It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Police who first arrived at scene in Paris left on their bikes; is this how you want the US police?

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 08:21 AM

The police who first arrived at the scene of the Paris shooting, "left on their push bikes" after seeing how heavily armed the Muslims were.

Why? Because city police do not generally carry guns.

Those of you who want to disarm the US police to make them less racist and more fair

do you realize this is what happens when you disarm

the police?

This is also what happens when you call for getting rid of the police as many of the protesters around the US are calling for.

A bunch of men on bikes riding around the city, who flee when there is trouble involving guns.

Which we all know that the criminals will have.

+11 more 
posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 08:23 AM
By contrast European nations where the police are usually unarmed have very low levels of gun violence.

Cops carry guns, criminals start carrying guns. A whole lot more people get shot.

The statistics prove it beyond question.

So yes. This is how I want it to be here. Yes, there are always going to be extreme cases where lunatics go on sprees like this. But in the long run it costs many more lives than it saves to have a fully armed police force.

posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 08:27 AM
It's their countries, let them run them the way they want. If they don't want guns, it's their choice.
Now, if they would just STFU and let us do the same.

+1 more 
posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 08:29 AM
a reply to: grandmakdw

Most people don't want to see our police disarmed, all they want is for them to simply be held accountable for their actions and misconduct. Having a license to kill is not how the police are supposed to operate. I don't have a problem with the police being armed, but when one shoots someone on sight without even attempting to defuse the situation, they should be charged and tried just like anyone else would be in that situation.

posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 08:34 AM
Another day...
edit on 7-1-2015 by AK907ICECOLD because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 08:46 AM
a reply to: grandmakdw

I bet you haven`t seen the video of the police officer getting killed point blank while laying down wounded on the ground in Paris today to use this to make a political statement already.

There are a lot of countries in which the police actual carry weapons but are held accountable for misconduct of them. I think that`s the whole problem and not so much of carrying them or not

U.S. cops kill at 100 times rate of other capitalist countries


posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 09:01 AM
a reply to: grandmakdw

It's a simple request.
LEO's must honor their sworn oath above their own safety. That's known as duty.
LEO's must operate under the same laws as citizens do and swear oath to that effect. Full public transparency.

If you can't handle this, get a different job. If you can, then you deserve respect and public support.

posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 09:16 AM
US police are crazy!

Like don't get me wrong, chasing down somebody at 160 km because they have a suspended license, then pulling of a pit maneuver on them in a busy suburban street obviously sounds like a lot of fun, I am jealous they get to have so much fun. But its hard to keep a straight face when they start talking about having any kind of concern about public safety, when they act like that.

Its that whole obsession with law and order over there that's the problem.

The UK police would just pull back and arrest the person peacefully a week later, rather than go on some dangerous mission of catching the criminal at all costs, regardless of the danger to the public.

In the UK they had zero police shootings last year, so the policy of not being armed obviously works.

posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 09:18 AM
My friend, I hate to say it.... But I sincerely feel that IMHO you are take a case of complete opposites.

You are also taking a blatantly (and thanks to the Pentagon and DHS, obscenely so at that) miliarized police force such as we have here in the United States, and comparing them (no offense implied, merely making shoddy statement in an attempt to make a point) to 5th graders out for a playground rumble.


posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 09:27 AM

originally posted by: Painterz
By contrast European nations where the police are usually unarmed have very low levels of gun violence.

Cops carry guns, criminals start carrying guns. A whole lot more people get shot.

The statistics prove it beyond question.

So yes. This is how I want it to be here. Yes, there are always going to be extreme cases where lunatics go on sprees like this. But in the long run it costs many more lives than it saves to have a fully armed police force.

So Your THEORY Is That The Criminals Only Carry Guns Because The Police Carry guns?
Then by contrast, if our police stopped carrying guns, the criminals would stop also...
Good luck with that one.

posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 09:30 AM
why does there HAVE to be an extreme?
ok showing up with your bike is not very smart, but having a goddamn tank parked in front of my house is not much better.
Remember what happened after the boston marathon bombing? it looked like an invasion.
America and France are just trying extreme "solutions" to the same problem.

posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 09:34 AM
a reply to: grandmakdw

So your using a terrorist attack to make a political point? can I vote you into congress?

posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 09:35 AM
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

The US has 100 times the population of the countries you reference.
That is to be expected.

posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 09:40 AM
a reply to: American-philosopher
originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71

You are correct, the criminals will not give up their guns.
And it is going to get worse, because 3D printing will soon be affordable for every home.
No one will be able to stop the printing of guns.

To those who think it is gauche to make a political statement out of a tragedy.

It is exactly such tragedies which point out the weakness of certain irresponsible policies
Like police who are not allowed to carry guns
And so get shot
And the rest of the police who are supposed to protect people
flee the scene

We MUST learn from situations like these
They are learning points for us all

edit on 9Wed, 07 Jan 2015 09:43:41 -0600am10701amk073 by grandmakdw because: format addition

posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 09:42 AM

originally posted by: grandmakdw
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

The US has 100 times the population of the countries you reference.
That is to be expected.

Bill O`Reilly logic doesn`t work on Dutch people.

At 2:43 min...

posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 09:44 AM
Less violent crime in europe ... also most european police departments have specially trained units to handle such situations rather than arming all their officers ..

posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 09:51 AM
Every Nation has Police with Guns...

Sometimes not on normal beat cops like the States...

But there are departments designed specifically for these sort of attacks.

Police don't carry guns in London...

But CO19 do carry machine guns.

So I think your point is pointless.

*I'm pro-Gun*

posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 10:00 AM
a reply to: Expat888

The "civilized" European approach

Have your police ride around on bicycles unarmed

When a situation happens

The police flee if there is danger to themselves

The citizen be damned

The big force arrives after the perpetrator has leisurely finished the crime spree

And - according to the reports, walks away from the scene

Then the specially equipped forces arrive

The perpetrator is protected from harm

No police who are armed are harmed

The citizen must fend for him/herself

As the police force is not longer a police force

But rather a huge detective squad

Who investigates after the crime spree is over

Keeping the police and the perpetrator safe

And the citizenry injured, or worse dead

That is what those of you who are supporting the European system are actually advocating.

posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 10:17 AM
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

My friend, and I say that sincerely, I can only assume you are either a resident of the EU proper, or one of our kissing cousins (and yes, I am WELL aware that the UK is part of the EU, and does not equate visiting Europe the way a vast number of americans seem to think)....

Whereas I am no fan nor proponent of the obscene extremities that our countries police departments have been geared up between armament and mentality....

Let's be honest about something. Really, truly, honest.

The UK is barely larger by a smidge than my own home state of Missouri. Now, let's look at the numerical statistics of populations...

Population Estimates for UK, England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, Mid-2011 and Mid-2012 Released:

08 August 2013 Next edition: 26 June 2014 This product is designated as National Statistics All editions of this release Contact Pete Large Population Estimates Unit Telephone: +44 (0)1329 444661 Categories: Population, Population Change, Population Estimates, Population Estimates by Age and Sex Frequency of release: Annually Language: English Geographical coverage: UK Geographical breakdown: Country, Local Authority and County The population of the UK was estimated to be 63.7 million in mid-2012, up from the estimated 63.3 million in mid-2011. This represents a growth of 419,900 (0.7%) in the year to 30 June 2012.

UK Gov Source...

Now, let's take a look at the US population. The numbers below are from from 2010 US Census reporting.

U.S. and World Population Clock: United States 321,362,789 (3rd largest population in the world)

The UK experienced 10.3 murders per million citizens of the UK.

The US experienced Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.4

CDC stats

My point is this. We live in entirely two different petri dishes.

The US is 20 times the population of the UK. Greater populace, high probability of deaths. Percentages do tell the overall story of the US having ten times as many gun related deaths than the UK. Our deaths involving guns is ten times higher. IMHO, the likelyhood for "social order" and fewer violent deaths (particularly gun related deaths) is only going to be exponential when you are dealing with such a multiplied magnitude of a difference in population. The greater density of almost anything, the more pressure, and the greater potential for strife.

Second, look at the core differences between the two societies in consideration of gun related deaths. In the UK, personal gun use is outlawed except when it comes to grandfathered scenarios involving hunting rifles. In the USA, we are a prolifically armed populace. In the US, our police have become aggressively militarized. In the UK, the police are largely unarmed. This is due to the idea, IMHO, that an unarmed society is one that does not require arms to police it.

Third, although an all in all safer nation due to the factors I mentioned above even if not truly fair IMHO, I have never personally known someone to have been murdered. That is until New Year's eve 2002 in the Lake District of the UK. A friend and brother in arms who we were all out trying to kill ourselves with alcohol went missing the next morning, New Year's day. After hours of frantic phone calls and people searching their neighborhoods, my mate was finally found. His head was bludgeoned in with a nearby cinder block. Is this a truly fair statement to make? No. But, it is my personal experience. I feel the need to say that the working class town I have friends and family in is also a place of desperation. It is not at all unheard of to be able to have someone kneecapped for 50 quid.

Given these two factors, I do not believe a comparison between the two nations declaring one barbaric and the other civilized. So far apart on the spectrum, it's almost apples and oranges in my opinion. I fully expect plenty of those that take offense or plain opposition to my viewpoint. Fair enough. Everyone has a rectum.

On a personal note, It has been my experience in the North of England (Lake District, to be exact), if two people have an issue and do not appear to actually have the intent of killing one another or doing sincere damage to property (think a plate glass window), Men are allowed to be men. I personally feel this allows for a steam valve release when it comes to escalating issues. One is the victor, one is the loser. There are no deaths. Lessons learned. Now, I state this is in the North of England, and specifically not down around London, where I'd imagine the culture to be vastly different. It still says something about the society. In my mind, a positive one.

No, not everything I stated above is 100% the case at all points, but, I do believe it is germane to the discussion at hand.

- NF

posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 10:18 AM
French police do have guns (sig sauer SP 2022), in France you have 3 "types" of police on the streets, Municipal police (who do not have guns) National police who are allowed to carry guns but some units don't carry guns as it is not really their job to intervene in these matters, and Gendarmes (military) who all carry guns.
And the 3 Policemen on the bikes where in the wrong place at the wrong time from what I have understood and one of them was killed.

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in