A Few Unarmed London Community Police Ran Away From Terrorists Leaving Citizens Alone

The only reason we have the PCO's is that most of the time, thats all we need!

Knocking out and a firm hand to control the few who think theyre invincible, hardly needs an HK 9mm and a few stun grenades does it ? These volunteers are there to back up the regular police, due to a succession of tight fisted govts scrimping on proper policing. Who now depend on the underfunded cops backing up the non-funded volunteers.

You couldnt make it up!

On the armed police question, our coppers ARE armed....witha stick!
And given the mental capabilities of some of them, thats about as far as we want to take that policy thanks.

Remind me....how many civillians did the US cops muder last year?
Whereas ours tend to be thick ears, broken legs or a fat lip.

I just heard (on Fox News) 90% of the British police force is unarmed.
Meaning, they do not carry firearms.
True or false?

True
a reply to: c2oden

originally posted by: c2oden
I just heard (on Fox News) 90% of the British police force is unarmed.
Meaning, they do not carry firearms.
True or false?

Sitting ducks.

originally posted by: c2oden
I just heard (on Fox News) 90% of the British police force is unarmed.
Meaning, they do not carry firearms.
True or false?

True.

They don't need to have them, most of the time.

originally posted by: toysforadults

originally posted by: c2oden
I just heard (on Fox News) 90% of the British police force is unarmed.
Meaning, they do not carry firearms.
True or false?

Sitting ducks.

Sitting ducks for vans, explosives and knives?

Americans are armed, yet look at how many people have been run over, caught by an explosion or stabbed.

Your logic doesn't exist, but I don't expect anything from the person who couldn't give 5 minutes to vet their own source.

a reply to: toysforadults

Gladly.

What's the title of your OP, again?

If that isn't calling them cowards, what is it? The implication is certainly there.

...London Community Police Ran Away From Terrorists Leaving Citizens Alone

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: toysforadults

originally posted by: c2oden
I just heard (on Fox News) 90% of the British police force is unarmed.
Meaning, they do not carry firearms.
True or false?

Sitting ducks.

Sitting ducks for vans, explosives and knives?

Americans are armed, yet look at how many people have been run over, caught by an explosion or stabbed.

Your logic doesn't exist, but I don't expect anything from the person who couldn't give 5 minutes to vet their own source.

Ah yes most of those were surprise attacks on people in zones in america where having a gun is unlikely. See we may be armed but we have terrible tactical awareness of our surroundings.
In a aware populace though they would find it much harder to operate.
And really who expects to be blown up in the US? Not very many i tell you.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Liar.

Jut to pick up on some chat on why the UK police don't carry arms. It's not because the UK are disarmed, because there are a million firearms in legal circulation. It's because:

1. The principles of UK policing are based on the concept of "policing by consent". The police are not "law enforcement" as per the US. The police in the UK rely on public support. The public DO NOT want an armed police force.
2. While police are not routinely armed, there are armed police to be called upon if needed. In the UK it is very rare for people to be shot by police.
3. The police don't want to be armed.

While ignorance is bliss, it is a purpose of ATS to deny ignorance. Let's remember that before we spout off rubbish about UK policing.

PCSOs aren't proper cops. Thet are there to put tape up, make notes and generally just help the real cops.

you'd do well to take tge BT police officer as an example of what our cops are really like, he went solo and unarmed against these 3 killers.

Stories like this are a pathetic slur on our blue light people and, frankly, I'm more disgusted by the author than the pcsos that ran.

PCSO's are generally a waste of resources. Totally useless and literally can't do anything.

The program should be eliminated entirely and the resources dedicated to it sent to the actual police.

And another off duty police officer (so not even a stab vest) got injured tacking them.

4 officers in total got injured.

I am often critical of the police but in this case I think the response, both from the regular officers on the scene and the armed response, was outstanding and undoubtedly saved a lot of lives.

a reply to: toysforadults

A Few Unarmed London Community Police Ran Away From Terrorists Leaving Citizens Alone -

A good indicator that they dont get paid enough to put their life on the line and perhaps it also an indication that they know or suspect the upper echolns of the force are so bent they are cirirular and roll abong the ground like a tyre.

a reply to: Lysergic

Twin glock .40s cocked back

Are you trying to feed the troll? .....honest question, what is the point of your post?

I think people need to be careful assigning blame / fault to the community policing officers who responded and any that may have failed to engage. Its easy to second guess actions when you have the luxury of complete information / 20/20 hindsight.

Keep in mind they did not have any of that info when this started.

There is a saying (a false one at that) that people will "rise to the occasion". In reality people fall back to their level of training.

I would not expect an unarmed security officer (from a US perspective) to place himself into danger pending my arrival on scene.

As for civilians who engaged, the body jumps into fight or flight mode when survival comes into question.

No one can truly say how they would have responded unless they were present, at the time and place this occurred, and experienced it first hand. US law enforcement has no direct requirement to protect individuals but society as a whole. We are trained that its ok to withdraw pending backup if the situation is one we would not normally survive. Since US law enforcement is based on the British model I would imagine their officers are under the same or similar guidelines.

British police really need to be armed in this day and age and I wonder if that lack of sidearms is one reason they have terror attacks like they do.

Just my 2 cents.

a reply to: toysforadults

from your OP page 1

The police were running away, they were community police. They were normal officers, they were running away.

your words

Disgraceful. Nothing to add.

Pretty much calling them cowards. You keep getting caught out deflecting, changing the goalposts....time to give up

a reply to: Xcathdra

Police and France, Germany, Belgium and the US are all routinely armed. They also all have had terror attack.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Xcathdra

Police and France, Germany, Belgium and the US are all routinely armed. They also all have had terror attack.

Yup... point?

originally posted by: crazyewok

The UK police have never been armed!

Your obviously clueless.

1) UK police have not been disarmed. They never where armed in the first place.

The history surrounding that is quite interesting, but it's worth noting that the police have always had weapons - including pistols and, historically, cutlasses - available for routine patrol. Officers on night patrol, for example, were more likely to be armed if their senior officer allowed it. This was only tightened up post war, so strictly speaking the police are now less well armed than they used to be.

The current push is to increase the number of armed response officers, but the days are gone when every officer could be issued a weapon for routine patrol.

There are cases in the past where constables asked nearby civilians to loan them pistols when dealing with armed villains!