Armed police dealing with incident around Railway Station, North Quay roads closed

[HeliX]

4 minutes ago, Steve_Christian said:

Is that bigger than the risk that someone with mental health issues (or not) that has a knife or axe or other weapon and is intent on doing harm, kills or injures a member of the public, themselves or unarmed police - or should we accept that as acceptable and never deploy armed police. Or perhaps only deploy them after the first death or confirmed serious injury?  To be clear I have absolutely no idea what happened at this incident, or why they were deployed in this particular case. 

The police used to respond to incidents like this without deploying armed police. Before they started taking after the yanks and getting all excited about being allowed to play with guns.

[Gladys]

4 minutes ago, HeliX said:

The police used to respond to incidents like this without deploying armed police. Before they started taking after the yanks and getting all excited about being allowed to play with guns.

Do you know what the exact circumstances of the incident were?  I don't, but am prepared to accept that the police deemed the response warranted and appropriate.  As it happens no one was injured, so a good outcome.  

I really don't see our cops as gun toting loons, but of course I could be wrong.  

As for copying the yanks, do our police carry guns alongside walkie talkies, truncheons and handcuffs as standard issue? 

No, they have specially trained armed police to be deployed when necessary, unlike the yanks. 

[HeliX]

3 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Do you know what the exact circumstances of the incident were?  I don't, but am prepared to accept that the police deemed the response warranted and appropriate.  As it happens no one was injured, so a good outcome.  

I really don't see our cops as gun toting loons, but of course I could be wrong.  

As for copying the yanks, do our police carry guns alongside walkie talkies, truncheons and handcuffs as standard issue? 

No, they have specially trained armed police to be deployed when necessary, unlike the yanks. 

Most of US police training is firearms related. Our specially trained armed police are also our unarmed police. Every time the police deploy armed units it should have to be justified, rather than being presumed to be justified.

[Gladys]

21 minutes ago, HeliX said:

Most of US police training is firearms related. Our specially trained armed police are also our unarmed police. Every time the police deploy armed units it should have to be justified, rather than being presumed to be justified.

But you don't know that it wasn't justified. 

Like I said, there are bound to be protocols in place before they are deployed.  If the protocols have been correctly followed, then there is justification. 

Different matter making that  justification public, and I kind of agree, there is an argument that it should be made public after the event and providing it does not prejudice an investigation.  Also have to be mindful of what can be released in light of the vulnerability of the person in crisis.

[HeliX]

2 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Different matter making that  justification public, and I kind of agree, there is an argument that it should be made public after the event and providing it does not prejudice an investigation.  Also have to be mindful of what can be released in light of the vulnerability of the person in crisis.

This is what I was getting at, but I may have worded it a bit ambiguously sorry. The police are given rights above the average public, and with that must come the tightest scrutiny. Particularly in the case of armed response. Whether it's public or not, every deployment ought to be assessed by an independent body.

[The Phantom]

28 minutes ago, HeliX said:

Most of US police training is firearms related. Our specially trained armed police are also our unarmed police. Every time the police deploy armed units it should have to be justified, rather than being presumed to be justified.

 

2 minutes ago, Gladys said:

But you don't know that it wasn't justified. 

Like I said, there are bound to be protocols in place before they are deployed.  If the protocols have been correctly followed, then there is justification. 

Different matter making that  justification public, and I kind of agree, there is an argument that it should be made public after the event and providing it does not prejudice an investigation.  Also have to be mindful of what can be released in light of the vulnerability of the person in crisis.

Just the generic incessant whining, moaning and damning if so and damning if not. 

Dangerous things generally happen quickly without warning.  Personally I'd rather them there and not needed rather than vice versa.  Nobody got shot by accident, so what's the problem?  Can you imagine if someone hurt another person that could have been stopped by armed police, but they weren't there because they 'weren't sure it was justified'?

US cops unfortunately have to work on the basis that there is a very good chance that every single person they go to arrest is going to be armed and not terribly happy about being arrested.  It's basically a warzone of their own making. 

 

[Gladys]

2 minutes ago, The Phantom said:

 

Just the generic incessant whining, moaning and damning if so and damning if not. 

Dangerous things generally happen quickly without warning.  Personally I'd rather them there and not needed rather than vice versa.  Nobody got shot by accident, so what's the problem?  Can you imagine if someone hurt another person that could have been stopped by armed police, but they weren't there because they 'weren't sure it was justified'?

US cops unfortunately have to work on the basis that there is a very good chance that every single person they go to arrest is going to be armed and not terribly happy about being arrested.  It's basically a warzone of their own making. 

 

The constitional right to bear arms.

Fine in the wild west days, possibly, but hardly justified now.

[Gladys]

7 minutes ago, HeliX said:

This is what I was getting at, but I may have worded it a bit ambiguously sorry. The police are given rights above the average public, and with that must come the tightest scrutiny. Particularly in the case of armed response. Whether it's public or not, every deployment ought to be assessed by an independent body.

I do agree with you that the deployment should be reviewed by an independent body.  But who? Possibly a UK police force? 

[The Phantom]

2 minutes ago, Gladys said:

The constitional right to bear arms.

Fine in the wild west days, possibly, but hardly justified now.

I'm fairly pro-gun to be honest.  But there is zero reason for a civilian to justifiably own an assault rifle. 

[HeliX]

4 minutes ago, The Phantom said:

US cops unfortunately have to work on the basis that there is a very good chance that every single person they go to arrest is going to be armed and not terribly happy about being arrested.  It's basically a warzone of their own making. 

And yet 73% of US police will never discharge a weapon on duty. And those that do it's usually to shoot a sleeping black woman or similar. But our cops totally need to turn up to incidents with a dozen rifles to a mental health incident on an Island with a miniscule violent crime rate.

[HeliX]

1 minute ago, Gladys said:

I do agree with you that the deployment should be reviewed by an independent body.  But who? Possibly a UK police force? 

Needn't be a police force - the protocols should be watertight enough that anyone with legal experience could do the job.

[The Voice of Reason]

13 minutes ago, HeliX said:

And yet 73% of US police will never discharge a weapon on duty. And those that do it's usually to shoot a sleeping black woman or similar. 

Yes I’m sure the statistics will support your assumption.

[The Voice of Reason]

16 minutes ago, HeliX said:

But our cops totally need to turn up to incidents with a dozen rifles to a mental health incident on an Island with a miniscule violent crime rate.

Your naivety is touching.

Just one person experiencing a mental health episode, depending  on the circumstances can seriously endanger their own lives and those of others.

Like Gladys alluded to above, better err on the side of caution than risk lives, merely because the Island has a “minuscule” crime rate. That means nothing if someone becomes a real and present threat to life.

[Jarndyce]

17 minutes ago, HeliX said:

73% of US police will never discharge a weapon on duty. And those that do it's usually to shoot a sleeping black woman or similar

I’m no kind of supporter of the gung-ho US plod.   But “usually”?   Really?

[Gladys]

1 minute ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Your naivety is touching.

Just one person experiencing a mental health episode, depending  on the circumstances can seriously endanger their own lives and those of others.

Like Gladys alluded to above, better err on the side of caution than risk lives, merely because the Island has a “minuscule” crime rate. That means nothing if someone becomes a real and present threat to life.

But I think HeliX has a point about a review of the decision to deploy, regardless of the outcome.