Armed Police - Casually strolling

[Andy Onchan]

16 minutes ago, Steve_Christian said:

So my question is - and I want honest answers… if your son or daughter was a copper. There was credible intelligence of a threat, and they were fully fire-arms trained. Would you send them out unarmed because it may look a bit much - or would you want them to be prepared with the tools to deal with any threat (which as a side-note may also act as a deterrent against aggression) ? 

So is there a credible intelligence lead threat, requiring firearms to be worn 24/7/365?

I think the incident with the Pulrose drunk was not the CC's best hour, if indeed he gave the green light or was even consulted/involved. 

There's a massive difference in the way of life between here and UK.

[thommo2010]

Just now, Andy Onchan said:

So is there a credible intelligence lead threat, requiring firearms to be worn 24/7/365?

I think the incident with the Pulrose drunk was not the CC's best hour, if indeed he gave the green light or was even consulted/involved. 

There's a massive difference in the way of life between here and UK.

So you saw a video of the Pulrose drunk. What was the information passed leading to the police being called in the first place?

[Andy Onchan]

1 minute ago, thommo2010 said:

So you saw a video of the Pulrose drunk. What was the information passed leading to the police being called in the first place?

My question to you is... prior to this change in firearms policy  what would have happened before?

[Sheldon]

There's probably an element of the Kafka-esque sentiment, “Better to have, and not need, than to need, and not have.”

For some reason, this always reminds me of the Furry Freak Brothers.

[P.K.]

A previously convicted terrorist who claimed he had a suicide vest being shot on London Bridge. What is wrong in this picture? 

 

The officer on the right. Had I been in charge I would have put him back pounding a beat in the pissing rain.

Firearms Officers should have it pounded into their thick skulls "Watch your background at all times!" This was particularly true in Northern Ireland where the British Army service rifle was the L1A1 SLR firing a 7.62mm round with a lethal range of over a mile.

The officer fired at the murderous thug on the ground. The round went straight through him, ricocheted off the pavement, then ricocheted off the bridge wall and then went past the officers and then straight through a London Bus behind them with people on it.

So you can train and train people up to do everything right and when it matters they can still get it wrong. Moral of the story: People fuck up.

So the fewer armed police the better in my opinion.

[thommo2010]

42 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

My question to you is... prior to this change in firearms policy  what would have happened before?

No idea because I don't know what the information was that lead for the police to be called in the first placed, hypothetically lets say someone phones up saying this guy had threatened them with a knife/Weapon and is still around the estate, as its a weapon I would assume firearm officers would have been sent to it. However like I say I am just assuming the situation unless you know the contents of the original call then you can't really give an opinion.

Edited Tuesday at 10:24 AM by thommo2010

[Dirty Buggane]

4 hours ago, Derek Flint said:

I'm still heavily invested in the  island, but thanks for the concern.

I'm not defending anyone. I'm trying to explain the context.

Here's another.

I'm currently in Japan. It has an unbelievably low crime rate, massive public conformity to rules and exceptional personal and public safety. It has also some of the strictest, if not the strictest, gun control in the world. 

It's police service is armed. 

They may be armed but are not walking round para military esk. They are smartly turned out in peak caps shirt and tie smart trousers and shined boots. Side arm is in holster on trouser belt. Not like our lot which I am surprised do not have a banderlero of bullets that fit non of their weapons across the chest. 

[Two-lane]

Perhaps this was the Narwhal tusk event. My recollection is that a passer-by had him face down on the pavement, when the police arrived, pulled him off and shot the terrorist.

At  the time I thought that odd, because all that was necessary was for the police to clout him on the head with a gun butt and put him unconscious.

There would then have been the possibility to politely question him about if he was an isolated case or part of a group.

But if there were a real bomb, and the trigger was a simple push button, a bullet passing nearby might have bounced the contacts together. If it were homemade unstable explosive, a bullet might have caused the bomb to go off.  And if it were canisters of homemade gas rather than explosive, there would have been a big problem.

So you think I am being unrealistic? So you have the choice - if the bomb goes off and your arms, legs and genitals get blown off, or you take the safe option and kick him in the head so hard he doesn't wake up for a week. Which is the safest option.

The passers-by tackling him aware that he had a bomb is worthy of a lot of credit.

[What would have happened if a passer-by had taken one of the knives off the terrorist, and then used it to kill the terrorist? What would have been the response of the police?]

[RecklessAbandon]

4 hours ago, Derek Flint said:

I'm currently in Japan. It has an unbelievably low crime rate, massive public conformity to rules and exceptional personal and public safety. It has also some of the strictest, if not the strictest, gun control in the world. 

It's police service is armed. 

The former is not a result of the later.

 

[Barlow]

4 hours ago, Derek Flint said:

At breakfast this morning in a well-known fast food restaurant the chap next to us disappeared to the loo for a good five minutes, leaving his bag, laptop and papers on the table.

This thread is getting more like a Pulp Fiction script. And a Dirty Harry too.

[cissolt]

49 minutes ago, Dirty Buggane said:

They may be armed but are not walking round para military esk. They are smartly turned out in peak caps shirt and tie smart trousers and shined boots. Side arm is in holster on trouser belt. Not like our lot which I am surprised do not have a banderlero of bullets that fit non of their weapons across the chest. 

This looks like perfectly normal attire to knock on a kids door at 5am.

The chief brought his counter terror manual and new toy catalogue it seems.

Were any weapons found? Or is the myth about armed drug gangs finally busted?

[HeliX]

2 hours ago, Steve_Christian said:

So my question is - and I want honest answers… if your son or daughter was a copper. There was credible intelligence of a threat, and they were fully fire-arms trained. Would you send them out unarmed because it may look a bit much - or would you want them to be prepared with the tools to deal with any threat (which as a side-note may also act as a deterrent against aggression) ? 

Why is the preface of your question "If you were emotionally compromised by a situation and therefore unable to make an objective judgement..."? Does that not rather weaken your argument?

[piebaps]

1 hour ago, Two-lane said:

a passer-by had him face down on the pavement, when the police arrived, pulled him off

That's exceptional service but surely beyond the call of duty

[The Phantom]

1 hour ago, Two-lane said:

Perhaps this was the Narwhal tusk event. My recollection is that a passer-by had him face down on the pavement, when the police arrived, pulled him off and shot the terrorist.

At  the time I thought that odd, because all that was necessary was for the police to clout him on the head with a gun butt and put him unconscious.

Yes it looks like the Narwhale incident. 

Regarding the clout to the head.  I think you are confusing films with real life. 

1 hour ago, P.K. said:

 

Firearms Officers should have it pounded into their thick skulls "Watch your background at all times!" This was particularly true in Northern Ireland where the British Army service rifle was the L1A1 SLR firing a 7.62mm round with a lethal range of over a mile.

The officer fired at the murderous thug on the ground. The round went straight through him, ricocheted off the pavement, then ricocheted off the bridge wall and then went past the officers and then straight through a London Bus behind them with people on it.

 

His background is a pavement and a concrete wall, which generally would be pretty acceptable.  What I am sure you know they want to avoid, is a wide open space or a person(s).  

[P.K.]

22 minutes ago, The Phantom said:

Yes it looks like the Narwhale incident. 

Regarding the clout to the head.  I think you are confusing films with real life. 

His background is a pavement and a concrete wall, which generally would be pretty acceptable.  What I am sure you know they want to avoid, is a wide open space or a person(s).  

Personally I would have preferred it had they asked him to sit on the bridge parapet.

Threat removed followed by a burial at sea. Depending on the tide of course.

ETA : the fact the round went through a bus is irrefutable evidence it wan't a clever thing to do...

Edited Tuesday at 12:18 PM by P.K.