It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Police officer shot and killed in the UK

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zipdot
EDIT 3: Man, in fact, we had an officer shot to death just yesterday while greeting a motorist during a routine traffic stop in California...

Zip



Greeting? LOL! You gotta love it. Yup, a friend was "greeted" back in May, on my property, without reasonable suspicion and certainly without probable cause, he was searched and so was his car - on my property and without reasonable suspicion. That whole incident led to an even bigger incident.
This might be the wrong attitude, but when I read of a cop getting whacked during a traffic stop I have to wonder if it was by a Patriot who's sick and tired of the Gestapo routine. I'm not saying that the action is right or wrong, I'm just wondering.




posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 08:42 PM
link   

This might be the wrong attitude, but when I read of a cop getting whacked during a traffic stop I have to wonder if it was by a Patriot who's sick and tired of the Gestapo routine. I'm not saying that the action is right or wrong, I'm just wondering.


well I live pretty close to Woodland, California, where the incident zipdot is refering to took place. It seems that the cop in question ( a CHP officer) was approaching the suspect vehicle on a routine traffic stop. The suspect shot the officer before he could get to the car.

It appears that being strungout on crank was the motivating factor for the shooting...plus, the suspects (there were two in the car) were both on parole...

I've had my share of greetings by the "California Hospitality Patrol" and, while I usually haven't liked the outcome, you couldn't pay me enough to make some of the traffic stops these guys have to make, given the free access to firearms in America.
I agree with the Second Amendment, as I understand it, but it does carry with it a potential for problems.

Anyway, any bogus behaviour by cops seems to occur more often with city/town police, or Sheriffs Dept.

I don't think it happens so much with the CHP.

[edit on 11/19/2005 by apocalypticon]



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 01:40 AM
link   
Anyone who thinks that it isnt necessary for police to be armed is nuts. I mean if the cops arent armed, the criminals will be, and that only perpetuates the situation. Having every officer carry a standard sidearm is a good way to even things out, cause the criminals arent going to play fair. The cops not having guns just makes it easy for criminals. They need to go ahead repeal the gun ban for citizens as well, civilian guns are used more for defensive purposes than otherwise, the gunban is only helping criminals.

Oh and my speculation on why the vest didnt stop the round is because is was probably a FMJ(Full Metal Jacketed rounds) round, meant for defeting armour. As opposed to JHP(Jacketed Hollow Point rounds) which fragment on impact, designed for soft(Unarmoured) targets.

[edit on 11/20/2005 by ludaChris]

[edit on 11/20/2005 by ludaChris]



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by ludaChris


Oh and my speculation on why the vest didnt stop the round is because is was probably a FMJ(Full Metal Jacketed rounds) round, meant for defeting armour. As opposed to JHP(Jacketed Hollow Point rounds) which fragment on impact, designed for soft(Unarmoured) targets.



Even a FMJ handgun bullet shouldn't defeat a vest unless its something like a FN Five-seveN pistol they have AP rounds which I think have tungsten cores. Those rounds will blow through both sides of a police vest.

FMJ really dont make much of a difference when it comes to armour the core is much more important. That would be interesting if they used AP rounds.



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 01:59 AM
link   
Thanks for the info on the FMJ's, while it is their principle purpose, but if as you say the vest should defeat it, maybe we should try to find out what kind of vest police in the UK use. Anyone know?


[edit on 11/20/2005 by ludaChris]



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 03:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
My heart goes out to this brave womens childern

I see though she was shot in the chest and was wearing body armour that did not stop the bullet. I couldnt find any mention of the type of firearm used but if it was a hand gun or shotgun whats up why didnt the vest defeat the round?


Chances are that it was a stab vest. The majority of UK police are not issued with ballistic armour, simply stab-proof vests. These are good against knives/bottles etc, but are fairly useless against firearms.



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 05:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

If the gov doesn't want it and the cops are 50/50 then who IS pushing for it.
I was under the impression someone was.






The Police Federation. They seem to be 100% for arming.
They could be said to be the union for police.



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 05:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Leveller
The Police Federation. They seem to be 100% for arming.
They could be said to be the union for police.


OK thanx I thought someone was. I don't know anything about them, other than them being their "union" as you say. I'll have to see what dirt I can find online



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 07:21 AM
link   
And nowhere better to start that their own official site.

www.polfed.org...

The Federation News makes pretty interesting reading and gives you a flavour of their stance.

This statement makes pretty interesting reading.

www.polfed.org...

"In April 2003 the Police Federation of England and Wales conducted a survey asking officers for their views on firearms and policing.
The response rate was high and the message emphatic. An overwhelming majority of nearly 80 per cent stated that they did not wish to be routinely armed on duty."

Look at the news in the past few days though and you will see the Federation calling for officers to be armed.




newssearch.bbc.co.uk...

[edit on 20-11-2005 by Leveller]



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by PaddyInf


Chances are that it was a stab vest. The majority of UK police are not issued with ballistic armour, simply stab-proof vests. These are good against knives/bottles etc, but are fairly useless against firearms.


That makes sense since in the UK your more likely to be stabbed then shot I assume. I know they make ballistic armour that is also stab proof but I imagine it cost alot more then just a stab proof vest.



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 02:46 PM
link   
The armour that most officers wear (and the armour that the murdered PC wore) do offer some protection against ballistics.
But there is a fine line between those that will stop bullets every time and those that will stop them some of the time. Weight is the major factor.

But even the best ballistic jacket is not going to stop a head shot. Any criminal who is likely to use a gun against a police officer is very unlikely to worry about where on the body he shoots his victim, but if they were to wear some sort of body protection that could stop a bullet every time, there could be the chance that a criminal may aim for a headshot of which there is hardly any likelihood of survival.

As far as body armour goes, there are many pros and cons and a delicate balance has to be struck.



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Its not really that easy to hit a target like the human head for most people (even police) out side point blank range. Shooters have missed a targets entire body from only a few feet away.

Most police shootouts 90% I think take place less than 15 feet distance, and yet both police and criminals manage to miss most shots. Slightly over 25% hits for police and even less for assailant's even at those ranges.

Most people are horrible shots in real firefights



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Most people are horrible shots in real firefights


Depends on the weapon. Sawn off shotguns have a pretty wide spray pattern and are pretty popular with criminals due to the Firearms Act. Not only that, but they have long been thought to "look the business". Pull one of those in a robbery and not many people are likely to argue with you.
And aim in the general vicinity off the head with a shotgun and you're pretty sure to hit something.

Out of interest, does anyone know the type of weapon used in this case?



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Your correct weapon and ammo type have alot to do with hitting the target. But even a shotgun with 00 buck is not a sure thing even at close range. Theres a myth of the combat shotgun; That due to the spreading of the shot pattern there is no need to aim the weapon. In the REAL world the shot only spreads 1” for every yard of travel after leaving the barrel. Thats not a very big spread at say 12'. Alot of people dont realize how bad of a shot even trained shooters like cops can be.



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
in the UK your more likely to be stabbed then shot I assume.


- Did you know that in the UK our 'knife attack' stats also include replica attacks used to intimidate (in the same way as a significant proportion of our so-called gun crime is by replica and not a real gun)?



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
in the UK your more likely to be stabbed then shot I assume.


- Did you know that in the UK our 'knife attack' stats also include replica attacks used to intimidate (in the same way as a significant proportion of our so-called gun crime is by replica and not a real gun)?


I've seen fake guns before airsoft guns, toys etc.. theres alot of them floating around. I have to say Ive never seen a fake knife outside a karate class and even then its was a orange rubber one.

It there really alot of toy and or replica knives? Not counting replica swords which I know there are many and even though they dont have a blade they can easily kill with the sharp point.



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 09:48 PM
link   
I did a podcast recently in regards this topic.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The rate of British police killed versus US police killed is quite different. I think the lack of weapons on all sides contributes to this. The only reason this is getting so much air time is because it twangs the right heart strings in order to promote the agenda of arming the police.

They have been unarmed for over a hundred years, there is no need to arm them now.


Add to that, this thread started by user MacDonagh, who has only registered in the last couple of weeks:

politics.abovetopsecret.com...

Then consider the threads he has been submitting to.

politics.abovetopsecret.com...

Do the math.



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by howmuchisthedoggy
The only reason this is getting so much air time is because it twangs the right heart strings in order to promote the agenda of arming the police.


Thank you howmuchisthdoggy!

See people I'm not the only Nut Bar that thinks this is a posibilty!

Typical tactic that we have seen a lot of lately in the U.S.
9-11, be-heading, etc...

The powers that be will go to any length to get what they want.

[edit on 20/11/2005 by ANOK]



posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 03:18 AM
link   


They have been unarmed for over a hundred years, there is no need to arm them now.


Not entirely true...




Unlike the police in most other countries, the British police are not routinely armed, except in Northern Ireland, at airports, nuclear facilities, and on some protection duties.

In fact, officers on night patrols in some London divisions were frequently armed with Webley revolvers (and, after the Battle of Stepney, Webley semi-automatics) for over 50 years following the murder of two officers in 1884, though individual officers were able to choose whether to carry the weapons. The practice ended in July 1936, after which arms could be issued by a sergeant if there was a good reason, and if the officer had been trained.

The issue of routine arming was next raised after the 1952 Derek Bentley case, and again after the 1966 murder of three officers in London (Massacre of Braybrook Street), following which around 17% of officers in London were authorised to carry firearms. After the deaths of a number of members of the public in the 1980s, control was considerably tightened, many officers had their firearm authorisation revoked, and training for the remainder was greatly improved and later extended to include some training from the SAS. Currently around 7 per cent of officers in London are trained in the use of firearms. Firearms are also only issued to an officer under strict guidelines. See SO19 (Metropolitan Police Firearms Unit).

Source



posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 03:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason



They have been unarmed for over a hundred years, there is no need to arm them now.


Not entirely true...



Come on, you know what I mean. London and N. Ireland are special cases. I am talking about arming every man jack of them.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join