To think our police should be armed?

[sickofscumbags]

This is a genuine question and not intended to be inflamatory(although i appreciate that people may not agree).
How do others feel about this?Do you think that this would have affected what has happened in any way at all?I'm not saying i think they should be armed and appreciate that this could cause more problems but i can't help thinking that if police were able to use more force then it may have put off some people.
Let's face it all the news reports are saying that these people will be brought to justice when we all know that this isnt the case,so where is the deterent?
what are your thoughts?

Thank you Pedicuri! That's exactly the point I was trying to make.

You have avoided my last question, curly.

Agree totally CurlyBoy. Our criminals are armed anyway.

Ok curly you are now backtracking and saying that you would feel happier if the police we armed from a deterrent perspective.

But earlier you said that people should be shot

If you choose to break the law in such a blatant and destructive way, why would you not have to face consequences? Easy - I don't want to get shot - therefore I will not torch buildings and loot.

Arf at wazz, that's what we call it as well

I think it's because they were popping up quickly and fucking off before the police could get there, then going back after they'd gone.

I would say the police have to presume all demonstrations have the capacity to turn into riots, and are therefore just erring on the side of caution.

Curly, I've only ever seen three guns and they're not something I'd like my DC to feel are 'normal'.

Good on yer still answering posts, it's interesting seeing it from another point of view and hope you don't think posters are having a go, it's just that being able to talk to someone from the US about guns doesn't really come up that much.

Consequences I have no issue with pedicuri they should receive the full force of the law.

Shooting rioters and looters I do have a problem with.

Sorry Mare. As for your first question, what about them?

Secondly, I'm NOT backtracking. I believe both. Armed police are a VERY strong deterrent but a deterrent is useless if the threat is not carried out. If rioters are stupid enough to not follow the directions of armed police and they are threatening the lives of the police or the public then they should be shot.

No I am not having a go, promise. If I come across that way apologies it's just a healthy debate.

Thanks Agent. I tend to keep off the soapbox with issues like these. Partly because I know how contentious they are and party because my wife is sick of hearing them! :)

I'm 'meh', I think there should be more ACCESS to guns/more specialists (ie. one car/armoury per area that has guns locked in it, but no 'local' bobbies carrying a weapon, and that these should be used only when command has come down from on high).
I don't thing EVERYONE should be armed 24/7, but training should be put in so every area has a % of people firearm trained.

However, I know a few coppers who really struggle with knowing the difference between their arseend & their elbow, and I would probably never sleep again if I knew they were out there carrying.

The question was why shoot rather than use an asp, CS spray, or a taser.

All of which have an incapacitant effect.

Mare11bp; some situations you can't get your asp out (ie pinned on the floor), CS only affects a certain number of people (and if they are high on drink/drugs/rage it deffo doesn't*), CS & Tasers cannot be used together (CS is also flammable).

*However the same can be said for stabbing vitctims (some people don't realise they've been stabbed), so am not sure if a bullet in the leg would stop EVERYONE.

Because those things aren't scary Mare.

And if the police do have those then why the hell weren't they using them???

I don't think looters and rioters should be shot on sight, and I doubt if this would be the method police would use. If they are given a warning as an individual,or as a group, then they continue to loot or do not do as the police say, then yes - why not shoot?
Why should they be there stealing? Why should they be torching buildings? What is the other effective deterrent in an age when being a criminal is seen as okay?
The police should not put themselves or the public at unnecessary risk.
The harder part of me would actually thank the police for saving my money. Would much rather have it spent on hospitals and schools than keeping layabouts and criminals in jail or in the court system. If they are there there is no doubt of guilt - they are in the act of crime.

Curly they are incapacitatants I.e. Stop people in their tracks.

So it prevents the looting rioting etc.

I take horse's point and accept some situations arise where no police officer is in a position to draw any weapon.

arf at scary mare (scary mary)

seriously - if we crack down - we are too heavy handed and we get threads on here about the "police state" blah blah

if we police by consent we are too soft and not everywhere at once like we should be blah blah blah

one thing i have realised in the short year i have been in the job is that in this game there is no winning!

taser is effective but only on one person - impractical in a large group and can be tricky to get right - you have very specific targets and a very specific range in which you can fire it

pava is nasty stuff and very useful - but again not for mass crowd control! it incapacitates - but can also incapacitate the officer using it or anyone else who gets down wind of it - pava is safe to use with taser but really - very impractical for large groups of people. seriously - you just couldnt do it. pava has in many forces replaced CS.

Asp baton - again i would use it if i had to - but its an iron bar - in a large crowd i wouldnt use mine - too much of a risk of it being taken from me and used against me.

PSU (riot) officers get slightly different kit - but effectively the same just more protective equipment.

i say bring back the village stocks....

As an ex police officer, I am 100% against all police officers being armed. I have no problem wiht specialist firearms / armed response officers having guns but not the general, everyday beat officer.

Stocks is a brilliant idea by the way. Public humiliation + throwing rotten fruit = fantastic :0

So these alternatives are unsuitable for large scale crowd control, as would be shooting numerous rounds of ammunition.....I geddit

and no one dies! win win!

As a long-time UK resident and an American, I don't want the police armed. I always hated the very concept of armed police and it's something I've always loved about the UK.

'i say bring back the village stocks....'

'Public humiliation + throwing rotten fruit = fantastic'

I'd vote for it