Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Should All UK Police Be Armed?

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 09:32 AM
link   
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.




posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 09:36 AM
link   
They do not need to be armed, the police already murder anyone they want period in uk.

If you do not think so, just make it all up about someone, and make sure it is serious, and the police will murder them without any evidence, they are just murderers period. My life has proven this. The police will murder you if someone makes up anything serious without any proof, they will just do it, and they love it.



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by andy1033
 


Can you give me any source that shows the police have regulary carried out premeditated murder authorized at a high level with in the police or government?

[edit on 10-7-2010 by kevinunknown]


CX

posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by kevinunknown
Ah thanks interesting posting S. Armagh guessing your out now. So you were a red cap, I was thinking about doing something like that a few years ago but never went through with it.


Yeah, left a few years ago...no regrets, some good times and not so good times, but glad i'm out now. Time to move on and all that.


I spent my last year in Aldershot, where suddenly we weren't armed. That was so weird for me. I think that maybe had a say in why i never went into the civvy bill.

CX.



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 09:59 AM
link   
I just read the crime rate in Britain has doubled since labour has been in.
The steps that are leading to this increase in crime keep getting repeated in every country where they are tried, and the police state keeps becoming more and more dominant in response to it.
If this unsuccessful repetition is accidental it is indicative of intense stupidity.If it is not accidental then it is ..say Hitler disarmed the public and gave all the police guns didn't he?

Wouldn't the intelligent thing to do be to refer to places where successful crime reductions have been achieved and to do that?


Gun Ownership Mandatory In Kennesaw, Georgia --- Crime Rate Plummets

www.freerepublic.com...



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 10:02 AM
link   

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 etc.

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.


CX

posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Esrom Escutcheon Esquire

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.


Not all coppers feel like this. I really enjoyed my service, and i enjoyed looking after the public. So if there was a situation where the public were at risk, i wanted to be able to do that to the best of my abilities. In some situations, i could do that much better armed.

Yes there is an element of self-preservation there too, but hey it's no fun being shot at and having only a truncheon to throw back at them.

CX.



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 10:36 AM
link   
Under New Labour the police became the para-military wing of political correctness, social workers in uniform pandering to every ethnic grievance and whining like idiots whenever some race relations extortionist and terrorist pointed a bent finger and wailed 'WWWWAAAAACCCCIIIISSSSTTT'.

The British police are a pathetic PC joke.

I wouldnt trust them with a spud gun let alone a real gun.

Not until they purge the entire ranks of ACPO of all the PC fanatics appointed solely as they ticked some 'diversity' tick box and recruit real coppers based on merit not race targets, then the police will remain a pathetic joke.



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by kevinunknown
 


I can use my life. How many people have fallen for there pre meditated crimes to try and get people to do something.



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 10:44 AM
link   
Funny
This thread was side by each with the thread about the 82 year old man being charged for defending his life.


CX

posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033
reply to post by kevinunknown
 


I can use my life. How many people have fallen for there pre meditated crimes to try and get people to do something.



They obviously didn't murder you though Andy....or microwave you...so who did they murder?

Tell you what, i know we've asked you many, many times here to divulge a bit more info about your "18 years of death, microwaves and mind control at school", but if that's too personal why not do a thread on the basics behind the conspiracy?

Just leave out your experiences.

CX.



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Hi

I could be wrong, but I think every Dutch police officer is armed. We have city guards and parking control but they are not a full police officer. They keep up public control but when TSHTF they call in police for back up.

There are no big police scandals where I know of regarding fire arms. There is a shooting exam for them to pass on a regular basis, and some don't make it.

Last year there was an incident when a couple of undercover policed at a music event felt so threatened by rioting party poopers the fired a number of shots. A 17 year old was hit by a stray bullet. He didn't live to tell the story.

A police officer who was in civilian outfit of duty stopped a car who drove by like a lunatic, she wanted to say something about that. Unfortunately for here the driver was a dangerous criminal who shot her in the head. She didn't live to tell her story.

Personal opinion:
I don't think it is a bad thing for police officers to be armed. Accidents always happen, but IMO the times when being armed saved the day, are much more numerous.
Police are trained and screened before they are allowed to carry arms. When you are running towards an officer armed with a knife they should be able to defend them selves. A gun can dis arm one without a shot or by a well placed one in the knee or sholder.



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 10:57 AM
link   
Look up the 21 Feet Rule on a martial arts forum.

A copper with a holstered gun can be taken out with a knife / base ball bat if the person is within 21 yards of them.

By the time they have reached down to unclip the holster, grabbed the gun, drawn the gun, loaded it, raised it and aimed it - its game over.

Lets not pretend armed police are there to protect the public, they have guns to protect themselves.

If they did jobs properly in the first place, and arrested criminals and the courts jailed them, then they wouldnt need guns.

The solution is not to arm the cops, but to arm the public.

The cops serve the government not the people.

Only when the people are armed do the cops and government respect our rights .

Governments must fear the people, not people fear the government.



[edit on 10-7-2010 by SpearofOdin]



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 11:07 AM
link   
If the police had been armed when the cumbria shootings were happening, how would it have made a difference? The police didn't know where the guy was; carrying a gun around wouldn't have changed that.

Same with Raoul Moat - the situation didn't go on for a week because the police weren't armed; it went on for a week because the police couldn't find the guy. (Actually, there were armed police positioned around the countryside, and they still couldn't find him).

My personal opinion? Some of the police (notice I'm not tarring them all with the same brush
) seem far too trigger-happy for my liking, and I think to put guns in their hands would be nothing but dangerous.


CX

posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpearofOdin
The solution is not to arm the cops, but to arm the public.



What happens when a cop is confronted by an armed member of public then?

CX.



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 12:10 PM
link   
Run.

Then call in a specialised weapons and tactical support unit who are trained in firearms situations to tackle the criminal with the gun.

The idea that the idiot beat coppers near where I live should have a gun when they drive around the streets is as terrifying as the criminals having them.



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Esrom Escutcheon Esquire
 


What i am basically saying is that if all police were armed including the officer moat killed then the police officer would have at least has a chance to defend himself, he may have had the chance to shoot moat first. Similarly two unarmed cops came across Derrick Bird, if they were armed they could have stopped him before he kill anyone else.

reply to post by andy1033
 


Can you please ellaberate i have never heard your stroy so its hard for me to comment. Your clearly alive so its reasonable to assume that your point still has not substance



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 12:17 PM
link   
I recall the polces shoot to kill policy. They killed a reporter in a mini. And as for this latest incident, some guy reported to the police that moat had just delivered a letter to him. Took the police an hour and a half to turn up. Then when they searched some guys house in this incident. They left behind a full magazine of bullets. Should they be armed? no ...



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 12:21 PM
link   
Kev, in case you miss it in the other thread, it's now official, they tazered him (raoul moat) news.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by jaego
 


UK police do not have a shoot to kill policy.

Granted at times it is very difficult not to make a shot that will kill however they only “shoot to kill” policy i know if is something called Operations Kratos however that is exclusively for dealing with suspected suicide bomber. It effectively says blast the suspect in the head repeatedly. This is the only protocol I know of which allows police to aim for the head other than that they have to aim for the centre mass. This information is based on CO19’s procedures it might change from force to force but i doubt it.





new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join