

When the criminal has a gun and he knows the other person doesn't, he is in a position of power - he can approach and threaten that individual with impugnity. When the criminal has a gun and he knows the other person has a gun, the balance of power is evened out - he has to consider whether to approach that individual. That's a change of mindset (though Moat's was not particularly stable and it may have had no effect).


You asked how it would have done, not whether it would have done. We can't say whether or not an armed police force would have changed things - but we can say that the mechanism of change had there been one would be a change in the balance of power, away from the criminal, through having an armed police force.

How would an armed police force have changed the outcome of the Moat incident? By changing his approach towards people he knew were armed. Would it have changed the outcome? We have no way of knowing.

In previous discussions you, and I, have made arguments against anti-gun knee-jerk government legislation. But now you're suggesting arming the police in response to a situation that it would have made no difference in.

And I'll restate that we have no way of knowing that.

I disagree with this, he was prepared to kill/maim completely innocent people, and he was prepared to shoot himself in the head, as he later proved.
So why would he worry about the officer in the car being armed? He showed he wasn't afraid of death.

It's a fool's errand to try to understand the mind of someone who has lost it.

And to someone like him it may have given him a thrill to know he had the chance of killing an armed officer.

Would that class as a change then?

Another possible change is that he'd have then had two guns. That's also an answer to "how would the Raoul Moat situation have ended any differently!?" rather than "would the Raoul Moat situation have ended any differently?".

 

[Hun200kmh]

I had no idea UK police officers didn't carry a gun.

This is what you'll see here in Portugal, a country I consider very peaceful and where civilians simply aren't allowed to own guns:

Of course, if the going gets tough these will show up ...

... sometimes with ...

but I guess that's more about a prevention "show" than to be used. As far as I know, this kind of fire power has only been used in exercises, never needed on the field.

 

[Liquid]

This is the British Police Force.

 

[Pagey279]

It's a fool's errand to try to understand the mind of someone who has lost it.

Yes I agree but based on his actions we can make an educated guess as to what he may have decided to do. And what I suggested was completely plausible, in light of his willingness to kill people.

He declared war on the police, "I won't stop until I'm dead". He was help bent on killing police officers, so I think its fairly safe to assume he would have tried to kill PC David rathband regardless.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10519166

 

[Famine]

Yes I agree but based on his actions we can make an educated guess as to what he may have decided to do. And what I suggested was completely plausible, in light of his willingness to kill people.

He declared war on the police, "I won't stop until I'm dead". He was help bent on killing police officers, so I think its fairly safe to assume he would have tried to kill PC David rathband regardless.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10519166

The problem with that conclusion is that we have no idea how his decision-making process would have gone if he hadn't been the most powerful man in a completely unarmed society...

A societal (and legal) rejection of guns will have played a significant role in his... errr... "decision". Had we not had 30 years of "guns are bad, mmmkay" and a removal of them completely from our society and from the people whose job it is to uphold our rights, Moat might not have even offended in the first place (we can't say whether he would or not). Had he known the entire police force was armed, he might not have declared war on the police - we have 136,000 police in the UK and Moat had more firearms than 130,000 of them put together. That's quite a position of power. Had he been outgunned by two Bobbies in a Panda car, would he have felt so empowered?

We can't say. We can't say that having an armed police force would have changed things. We can only suppose - in answer to the question "how would the Raoul Moat situation have ended any differently" - how it could have ended differently. I'd suggest that one armed man in an wholly disarmed society against an almost wholly disarmed police force is a different situation than it would have been had either society or the police not been disarmed - and that might have changed Raoul Moat's thought processes, not only for the specific incident but, by not ingraining the lack of guns in our society, his entire mindset.

 

[Pagey279]

(Non armed police situation) If you go on a rampage with a gun you know for a fact that armed response units are hunting you, and they will find you, and it will result in either you being dead or in prison.

(Armed police situation) if you go on a rampage with a gun you know for a fact the police will are hunting you, and they will find you, and it will result in either you being dead or in prison.

The only difference being the time delay on which it takes the armed units to mobilize.

Are those two situations and outcomes really that different that in his state of mind, you would seriously think twice about going on a rampage with armed PCs?? Not in my opinion.

It would have ended the same way.

Perhaps I should rename this thread