Should The Police Routinely Carry Guns?

[Ernie]

Re:

Police officers are armed with a specific task..not routinely.
A.F.O. Authorised Firearms Officers are taught/trained to shoot at the centre mass of body..not the arm of the leg.
Duty of care..when taking the shot the AFO has a responsibility to the back drop{what is behind the target}, also its the responsibility of the firearms team to give medical assistance to the person they have shot{ this was seen in the aftermath of the killing by 2 males of Lee Rigby and the Mark Duggan incident}

Use of force..
Baton/Casco
Parva/CS Spray
Tazer
Baton Round
Firearm

Use of force ..Its got to be reasonable and proportionate.....if intel states that a person is enroute to "sort" someone out{drugs feud/organised crime} and they have a gun on them..it is not known if its a replica or genuine with working parts..you treat that person as if it is a real firearm.. Once someone starts waving a pistol in your direction you cannot tell its if its real or not...

Again using the same facts as above..but the person has a knife or hatchet..and refuses to put them down..Tazer or Baton round could be deployed...or if they had a Samurai sword firearms could be used

If you use that fact that someone has/or in the act of committing a vicious knife attack to commit murder..firearms could be deployed

Roal Moat...he wanted "Death by Cop"...

You have to realise each incident is different...never 2 incidents are the same.

Also officer perception..everyone on this forum could go to the same incident..and perceive different threats and act accordingly..and each act could be within the law.

Armed Police are used in a variety of situations..Diplomatic/Royalty Protection,High profile building/MOD Nuclear Establishments etc. Also for targeted operations where the threat to the public and Police is high.

Thanks

Ernie

 

[Chopper the ex Copper]

Re: Should The Police Be Armed?

Baton comes higher than CS/ PAVA which is classed as a secondary control technique, which is strange as of all the people I know who've been both taser'd and sprayed, both villain and copper to a man said they'd far rather be lit up on the taser than be sprayed again.

Then you got empty hand defensive tactics, tac comms and officer presence, and its possible for an officer to use deadly force - if necessary and justified - without resorting to firearms. I'm still authorised to carry 24 and I'm sure that could be deadly if it went round someone's cranium with enough swing.

And yes, officers are trained to aim for centre mass as the primary target, but if you're on a long rifle and the head is all you can see then you wouldn't not take a shot just because the torso is out of view.

 

[Chopper the ex Copper]

Re: Re:

When I encounter the expression 'shoot to kill' I normally think of making no attempt to capture. Whereas opting for a kill shot specifically sounds like 'deadly force'.

If a mentally ill teenager takes a replica pistol out into the road and a police sniper opts to subdue him with a shot to the thigh or such rather than take him out with a heart shot I would say that was a viable option.

Up close and personal, for example in the corridor of a student halls of residence, the average basically trained officer would unholster before encountering said youth and on first contact would likely use deadly force.

There is just one reason I don't like the idea of every officer having a gun amongst their options.

All shots are an attempted "kill shot". If someone is dangerous enough to require shooting - stabbing someone, shooting into a crowd, holding a detonator - you want them stopped. Now. Immediately. Without a seconds delay. The only guaranteed means of stopping them from acting is by shutting down their nervous system, and that means killing. Shoot a gunman in the leg he could still shoot back. If he's high on goof balls, mentally ill, suffering excited deletion etc they might not even be incapacitated in the slightest. All this shooting the gun out their hands, or popping them in the shoulder is fairy tale stuff for the movies. There is no other reason for a police officer or soldier to shoot someone other than attempting to kill that person.

It's clear that the people with the strongest opinions have no tactical experience and probably couldn't set the safety on a Fabrique Nationale SLR, yet they feel it ok to be telling us it's ok to shoot a mentally ill teenager in the thigh if he's waving a pistol about, which still leaves him physiologically perfectly capable of discharging that pistol. Unbelievable.

 

[TGR]

Re: Should The Police Be Armed?

There is confusion here - when a shot is fired, it is aimed and it is supposed to kill/seriously injure - no one shoots to injure/disarm etc so that is a red herring.

The mentally ill teenager is a difficult one to judge as are most hypothetical incidents. For a sniper to be in a position to take aim, the incident would have had to have been running for a time. During this time information may be available to indicate that there was a mental illness factor also talking/shouting to them may achieve a result. If a shot was fired it would be to kill. I am not aware of any incidents like that. It may also be the case that other non-lethal options could be used - which is the most likely result in real life.

Re the student accommodation - Unholstering a weapon must be justified and must be reported - what is the reason?

You need to think through why you are drawing the firearm - what to you want to achieve and be aware you will have to justify your actions. If there is a threat to your life and it must be a definite threat at the time, then you could justify drawing the firearm.

These hypothetical situations are unhelpful, if an incident is long running then specialist firearms units would have been tasked - these units are already in existence. The thread relates to the arming of all officers. I will reiterate my point that is gives them another tool to use when it is justified.

Use of a firearm is really a last attempt to achieve a goal - the goal must be specified, it must be serious enough to justify using the firearm and all other methods of achieving it must be exhausted beforehand. I will mention another important tactical option - use of feet. Running away may be a more appropriate response and tasking specialist units to deal with an incident.

Richard

 

[highlandsflyer]

Re: Re:

It's clear that the people with the strongest opinions have no tactical experience and probably couldn't set the safety on a Fabrique Nationale SLR, yet they feel it ok to be telling us it's ok to shoot a mentally ill teenager in the thigh if he's waving a pistol about, which still leaves him physiologically perfectly capable of discharging that pistol. Unbelievable.

Read what you want into it pal. I am merely trying to expand on what could be described as shoot to kill or using deadly force. Not stating anything about actual tactics employed or what is effective in the event.

There is a debate about this going on already.

Feel free to use the opportunity to get back to your vitriolic patronising best though.

Spent my entire life around guns, for what that is worth.

 

[highlandsflyer]

Re: Re:

Police officers are armed with a specific task..not routinely.

Cheers for the informative post mate.

Just one thing I disagree with though, as that is what the whole kerfuffle is about!

Article after article about this issue currently.

"Three Scottish police forces allowed specialist officers to routinely carry guns before the launch of the new single force, Kenny MacAskill has said.

The justice secretary told MSPs that Strathclyde, Tayside and Northern had officers who were routinely armed.

He said Police Scotland had adopted the approach across the country since its launch in April last year"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-h ... s-27492909

"John Finnie said officers were regularly carrying handguns, including in the Highlands and Islands, an area dubbed one of the safest in the UK.

Police Scotland said armed response officers have been "routinely armed" since the launch of the force in 2013.

A senior officer said they had a role in keeping people safe.

Independent Highlands and Islands MSP and former police officer Mr Finnie said he was "concerned greatly" by the situation.

He said before the launch of the new single police force in April last year, armed officers were deployed in a vehicle with the weapons locked in a safe in the boot.

Guns could only be removed from the safe with the authorisation of a senior officer, said Mr Finnie.

Mr Finnie said: "They are now routinely wearing them. That in its self concerns me.

"The fact they are deployed in support of police officers at routine police incidents - for example the dispersal of people from public houses and night clubs - is, I think, a recipe for disaster and I am deeply concerned about it."
'No need'

Mr Finnie said police carrying guns, along with the appearance of a riot van, have "no place" in the Highlands and Islands.

He said it had been an area previously held up as an example of where community-style policing worked."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-h ... s-27374900

 

[Chopper the ex Copper]

Re: Should The Police Be Armed?

All armed officers nationwide now routinely carry firearms. Gone are the days when they were kept locked in a box on the car. There is also a minimum amount of ammo officer have to carry, and forces are to standardise the Glock 17 as the issue sidearm to simplify ordering.
Anyhoo, the point is that all active AFOs are now permanently and routinely armed while on duty, and have indeed been since a short while before Police Scotland was formed, as because the Government want to be prepared for Mumbai type incident. It's a government policy, not a police Scotland one. They way Police Scotland have spunked millions on new uniform and letterheads to the extent where many divisions now can't afford to pay overtime, so even if they wanted to unilaterally PS aren't in a financial position to arm all their officers.

 

[TGR]

Re: Should The Police Be Armed?

Back again!

I love co-incidences and here is one, specifically related to this discussion. As i continue to mention, the phrase 'shoot to kill' does not relate to police use of lethal force per se; it specifically relates to a situation in Norn Iron during the late 70s and 80s. This news article may give an insight into what the so-called 'shoot to kil policy' is -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-27493189

Richard

 

[TGR]

Re: Should The Police Be Armed?

Just on the news front - any use of force by police must be justified, and careful consideration should be given to the appropriate type of force bearing in mind the surrounding geography - this relates, not only, to the 'backdrop' where firearms are used but also to the use of incapacitating spray.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-27485138

Richard

 

[maverick]

Re: Re:

Police officers are armed with a specific task..not routinely.
A.F.O. Authorised Firearms Officers are taught/trained to shoot at the centre mass of body..not the arm of the leg.
Duty of care..when taking the shot the AFO has a responsibility to the back drop{what is behind the target}, also its the responsibility of the firearms team to give medical assistance to the person they have shot{ this was seen in the aftermath of the killing by 2 males of Lee Rigby and the Mark Duggan incident}

Use of force..
Baton/Casco
Parva/CS Spray
Tazer
Baton Round
Firearm

Use of force ..Its got to be reasonable and proportionate.....if intel states that a person is enroute to "sort" someone out{drugs feud/organised crime} and they have a gun on them..it is not known if its a replica or genuine with working parts..you treat that person as if it is a real firearm.. Once someone starts waving a pistol in your direction you cannot tell its if its real or not...

Again using the same facts as above..but the person has a knife or hatchet..and refuses to put them down..Tazer or Baton round could be deployed...or if they had a Samurai sword firearms could be used

If you use that fact that someone has/or in the act of committing a vicious knife attack to commit murder..firearms could be deployed

Roal Moat...he wanted "Death by Cop"...

You have to realise each incident is different...never 2 incidents are the same.

Also officer perception..everyone on this forum could go to the same incident..and perceive different threats and act accordingly..and each act could be within the law.

Armed Police are used in a variety of situations..Diplomatic/Royalty Protection,High profile building/MOD Nuclear Establishments etc. Also for targeted operations where the threat to the public and Police is high.

Thanks

Ernie

Its an interesting question posed at the start. 'Should the Police be armed?' What does being armed really mean. A baton is arming yourself, CS/PARVA is arming yourself, carrying anything with the intent is 'Arming yourself. The point that Ernie made was very well put and will have enlightened a few people.

For those that don't realise, have a look at the below Scottish Police Federation clip. Then, ask yourself the same question.

Those that want to be armed have to pass very stringent tests to get to become and AFO and have to regularly re-qualify. Its a hard test that is repeated regularly to ensure that those that 'carry' are the best that they can be.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qU0mbo5KbCw

That is all.