Armed Police - Casually strolling

[Tinpot]

1 hour ago, RecklessAbandon said:

The former is not a result of the later.

 

And the later doesn’t hinder the former, neither does it raise any eyebrows or concerns.

[Derek Flint]

3 hours ago, 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.

It's not about threat. For the umpteenth time it is about response times and what would be seen as 'reasonable'. It didn't used to be, it is now.

The CC would have been nowhere near the decision to deploy. Just like Gary wouldn't have been.

3 hours ago, Andy Onchan said:

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

Exactly the same because it was months ago.

2 hours ago, P.K. said:

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.

Really?

This was as highly charged a situation as is humanly possible. My colleague's PhD is on accuracy of round placement under stress. Accuracy drops off massively. 

2 hours 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. 

Many years ago, paramedics used to be ambulance people and they worse shirts and ties. When the police helicopters came on line, police aircrew were the same. In my ARV days, it was the same.

Its the equivalent of when we used to send builders on site with flat caps. Police in the UK today look a bag of daz, but the kit is fit for purpose and comfortable 

2 hours 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.

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?]

A critical shot to the head disables the nervous system and stops the chance of a detonation by the bomber. Used to be called Op. KRATOS

1 hour ago, cissolt said:

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?

Those are public order officers.

[P.K.]

17 minutes ago, Derek Flint said:

This was as highly charged a situation as is humanly possible. My colleague's PhD is on accuracy of round placement under stress. Accuracy drops off massively. 

In my personal experience the training kicks in and you're basically in "automatic" mode.

Did your colleague mention this in his PhD?

[TheTeapot]

This came up in the news. https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/serving-police-officer-charged-with-domestic-abuse-offence/

Brings to mind the words of that judge I posted the other day. 

Quote

Police officers, as we all know, have powers and privileges much greater than any one person in our community, and that makes the possible commission of offences and the possible abuse of that role very easy.

There's a screamingly obvious thing to say that ties in very well to this thread but I guess charged means its sub judice, so I'll leave it for now. 

But you know what it is.

Edited Tuesday at 02:16 PM by TheTeapot

[RecklessAbandon]

As professions, Police are up there with Armed Forces and the Prison Service for instances of domestic abuse.

 

[Steve_Christian]

3 hours ago, HeliX said:

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?

Interesting reply - you assume having a police officer as a son or daughter would make you emotionally compromised. What I’m trying to get across to people, and for people to think differently, is whether they are your children or not - they are someone’s children. Someone’s husband/wife/father/mother etc. they are real people doing what can be at times a dangerous job. In which case, would you want them to have to tools to deal with such things. Or - well, they may be armed or have a knife. Off you go PC Smith. Do radio in if you get critically injured. But don’t worry. Lessons will be learned. 

[Steve_Christian]

4 minutes ago, RecklessAbandon said:

As professions, Police are up there with Armed Forces and the Prison Service for instances of domestic abuse.

 

Any other profession that is right up there? 

[Blade Runner]

2 hours ago, Derek Flint said:

It's not about threat. For the umpteenth time it is about response times and what would be seen as 'reasonable'. It didn't used to be, it is now.

The CC would have been nowhere near the decision to deploy. Just like Gary wouldn't have been.

Exactly the same because it was months ago.

Really?

This was as highly charged a situation as is humanly possible. My colleague's PhD is on accuracy of round placement under stress. Accuracy drops off massively. 

Many years ago, paramedics used to be ambulance people and they worse shirts and ties. When the police helicopters came on line, police aircrew were the same. In my ARV days, it was the same.

Its the equivalent of when we used to send builders on site with flat caps. Police in the UK today look a bag of daz, but the kit is fit for purpose and comfortable 

A critical shot to the head disables the nervous system and stops the chance of a detonation by the bomber. Used to be called Op. KRATOS

Those are public order officers.

They don't get it Derek.

 

You are wasting your time.

 

 

[HeliX]

9 minutes ago, Steve_Christian said:

Interesting reply - you assume having a police officer as a son or daughter would make you emotionally compromised. What I’m trying to get across to people, and for people to think differently, is whether they are your children or not - they are someone’s children. Someone’s husband/wife/father/mother etc. they are real people doing what can be at times a dangerous job. In which case, would you want them to have to tools to deal with such things. Or - well, they may be armed or have a knife. Off you go PC Smith. Do radio in if you get critically injured. But don’t worry. Lessons will be learned. 

No, I'm suggesting that basing your decision-making around what you'd do if your child was in (presumed) danger is not going to produce objective answers. Most of us would, rightly or wrongly, over react to protect our children rather than react the appropriate amount and leave any doubt.

[RecklessAbandon]

18 minutes ago, Steve_Christian said:

Any other profession that is right up there? 

10 Professions with Highest Rate of Domestic Violence - Insider Monkey

(Granted this is from the US)

 

[Steve_Christian]

15 minutes ago, HeliX said:

No, I'm suggesting that basing your decision-making around what you'd do if your child was in (presumed) danger is not going to produce objective answers. Most of us would, rightly or wrongly, over react to protect our children rather than react the appropriate amount and leave any doubt.

Exactly my point. They are all children of somebody. And the police superiors have a duty of care to protect them. 

[RecklessAbandon]

25 minutes ago, Steve_Christian said:

Interesting reply - you assume having a police officer as a son or daughter would make you emotionally compromised. What I’m trying to get across to people, and for people to think differently, is whether they are your children or not - they are someone’s children. Someone’s husband/wife/father/mother etc. they are real people doing what can be at times a dangerous job. In which case, would you want them to have to tools to deal with such things. Or - well, they may be armed or have a knife. Off you go PC Smith. Do radio in if you get critically injured. But don’t worry. Lessons will be learned. 

This is straying in to the "warrior" mindset that American police have.

"Every day I strap on my badge and my gun, and everyone I come across is a potential enemy which I have to be ready to put down in a heart beat or I won't come home to my wife and kids".

The IOM is not Compton in the 90s.

You could count the number of office involved shootings (i.e. the office getting shot) on one hand.

[Steve_Christian]

6 minutes ago, RecklessAbandon said:

10 Professions with Highest Rate of Domestic Violence - Insider Monkey

(Granted this is from the US)

 

Ah - soldiers. Not armed forces. And those pesky nurses eh? We should ban them. 

[Steve_Christian]

1 minute ago, RecklessAbandon said:

This is straying in to the "warrior" mindset that American police have.

"Every day I strap on my badge and my gun, and everyone I come across is a potential enemy which I have to be ready to put down in a heart beat or I won't come home to my wife and kids".

The IOM is not Compton in the 90s.

You could count the number of office involved shootings (i.e. the office getting shot) on one hand.

Perhaps because we have armed response. 

[HeliX]

2 minutes ago, Steve_Christian said:

Exactly my point. They are all children of somebody. And the police superiors have a duty of care to protect them. 

Over-arming the police isn't a zero-consequence game. The people they end up overzealously shooting are also "children of somebody".

https://abc11.com/post/brooklyn-nypd-subway-shooting-cop-2-bystanders-suspect-shot-police-train-what-began-nyc-mta-fare-evasion-incident/15310039/