Should the police be routinely armed?

[Phone]

All,

 

For the most part this is edited cut and paste. I believe there are fundamental differences in the PURPOSE.

 

The purpose of the police service (UK) is to uphold the law fairly and firmly; to prevent crime; to pursue and bring to justice those who break the law; to keep the Queen’s peace; to protect, help and reassure the community; and to be seen to do this with integrity, common sense and sound judgement (The British policing tradition is something of which the country can be proud. - (my comment))

 

On the other hand -

 

A police force (US) is a constituted body of persons empowered by the state to enforce the law, protect property, and limit civil disorder. Their powers include the legitimized use of force.

 

I think there is an intrinsic military nature to our "police force". We believe in "shoot first and sort it out later."

 

Phone

[corydoras]

All,

 

For the most part this is edited cut and paste. I believe there are fundamental differences in the PURPOSE.

 

The purpose of the police service (UK) is to uphold the law fairly and firmly; to prevent crime; to pursue and bring to justice those who break the law; to keep the Queen’s peace; to protect, help and reassure the community; and to be seen to do this with integrity, common sense and sound judgement (The British policing tradition is something of which the country can be proud. - (my comment))

 

On the other hand -

 

A police force (US) is a constituted body of persons empowered by the state to enforce the law, protect property, and limit civil disorder. Their powers include the legitimized use of force.

 

I think there is an intrinsic military nature to our "police force". We believe in "shoot first and sort it out later."

 

Phone

A case in point.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/21/us-police-fatally-shoot-deaf-man-despite-neighbours-warnings/

[Vagabond]

A case in point.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/21/us-police-fatally-shoot-deaf-man-despite-neighbours-warnings/

Hmmmm ..... Yes..... Being deaf myself I am not keen at becoming a potential target for "trigger-happy morons " (as an ex-policeman described an armed response team) although OTOH much time, trouble casualties and expense are saved when terrorists are shot dead during an attack. On balance I think a well-trained armed police force is acceptable, but perhaps "well-trained" for all eventualities is expecting too much.

 

The case in point above was shot by taser and by firearm. and was not carrying a gun. That will take some explaining.

[Phone]

Vagabond,

 

The explanation

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. Woops!

.

Phone

[John S]

When things go wrong. Badly wrong....

 

http://listverse.com/2017/09/26/10-swat-team-assaults-that-went-awry/

[Huge_Vitae]

A case in point.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/21/us-police-fatally-shoot-deaf-man-despite-neighbours-warnings/

Hang on a minute, I know the damage a blind man armed with a staff can inflict on trained Soldiers, I've seen it with my own eyes watching 'Rogue One'.

 

How do you know the deaf bloke mentioned was not a Jedi Knight? And in which case that metal pipe could have been a light sabre.

[Phone]

All,

 

You don't want armed police.

 

The "example" being discussed had a "the rest of the story" attachment. Tazers are extremely effective except under certain extreme conditions. The influence of drugs being the most common. The guy was tazered - commanded to obey - and reacted consistent with abnormal behavioUr.

 

Most of us have received an electrical shock at some point in our lives. X that by 5 and the guy wasn't put down. (?)

 

Phone

 

Edit: I forgot, you don't want armed police. You want the officer to command respect - not respect for how well armed they might be. (A case for limited immigration could be made here. The British do seem to have proper respect but not sure coppers will always encounter an Englishman)

Edited October 4, 2017 by Phone