posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 10:02 AM
Originally posted by kevinunknown
reply to post by Esrom Escutcheon Esquire
Saying that if 1 in 10 police are armed means that 1 in 10 will shoot is rubbish, read that back you will see what i mean. The odds of shooting are
not dependant on the number of police carrying weapons but the number of criminals carrying weapons and prepared to use them. In both of the recent
cases if police were universally armed they could have been brought to a halt much quicker as is pointed out in the OP.
You question probability when you just said -
In both of the recent cases if police were universally armed they could have been brought to a halt much quicker.
Again showing that if they had 'guns' they could have just shot him and got the whole thing under control.
Moat was obviously a raging psycho who was in the midst of a psychological breakdown.
Yes, He shot a police officer.
But does carrying a Gun really solve the 'case' quicker?
Whilst Moat was on-the run, there where Police Marksmen placed on Hills.
There where Armed response units from over 10 diffrent forces which lent man power in the SEVEN day search... Even forces from Belfast!
All those Guns and it took them 7 days to corner Moat in a stormdrain.
If you are a police officer, then you should see the oppertunitys missed in capturing Moat ALIVE, like I said earlier, he returned to friends houses
What happend to real police detection?
I.e. Clues and evidence..?
I think the only reason Coppers want guns is to protect their-selfs, Not the public.
And if you fear for your own safety because you havnt got a Gun, then leave the force.