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: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 03:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by howmuchisthedoggy

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.


Someone didn't read the link.....

I was correcting the quote that stated the police hadn't been armed in over a hundred years.

That is not true.

The Police (the average Bobby on the street) was armed up until the 1950's by simply requesting a gun off their Sgt if they didn't already carry one.

Now forgive me if I fell asleep for 45 years, but last time I checked it was 2005.......




posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 05:19 AM
link   
Whoa man, when i first saw the title of this topic the first thing that came to mind was something like: "who cares, cops get shot all the time" then i relized how immune to violence we are in amercia...kinda freaky. We blink off people dying like it's nothing...and people getting shot is like old news, that isn't even a hot topic anymore. Saying someone got shot and killed to us is like saying you just beat your high score in a video game...it's like "...and i care because....?" If you read the NY post or daily news, or watch any news programming, it's just like BODY COUNT. "3 where shot to death...1 person killed himself..a family was poisoned by a deranged teen...4 people died today in a collision involving a drunk driver..." you get my drift...after awhile it all just blends together and unfortunatley you just stop caring. wow talk about people being desensitzed..

I still hate cops though!

...but then again, that could also come from living in america..



posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 05:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Spawwwn


I still hate cops though!

...but then again, that could also come from living in america..


Nah, I think cops are hated all over the world mate. British cops are actually more vicious than American, at least in my experience.
They might not shoot people or get caught beating ppl on video, but when you're in their cells away from eyes...



posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 05:37 AM
link   


They might not shoot people or get caught beating ppl on video, but when you're in their cells away from eyes...


Dont give them attitude and they wont give it back. I was arrested when I was 18 for assault. I didn't attempt to flee the scene, as I believed I was within my rights of self defence and was fully cooperative with them. In the end, they nicked me, but I remained compliant.

At the station, they provided me with a meal and a cup of tea as soon as I arrived. They were quite friendly and chatty to be honest. They let me out of the cell whenever I wanted a smoke and in the end just left my cell door open (the only one to have that done) and was more or less free to wander about, go for a smoke or go to the loo. They also allowed my parents to bring me in a McDonalds.


CX

posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 07:51 AM
link   
Totaly agree with Stu's comments above. You usualy find that its the gobby ones who have acted up as soon as a police officer questions them that tend to get the rough end of the stick. I think there are a lot of people out there with a massive chip on thier shoulder about the police, yet who do they run to first when they been wronged?


Makes me laugh it really does. I'm not saying that all police are angels here, but when you see the mouthy little ***** they have to deal with on day to day basis
........i'm going to shut up now before i go off on a rant about something i'm glad i don't have to deal with any more!

CX



posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 09:28 AM
link   
From reading some of the above quotes, I was wondering - If so many of the police don't want to be armed, why not give them the OPTION of being armed?

Why not train them in the use of firearms as standard, and then make it optional as to whether to carry or not? This would at least give them the option of carrying a weapon, without the old and bold having a hissy fit when they are handed a Glock.

Just a thought...



posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
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?


- I think the point is that you needn't show an actual knife to intimidate someone into believing you are threatening them with one.
Hence a catagory within the stats for replica and immitation 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.


- Yes, replica swords can be a problem too.
Being hit about the head with a long bar of heavy steel (whether sharpened or not) is unlikely to do anyone much good.



posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by PaddyInf
From reading some of the above quotes, I was wondering - If so many of the police don't want to be armed, why not give them the OPTION of being armed?


- 80% of the UK cops themselves don't want to be armed according to the Police federation stat I've seen.
They themselves understand the knock-on effects that 'upping the ante' like that would bring.

The current system of heavily armed response teams available all over the country at a moments notice seems to me to be the best compromise.

There have been 11 (presumably this latest death makes that 12) UK Police officers killed by the gun in the UK since 1985.

I personally think that routinely arming the British Police will create far many more problems than it solves.

We should appreciate and protect our relatively 'gun free' society IMO.


A 2003 Police Federation survey found 80 per cent of officers opposed, a similar figure to that found in the Federation's previous survey in 1995. However, 80 per cent of officers wanted more officers trained to use firearms.

www.politics.co.uk...$2120136.htm



[edit on 21-11-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

Originally posted by PaddyInf
From reading some of the above quotes, I was wondering - If so many of the police don't want to be armed, why not give them the OPTION of being armed?


- 80% of the UK cops themselves don't want to be armed according to the Police federation stat I've seen.
They themselves understand the knock-on effects that 'upping the ante' like that would bring.

The current system of heavily armed response teams available all over the country at a moments notice seems to me to be the best compromise.

There have been 11 (presumably this latest death makes that 12) UK Police officers killed by the gun in the UK since 1985.

I personally think that routinely arming the British Police will create far many more problems than it solves.

We should appreciate and protect our relatively 'gun free' society IMO.


A 2003 Police Federation survey found 80 per cent of officers opposed, a similar figure to that found in the Federation's previous survey in 1995. However, 80 per cent of officers wanted more officers trained to use firearms.

www.politics.co.uk...$2120136.htm
[edit on 21-11-2005 by sminkeypinkey]


As 80% do not want to be armed, then where is the problem with offering the other 20% the option to feel safer when walking into a 'routine' robbery, as these two constables were? This option would theoretically mean that 80% of officers would still be unarmed, if they choose to be.

In the above situation, the two constables were attending what they thougth was an everyday robbery shout. They did not request an ARV because they did not know that there were firearms involved. An ARV is great if you have time to request one, wait around for it etc. Many times this is not an option. Would it not make sense to give the first responding officers the chance to defend themselves if things went pear-shapped fast? Often the first indication that there is a firearm involved in these instances is when you're looking down the barrel of one.

In the course of a former occupation, I worked closely with a large number of police officers. I have had numerous conversations with many of them regarding this very topic. In these conversations, I would say that about 80% of them stated that they WOULD prefer to have the option of carrying firearms if they so choose. I know that this is only my experience and that it doesn't speak for all officers. The types of officers I worked with were very pro-active and came from very dynamic teams.

As former SO19 sergeant Steve Collins stated, remember, Dixon of Dock Green was shot dead!



posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by PaddyInf

As 80% do not want to be armed, then where is the problem with offering the other 20% the option to feel safer when walking into a 'routine' robbery, as these two constables were?


Because you then create divisions - both within the Police Force itself and within public perception.
You also risk the danger of police officers carrying guns when they don't want to for any other reason than peer pressure. It's harder to use a weapon if you don't feel confident with it.
Arming the bobby on the beat is an all or nothing affair.



posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason


Dont give them attitude and they wont give it back. I was arrested when I was 18 for assault. I didn't attempt to flee the scene, as I believed I was within my rights of self defence and was fully cooperative with them. In the end, they nicked me, but I remained compliant.


Well you know it aslo depends on what you've been arrested for and where?

London cops DO NOT like Anarchists or other "subversive" types, no matter if they are mouthy or not. I have been beaten by cops and so have my friends. And my experiences are form the early 80's, maybe things have changed.
I remember cops in my home town would deliberately bump into you to get a reaction, so they could arrest you.
I forget the name of the law, but it's the breach of peace one, you don't have to have actualy have DONE anything. A cop told me if we can't get you for anything else we can get you on this.
There was a time you couldn't go out without being stopped by cops.
I never see this kind of harrasment in the U.S. even though some members of society (homeless) in my neighbourhood are regularly.

[edit on 21/11/2005 by ANOK]



posted on Nov, 22 2005 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Well you know it aslo depends on what you've been arrested for and where?

London cops DO NOT like Anarchists or other "subversive" types, no matter if they are mouthy or not. I have been beaten by cops and so have my friends. And my experiences are form the early 80's, maybe things have changed.


Well, just to get my point across, I was arrested for smacking a woman in the face. I was at the Carnival Pool in Bracknell with my girlfriend and my little brother. She was with her small tribe of chavlets.

Story is (just so you don't label me as a woman beater!) she tried to push in what was a very long, Bank holiday monday queue at the popular pool. After some arguing and some very foul language from her, she decided to start pushing and slapping me, finishing off her nasty little attack my spitting a huge, green loogey into my mouth.

Her eldest son (who was about 15 and a proper chav) was also becoming physically threatening and made it quite clear he was going to hurt me.

At that point, I slapped her.

Hey, if that bothers you, then just remember, if that was a bloke he would have been chinned alot earlier and woman are all for equal rights, aren't they? Well, they can equally expect to get a slap when they attack me


To top it off, she started screaming for the police and after I sat around, with her hurling even more abuse at me (I did nothing more) two women police officers turned up. Just my luck.

They still remained quite pleasant, as i was also on my best behaviour. The only thing I can fault them on is that they failed to get CCTV evidence from the lobby of the pool which would have shown the woman to have been the instigator.

Two witnesses backed my story up and not a soul could verify hers, but because she was physically harmed and I wasn't I was fined £450.

All she had was a cut to the mouth and claimed I hit her with full force with my right hand.

I pleaded not guilty because in actual fact I hit her with my left and definately not full force. I stated in court that had I hit her with my right, she would have been knocked out. Didn't sit too well with the Magistrates, but it was the truth


Anyhoo, that just illustrates my point. I wasn't nicked for a misdemeanor like being pissed and kicking bins, but a proper, bonefined "crime".

As for Anarchists getting the rough end of the stick....Just be grateful the vast majority of the population isn't allowed to get hold of you.

Most "anarchists" stand for nothing other than "sticking to the facists" or whatever and seem to like spending your summers trashing city centres and ruining other peoples lives. I know I would love to stick it too some "Anarchists"...bloody fools!

Most of those that claim to be Anarchists know nothing of what it actually means and think it as an excuse to burn down a McDonalds and riot.



posted on Nov, 22 2005 @ 02:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

Hey, if that bothers you, then just remember, if that was a bloke he would have been chinned alot earlier and woman are all for equal rights, aren't they? Well, they can equally expect to get a slap when they attack me

Most of those that claim to be Anarchists know nothing of what it actually means and think it as an excuse to burn down a McDonalds and riot.


Don't bother me mate I might have done the same, not a big fan of chav scum either....talk about sheeple!

And I agree on the people who use Anarchy as an excuse to just "cause trouble for people", if that is really their intention. But really things don't get changed unless people get angry. Burn down a mcdonalds? How many trees have been cut so they can make money? How many peoples land have they stolen so they can make money. How many ppls heath have been ruined so they can make money. How many animals suffer so they can make money.
I have NO sympathy for them.
I didn't burn down any mcdonalds myself but I did do other stuff, glueing up bank locks, liberating lab animals and moving them to safe homes.
Civil disabedience stuff. I was very proud of the butchers shops we put out of business. The fox farms we trashed. The animal torture labs we put out of business.

But most of the time I was arrested for stupid stuff, because they "knew me" but couldn't pin anything on me (we weren't stupid, we covered ourselves well). Or I got hassled because of how I dressed.

But having said that I have friends who were beat for just being drunk, or reacting to a cop who shuved them with an elbow as they passed on the street. But one night we got some revenge, in a parking lot on a Saturday night. Cops out on the town playing "civilian" got a taste of their own methods. Don't get me wrong I'm not a violent person, never have been.
But cops are traters to their class as far as I'm concerned, and that night was sweet.

I don't care what you think of me, you really shouldn't judge someone for trying to do something against what they know to be wrong.
It wasn't done out of hate, it was done out of love. Love for life, love of liberty, Human or Animal.



posted on Nov, 22 2005 @ 03:22 AM
link   


I don't care what you think of me, you really shouldn't judge someone for trying to do something against what they know to be wrong.


Agreed and I do not judge you, personally, as I do not know you
. I try not to judge those that I have not given a chance. My elder sister is an anarchic type and whilst she is thoroughly infuriating and a bit messed up, she is a good person with good intentions


I quallified my statement by saying "most anarchists" use it as an excuse for violence. I agree with most principles that true Anarchists spout, but sometimes the methods are in question, giving the ideology a bad rep.



posted on Nov, 22 2005 @ 03:30 AM
link   
Thanx for the reply and understanding Stumason.

I was expecting to get falt out flamed for that....

And to finish off I don't do that stuff anymore, that was my younger more reckles
days. I even spent time in the miltary (against all my beliefes lol)...

I'm just a theoretical Anarchist now, I think the system will only be changed by educating ppl, not burning it down. I don't support violent revolution.
As we know that only turns ppl away from the cause and kills the movement.
But when anger, passion, and youth get together well.....

[edit on 22/11/2005 by ANOK]



posted on Nov, 22 2005 @ 04:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Thanx for the reply and understanding Stumason.

I was expecting to get falt out flamed for that....

*******

I'm just a theoretical Anarchist now, I think the system will only be changed by educating ppl, not burning it down. I don't support violent revolution.
As we know that only turns ppl away from the cause and kills the movement.
But when anger, passion, and youth get together well.....

[edit on 22/11/2005 by ANOK]


Agreed
...I try not to flame either, too much effort and only destroys a good debate



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join