Chesterfield Online Forum

General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Sorastro on November 22, 2018, 03:34:57 PM

Title: Routinely arming the police
Post by: Sorastro on November 22, 2018, 03:34:57 PM
First and foremost MY opinion is YES the sooner the better.

I think it is long overdue.
An example was the Westminster bridge killings, when an unarmed policeman, among others injured and killed, on duty at the Palace of Westminster was fatally stabbed.
There have been numerous arguments {for and against} and it's a sorry state of affairs when something like this needs considering, but I have drawn the conclusion that our streets are getting more and more dangerous to walk, the police numbers are forever dwindling, our prisons are already fit to bursting and if nothing is done law and order will eventually break down altogether. You have to fight fire with fire, giving criminals the benefit of the doubt is no longer an option. Sooner or later the government MUST realise that long gone are the Dixon of Dock Green days "It's a fair cop guv" even petty criminals breaking into houses now, some just out of nappies, are armed and most would even kill if confronted mainly due to their drug addled state. Look back at 1999 Tony Martin shot dead an intruder, ever since that day that man has been treat like a leper. Even in 1999 I said "Serves them right" and I backed his actions 100% and I haven't changed my stance on the issue.
Even now the armed response units hands are tied, if they do use deadly force on someone say holding a hostage at gun point, if the perpetrators gun turns out to be a replica/fake the man that fired the shot is in big trouble. The Home Secretary should be made to look at a collection of firearms by the A.R.U. team and be asked to point out the fake from the real weapons, and if HE can't do it how does anyone expect an armed response officer to, especially say at night in a poorly lit street in a life threatening situation, and yet at this moment in time they are expected to.
Tasers.... O.K. in their way they can be classed as a deterrent but it's been proven useless time and again against a fairly big person possibly high on drugs.

It's the same with CCTV why do people throw a wobbler over CCTV. O.k. one might say it's been instrumental in cutting down on police patrolling the streets, but over the years it has boosted the conviction rates for people that would have otherwise gone undetected.

If we are to stop violent tooled up criminals from going unpunished then we have to give the police the weaponry, at the same time untying their hands in order to do their duty. It's not a perfect solution, I'm not saying it is I don't like the idea one bit, but the brutal truth is as a country we cannot afford to slip any further into anarchy.
Title: Re: Routinely arming the police
Post by: Fly on November 22, 2018, 05:29:13 PM
I agree with you. There must be rules, without them there would be chaos.
Someone somewhere will always be against them though.
 
It's getting to a point where the only people who get punished for breaking laws are those in a position to pay the fines  :(
Title: Re: Routinely arming the police
Post by: Alsatian on November 22, 2018, 05:36:46 PM
I also agree 100%, I watched '999 what's your emergency' on TV last night - and it was both alarming and frightening what the police (and the other emergency services) have to put up with. Knives are now commonplace and seem to be used routinely by criminals. Also there was the news item where two officers were being attacked and no-one offered to help, or even just ring 999! The bystanders were just interested in filming the event on their phones and posting it on social media! I ask you, we're do these people keep their brains?

Nowadays no-one has any respect for the police (except for us of a certain age!) and many of them are single crewed, so when they get into difficulty, they have to wait for another crew to arrive to provide assistance.
Title: Re: Routinely arming the police
Post by: Alsatian on November 22, 2018, 05:38:53 PM
As an aside, we used to go to the Christmas brass band concert at the Crooked Spire, but no more as we don't feel safe walking through town due to all the undesirables knocking around and the lack of police on patrol.
Title: Re: Routinely arming the police
Post by: hifimad on November 23, 2018, 01:30:04 AM
It's the same with CCTV why do people throw a wobbler over CCTV. O.k. one might say it's been instrumental in cutting down on police patrolling the streets, but over the years it has boosted the conviction rates for people that would have otherwise gone undetected.

if you go on youtube you will find that the biggest dissenters of being filmed are security guards and the police themselves, if they have done nothing wrong what have they got to worry about, and as for routinely arming the police whenever you give the police a weapon ie cs spray or tasers history has shown us certain policemen will abuse them.

a good case in point is recently i had a knock on my door and it was the police, he asked me about my car giving me its reg and i told him it was mine and nobody else drove it, he then went on to tell me that my son had been seen firing a bb gun which fires plastic pellets at the windscreen of a womans car in newbold, i told him this was untrue and as i took him out to my car and told him to search it while informing him if i had seen my son behaving in such a manner i would kick his ar*e for him.
at this point the policeman told me and my son that as a result of the report of a (and he was clear that it was only a plastic pellet firing gun) bb gun being used, in this instance a fully armed response unit had been despatched to newbold village where the incident was reported to have happened. now lets just assume some kid had been the one firing the bb gun am i to take it the police would have blown his head off. and then tried to lie and cover it up like they did with  john charles menendez.
Title: Re: Routinely arming the police
Post by: Fly on November 23, 2018, 07:45:00 AM
The trouble with CCTV or mobile phone footage from a public or unofficial source is that it can be shown or portrayed in such a way that the innocent one being filmed could be made to look guilty of an alleged incident.
One would hope that footage from an official body would not be used this way.  ::)
Title: Re: Routinely arming the police
Post by: Sorastro on November 24, 2018, 12:42:48 PM
now lets just assume some kid had been the one firing the bb gun am i to take it the police would have blown his head off. and then tried to lie and cover it up like they did with  john charles menendez


I think in the case of the tube killing it was basically down to undercover officers inexperienced in carrying a gun + the heat of the moment  + mistaken identity that caused this tragedy, as I said in the first post it would be far from perfect, but standing still on this matter is no solution.
American police and agencies are routinely armed and have been for decades and their system is FAR from perfect. Quite often on the news is an outcry in the U.S. of a "teenager" shot and killed by the police, you only have to look on you tube to see what the police have to put up with on a daily basis. A good few years ago now there was an outcry on American television about "white" officers in a particular area of a large city constantly stopping and searching young "black" men, the black community were up in arms about it saying they were being stopped purely because of the colour of their skin thus it was a greater percentage than white kids being stopped.
One of the police chiefs came on t.v. and said "Yes it's true we DO stop more black kids than white, simply because the area is predominately black, they are black neighbourhoods".
I have also heard of some American police officers who have been on the force for 20 years or more and never even drawn their weapon let alone fire in anger.

No solution is a perfect solution. All I want to know is should I {heaven forbid} wake during the night and be confronted with burgulars possibly armed I want to know that the police's first  responders will have the "kit" to deal with it instead of at the moment them having to wait outside till armed back up arrives. 
Title: Re: Routinely arming the police
Post by: hifimad on November 24, 2018, 12:43:18 PM
The trouble with CCTV or mobile phone footage from a public or unofficial source is that it can be shown or portrayed in such a way that the innocent one being filmed could be made to look guilty of an alleged incident.
One would hope that footage from an official body would not be used this way.  ::)
as you are aware i have some experience in this matter, and i can state that the official sources not only put their own slant on things, in my familys case they went so far as to doctor the footage by blanking out the time stamp, and ensuring that a second assault on my son by pavements security guards was completely blacked out, the fact is official sources have more resources available to them to doctor footage than the average person so i myself would give more much trust to private cctv footage than i would from an official source particularly if the footage was from our corrupt and abusive council.
Title: Re: Routinely arming the police
Post by: hifimad on November 24, 2018, 12:56:03 PM
sorasto you may get this police man Finch who seemed to think he was dirty harry, and by the way the man who was shot was innocent of any crime, these actions resulted in the tightening up of the way police were trained to use fire arms and the implementation of other controls. and lets not forget about the policeman who tasered a blind man because he thought his white stick was a samuri sword, i for one do not want a pillock like this being in comand of a gun because if he had have been the blind man might have been a dead man.

Finch opened fire, shooting twice at the passenger-side rear wheel of the Mini, then four times at Waldorf himself. Detective Constable John Jardine then ran up to the back of the Mini, and fired five shots at Waldorf through the rear window. During the shooting, Purdey jumped out of the car to escape, and Waldorf attempted to follow him, even though he had already been hit several times, and ended up slumped across the driver's seat. Detective Constable John Jardine then fired twice at Waldorf through the open driver's door. Finch, meanwhile, had made his way round to the driver's side, where he leaned into the car, aimed his revolver between Waldorf's eyes and said, "OK, cocksucker," before pulling the trigger, but the gun did not fire. Finding that he had already used all his ammunition, Finch then pistol whipped Waldorf until he lost consciousness.
Title: Re: Routinely arming the police
Post by: hifimad on November 24, 2018, 01:34:26 PM
i think that to cite the america is tad misleading, in washington dc last year there were 147 murders that is from a population of 700,000, in the uk there were 736 murders last year. if the murder rate in the uk was the same as washington per head of population then the murder rate in the uk would be around 63000 per year, the murder rate in washington is 857 times uk murder rates, this figure excludes wrongfull deaths at the hands of police, in the uk if more police carry guns then you will have more criminals carrying guns, i think it would escalate gun crime and as a result you would end up with security guards needing to carry guns, when pavements security attacked my son and partner for no reason, they showed such a lack of control or respect for the law i suspect i would now be minus a son and partner had they had guns, what is being advocated is in my view is the slippery slope.
Title: Re: Routinely arming the police
Post by: hifimad on November 24, 2018, 02:08:07 PM
As an aside, we used to go to the Christmas brass band concert at the Crooked Spire, but no more as we don't feel safe walking through town due to all the undesirables knocking around and the lack of police on patrol.
to reduce the threat from undesirables you could always ring up the pavements and see when the security guards knock off and go into town just after, me and my disabled partner go into town regularly usually to do a bit of shopping and to finish up with a pub meal, we have done this for years without any problems, the only  law breakers and criminals who have caused us any problems are the criminals who were charged with assault and battery and they were members of the pavements security.
Title: Re: Routinely arming the police
Post by: Old Cruser on November 25, 2018, 03:19:03 AM
I agree with our police being armed we shouldn't need this but we do.
Rather than a shooting to injure or kill I would prefer something that would immobilise instantly but don't know of anything that would?
Tasers are used but how effective would these be in some instances?
It is sad that we have come to this in the UK 
Title: Re: Routinely arming the police
Post by: Sorastro on November 25, 2018, 02:02:59 PM
I agree with our police being armed we shouldn't need this but we do.
Rather than a shooting to injure or kill I would prefer something that would immobilise instantly but don't know of anything that would?
Tasers are used but how effective would these be in some instances?
It is sad that we have come to this in the UK


This is the problem O.C. especially in the U.S. people DO tend to think it's like the "movies" Dirty Harry, Equaliser et al all have time to incapacitate {wound} their assailant and banter with them, just using lethal force as a last resort and in fact have helped, over the years, to glorify this type of thing. As I have said, and will repeat yet again, no solution is 100% safe their will be fatalities not just the police and criminals but innocent civilians caught in the crossfire, it shouldn't happen but it does.
To the criminal fraternity I say "You put yourself in that situation so don't complain if things don't go your way, if you set out to harm then expect the same"
For example, especially in this country, if a police car is following a suspect vehicle, especially in a built up area, and the suspect refuses to stop and makes a break for it {speeding, driving very dangerously} then the charge, whatever it was going to be, should automatically be  upgraded to attempted murder. In fact that is so plainly obvious I'm surprised it's not in force.   
Title: Re: Routinely arming the police
Post by: Alsatian on November 25, 2018, 03:24:09 PM
Quote from Sorastro :-
To the criminal fraternity I say "You put yourself in that situation so don't complain if things don't go your way, if you set out to harm then expect the same"

Hear hear
Title: Re: Routinely arming the police
Post by: hifimad on November 25, 2018, 05:32:08 PM
the problem is that as i have cited on this topic there are numerous incidents where totally inocent people have been attacked, killed or seriously injured as a result of the authorities over reacting, your point is criminalls should not moan if they are shot, what about innocent people who are shot am i to take it these people do not matter and they have been shot for the greater good, i recently saw a video of a man waving around a samuri sword in public he was warned and was shot straight away but not with a bullet but with a baton round, so non lethal options are available, and i repeat the only criminal activity me and my family have been subject to while in the town center was by the authorities charged with protecting the public, so with this in mind i should be able to carry a gun and use it.
.
.
Title: Re: Routinely arming the police
Post by: Old Cruser on November 25, 2018, 09:44:31 PM
Sorastro would you say a 'shoot to kill' then?

My problem with shoot them is that if they are not killed outright they will cost us money in medical fees and then prison - --

Would guns be a deterrent , it isn't in America.

Having said the above I still agree our police should be armed but would need to be crack shots and how do they determine one a split second judgement that the gun ( if it is a gun) is the real thing or a toy from the 99 pence shop but yes they need to protect themselves and the public when under threat.
Title: Re: Routinely arming the police
Post by: Sorastro on November 26, 2018, 08:53:24 PM
i think that to cite the america is tad misleading, in washington dc last year there were 147 murders that is from a population of 700,000, in the uk there were 736 murders last year. if the murder rate in the uk was the same as washington per head of population then the murder rate in the uk would be around 63000 per year, the murder rate in washington is 857 times uk murder rates,


Or looking at it from another point.....I'm speaking only of the approximate figures of LEGAL guns:-
The USA has a population of about 320 million........The UK has a population of about 67 million.
The USA has a {legal} arsenal of about 300 million guns.........The UK has a {legal} arsenal of about 1.75 million guns.
This equates to just under one gun per person in the US. Not everyone in the US owns a gun {believe it or not} a lot don't so it goes without saying a lot of people stock pile weaponry, apparently less than 5% of the US population own almost 90% of the guns in America, in fact out of ALL the firearms in the world, the Americans own 40% of them,this is why when perpetrators of these mass shootings homes are raided they fined an arsenal of weapons.
The UK on the other hand has far less legal guns, out of the 1.75 million at least 1.3 million are shotguns and these are restricted to mainly farmers and gun clubs i.e. clay pigeon grouse shoots etc. There are far fewer legal guns per head of population than the states. Which obviously means it's a lot easier to lay your hands on a gun {and kill} in the US than the UK.
So if you make a guess as to how many ILLEGAL guns there are out on the streets I would say that in % terms the UK would have more illegal firearms on our streets than the US as in the US you can "borrow" someones gun almost like borrowing a bike

As for "shoot to kill" O.C. as I have said finding the time to wound is usually the fantasy of films, there are many instances on you tube showing someone suddenly drawing down on a police officer and the officer has a split second to react, this leads to a hail of gunfire in which 20 rounds may be loosed off within say 6 - 8 seconds and not always in daylight. I believe most police officers in the US have been trained to "Keep firing till the armed perpetrator is subdued" this to me means shoot him/her till he/she stops firing back, I call that sound advice.
It makes me mad to see family members of the dead perpetrator outside court talking to the media and saying things like "Yes ok he did rob a bank and shoot the guard, and high jacked a car with a woman with a child in the back seat and yes when he crashed into another car at a crossing and jumped out of the car brandishing a gun at the police that was no reason to shoot him".
Title: Re: Routinely arming the police
Post by: Fly on November 26, 2018, 10:39:28 PM
This is so all catch 22, damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Yes arm the cops. If you're not doing owt wrong, surrender when asked by them, and behave.
If you want to be an arse cos you hate the system and want to act like an antidisestablishmentarialistic person, get on with it.
Just risk being shot.
Title: Re: Routinely arming the police
Post by: hifimad on November 27, 2018, 02:16:49 PM
This is so all catch 22, damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Yes arm the cops. If you're not doing owt wrong, surrender when asked by them, and behave.
If you want to be an arse cos you hate the system and want to act like an antidisestablishmentarialistic person, get on with it.
Just risk being shot.
what if you are a blindman carrying a white stick and somebody shouts at you claiming to be police are you meant to throw your stick away is he being an arse, what if your driving a mini and receive no warning and are subjected to a hail of bullets are you being an arse, what if you are a disabled person inocently shopping are you an arse, you use the words anti establishment as if anyone who objects to this view is somehow being in your own words an arse, funnily eneough i am echoing the views of a number of high ranking poilicemen are they all arses, the only arses are the criminals and they should be brought to justice, and sumary execution is no longer legal in this country and thankfully nor is the death penalty otherwise you would be able to fill a reasonable sized grave yard with the people who would have been hanged but subsequently found innocent as a result of being fitted up by the very same people you wish to give guns to, its a mad mad world.
Title: Re: Routinely arming the police
Post by: hifimad on November 27, 2018, 02:44:44 PM
So if you make a guess as to how many ILLEGAL guns there are out on the streets I would say that in % terms the UK would have more illegal firearms on our streets than the US as in the US you can "borrow" someones gun almost like borrowing a bike

if you are in the usa and you are not a registered gun owner if you borrow a gun that becomes an illegal fire arm, as of 2016 there are 6 million americans who are not allowed to carry guns because they are convited felons i would not be presumptive enough to try and estimate with a guess as to how many of these have in their possesion or have used illegal guns, you guess that there are more illegal weapons in the uk i myself would very much doubt that rather dubious assertion, however i would not be prepared to bet either my life or anyone elses on what i consider to be a rather emotive reaction to our present stae of criminality.
Title: Re: Routinely arming the police
Post by: Sorastro on December 06, 2018, 02:00:46 PM
So if you make a guess as to how many ILLEGAL guns there are out on the streets I would say that in % terms the UK would have more illegal firearms on our streets than the US as in the US you can "borrow" someones gun almost like borrowing a bike

if you are in the usa and you are not a registered gun owner if you borrow a gun that becomes an illegal fire arm, as of 2016 there are 6 million americans who are not allowed to carry guns because they are convited felon     

What I was suggesting was that {responsible] registered gun owners in America secure their firearms, usually under lock and key which would be the sensible thing to do, having said that, as with the bike analogy if he/she is out at work all day and maybe someone else in the family having access to the firearm "borrows" it without the owners permission thereby without the owners knowledge and returns it likewise how would the owner know? also,if it does get stolen, it could be a while before the owner discovers the theft.
As for a legal gun getting borrowed/stolen becoming an illegal firearm, I'm not so sure, the gun itself is not illegal, the way it's used by a person{s} who are not the registered owner.
For example if your car gets stolen off your drive, that doesn't make your car illegal, it's still taxed insured and MOT'd, the legality only stretches to those who are using it without your consent.
Title: Re: Routinely arming the police
Post by: hifimad on December 07, 2018, 02:31:23 PM
if you steal a car then it is being illegally driven, gun laws are not the same as traffic laws if you take a gun without the owners consent that constitutes theft and that becomes an illegal firearm by dint of its unauthorised carrying and use, the definition of an illegal weapon in the USA is defined as a gun not being A registered or B not in the posession of the person registered to own it, every gun in the USA will no doubt have been "legal" at the point of purchase, which if what you are saying is correct then there are no illegal guns in the USA though the USA themselves issue estimates as to how many illegal guns they beleive are in circulation.