Should we arm the police

8 Nov 2006

Quote by Sassy-Seren
I'm in the No camp on this one.
As much as I agree that in some areas, being in uniform can turn you into a sitting duck for any type of abuse ranging from verbal, physical assault or at worst, becoming a target for any nutter with a weapon, I don't see how arming officers will do anything other than escalate the situation.
The whole structure of the legal system needs to be radically changed. Turn prison back into a punishment, not some bleeding holiday camp. Ever see Bad Lads Army on tv? Why can't we have that sort of treatment for repeat offenders? Sod the PC brigade and their human rights bollocks. If you do the crime, you should face the time. Make prison a much harsher place to be and kids would have second thoughts about getting caught in the first place.
After all, the car-jackers and house burglars of today could be the gang members, drug dealers and cop killers of tomorrow.

To which I say YES.

8 Nov 2006

Quote by de_sade
We already have a routinly armed Police Service, The Mod Police.
Do you really think a Police officer would shoot anybody unless his or an innocent life was at stake.

But it has happened too many times already as I said earlier Stephen Waldorf (Unarmed), James Ashley (Unarmed), Harry Stanley (Unarmed - but believed to be carrying a gun. It was a chair leg), Jean Charles De Menezes (Unarmed).
One innocent killed by police fire is one killing too many. Those policemen who are trained to carry guns know how to incapacitate or kill with one shot, yet in so many of the police error shootings there is always an element of over-kill. One shot to the head is enough if carried out by a trained marksman. Not 5. Or 6. Or 7.
:(
Sorry de sade but with that comment you show your glaring lack of knowledge.
I read your earlier list, published above, again with interest.
Harry Stanley was shot and killed because he had an item, reported to the Police by a witness to be a shotgun, declared by Stanley to be a shotgun, wrapped in a plastic bag and therefore undistinguishable and an unknown quantity to all but Stanley. Despite repeated warnings from armed officers, over a not inconsiderable amount of time it has to be said, Stanley refused to comply with the officers and eventually brought the item to bear at the officers who responded by opening fire.
Was Stanley the one responsible for getting shot?? I reckon so.
Similar incident in Glasgow recently involving a man with an umbrella wrapped in a towel who eventually knelt down and took aim at armed officers despite repeated attempts to comply.
He was shot and survived.
Was he the one responsible for getting shot?? I reckon so.
Accidents will happen, mistakes will be made. We are not talking about robots, we are talking about human beings, albeit highly trained ones, and as the previous thread on "Could you Kill" has highlighted, no one really knows until it comes to the crunch.
Where mistakes are made in that arena, unfortunately the chance of someone dying is extremely high and rightly those involved should be thoroughly investigated and where action neccessary it should be taken swiftly.
I will however leave you with this thought
In the case of unlawful killing of Jean Charles De Menezes the officer who did the shooting was given information from the Security Service and surveillance team that De Menezes was a suspected suicide bomber who had been followed from a target address and as he entered the station, just after a failed attempt previously, the belief was that this male was about to detonate a bomb on board the train and possibly kill and maim hundreds of innocent passengers.
Knowing this information (not the armed officers fault it was wrong, someone elsewhere should be brought to task over that one and hopefully will) that officer boarded the train and took the action neccessary to disable a suicide bomber (In the "uneducateds" eyes it was overkill, experts would argue convincingly that it is neccessary overkill for a particular reason)
So knowing that he was walking up to a believed walking bomb, and may be killed as a result, the officer did so and carried out his duty.
Brave man or fool?
Hero or villan??
I'm still very much in the NO camp for routine arming but I do take my hat off to them for the role they undertake.

8 Nov 2006

As I have already stated I would not support the Police routinely carrying firearms.
However, if the police do have to shoot someone I believe they should shoot to kill. If there are any other options they should be pursued fully these first. Therefore as a last option they should shoot and if that is the case they should shoot to kill.
I agree the officers who carry guns and face the possibility of killing everyday are very brave and I would not/could not do it

8 Nov 2006

Id have to say im undecided about this. living in South London theres a shooting almost everyday, only last week a friend of the family was shot outside a nightclub, he is only 17. Guns in and around the area i live are almost a part of everday life for some people. So will arming the police around here produce more deaths with police shooting people aswell or will it actually discourage people from carrying and using them. dunno

Louise xx

8 Nov 2006

Quote by the_Laird
Sorry de sade but with that comment you show your glaring lack of knowledge.
About what exactly? About Harry Stanley? Or all of the shootings where the Police over-reacted and shot unarmed people?

About the bit I highlighted in your original post and I quote you again below

Quote by de_sade
Those policemen who are trained to carry guns know how to incapacitate or kill with one shot, yet in so many of the police error shootings there is always an element of over-kill. One shot to the head is enough if carried out by a trained marksman. Not 5. Or 6. Or 7.

Quote by de_sade
I had already mentioned Harry Stanley was carrying a chair leg
My actual point was that there are many instances (of which I have high-lighted only FOUR) where the Police have over-reacted in a situation and retrospectively admitted as much.

Yes you did mention the Stanley case, I was merely pointing out some facts of the case that were ommited which show a very different slant on it in my opinion.

Quote by de_sade
But you commented on just one where you feel I was misinformed. I kindly ask you to read the passage below in blue

I make specific comment on two, I am aware of both the others and indeed of many more. I do not seek to justify the actions of the officers, the courts and enquiries will speak on that

Quote by the_Laird
Was Stanley the one responsible for getting shot?? I reckon so.

Quote by de_sade
Really? Are you in full possession of the facts? Or just some of them

Obviously an awful lot more than you are De Sade, you omitted the source of your report below, Hmmm....you want to tell us all and let the reader decide how balanced a report it is??

Quote by De Sade
I include the following for general consumption. Taken directly from a report of the shooting.

Harry Stanley was a 46-year-old Scottish painter and decorator and father of three children. He was recovering from a successful cancer operation. On 22nd September 1999 he left his home in Hackney telling his wife he was going to visit a friend. He wanted to collect a table leg from one of his brothers who had fixed it after it had been damaged earlier in the year. On his return home he visited a public house. Another customer, mistaking Mr Stanley's accent for Irish rather than Scottish and noticing that he was carrying something long in a bag, telephoned the police to say that a man with an Irish accent was leaving the pub with a sawn-off shot gun in a plastic bag.
Within a few minutes an armed response unit from the Metropolitan Police service specialist firearms unit SO 19 arrived in the area. According to a Metropolitan police statement two officers approached Mr Stanley from behind. It is claimed that they shouted, "Stop, armed police!" Mr Stanley had no reason to imagine that the police wanted him or that they were indeed police officers and did not stop at that command. The police say that they shouted again, to which Mr Stanley responded by turning around. The police officers shot him dead, with one shot hitting him in his head, the other hitting him in his left hand. In the bag was the repaired two-foot table leg, which he had collected from his brother. Even had Mr Stanley presented an immediate risk the police did not act properly by approaching him from behind, thereby placing themselves in an open space where had he really been holding a firearm they put themselves at risk.
Even though Mr Stanley had clear identification and contact details on him, including his passport, his bankbook and his birth certificate, and the shooting took place only one hundred yards from his home, his widow was not informed about his death for more than eighteen hours after his death. His body was left lying uncovered in the street for several hours and blood on the ground from his injuries was not cleaned up. The failure to inform the family of his death meant that the family was unable to instruct their own legal and medical representatives to be present when the first post mortem took place on the 23rd September, the morning after the shooting. Once located by the police the family was given no information from the police about where they could go for advice and support. An initial offer by the police to pay for the funeral expenses was withdrawn. They have also received no letter of condolence from the Metropolitan Police. The officers involved have not been suspended but have been removed from firearm duties.
Did he deserve to be shot and killed. No, I reckon not.

And that is your opinion, so we'll agree to disagree, sticking with the Stanley scenario for a minute, and just to give a little bit of balance

Quote by Independant Police Complaints Commission
Deborah Glass, IPCC Commissioner said:
â€œThere is a need for further research into whether there are more effective methods for firearms officers in dealing with vulnerable people, such as those impaired by alcohol, as Mr Stanley was. Such people are often less likely to react rationally and more likely to react negatively to certain sorts of approaches and challenges. Although this is an extremely rare occurrence, such people are more likely to be

And for the sake of any confusion, on 12 May 2005 the following was announced with regards to the shooting

Mr Justice Leveson today quashed the verdict of unlawful killing resulting from the second inquest into the fatal shooting of Harry Stanley in east London in 1999.

Quote by De Sade
You assume too much about who is eductated and who is not in such matters.

I can only assume from the content of your writings and they are those of the uneducated in this instance

Quote by De Sade
It depends if you believe shooting someone on the ground once in the body and six times in the head is brave or heroic.

And yet again your ignorance of things terror related and proven tactics for disabling suicide bombers in crowded places shines through.
I dont blame you for that de sade, for every expert there is another with a conflicting view so it doesn't help the lay person does it. As I say, I am against arming of Police in general and for the full, frank and transparent investigations into any incident such as those described.
I wont even attempt to belittle your views or your influences but I'd have thought you were someone who would be more inclined to look to all available sources for information and to form an opinion.
That is obviously not the case.

Quote by De Sade
I am in the NO camp too, so can't see why you are nit-picking with me when in principle we agree. At least about not arming more police.

I'm not nit picking, giving a different point of view, perhaps backed with fact, is what adults do when debating issues.
You know that and I know that.
Your principles dont interest me.
the_Laird

8 Nov 2006

Quote by de_sade
One innocent killed by police fire is one killing too many. Those policemen who are trained to carry guns know how to incapacitate or kill with one shot, yet in so many of the police error shootings there is always an element of over-kill. One shot to the head is enough if carried out by a trained marksman. Not 5. Or 6. Or 7.

I'm not getting involved in the debate, but contrary to worryingly popular belief (Including the media) there has never been, nor will ever be, anything BUT a shoot to kill poilicy. Anyone who is trained with firearms realises that the instant you make the decision to discharge your weapon at someone then you have the made the decision to kill them.
Secondly, it's only since the suicide bombing stuff that officers are ordered to go for the head. Again, anyone trained will be trained to aim for the torso where possible - and that includes snipers and marskmen.

8 Nov 2006

Its a no from me. Simply because many plods have already been rejected by the armed forces as unsuitable.

8 Nov 2006

Quote by vdub
I'm not getting involved in the debate, but contrary to worryingly popular belief (Including the media) there has never been, nor will ever be, anything BUT a shoot to kill poilicy. Anyone who is trained with firearms realises that the instant you make the decision to discharge your weapon at someone then you have the made the decision to kill them.

According to policy that's not the case, the policy is shoot to STOP. The area targetted is the central body mass because thats what puts people on the ground. Sadly thats where all the vital organs are as well hence the reason that so many end up dead when shot.

Quote by vdub
Secondly, it's only since the suicide bombing stuff that officers are ordered to go for the head. Again, anyone trained will be trained to aim for the torso where possible - and that includes snipers and marskmen.

Very, very true. The tactic was pioneered by that nation of people who have endured the problem of suicide bombers in public places for many years before the present climate.
Targetting the head has been proven to disable the central nervous system and prevent any possible activation of a device.
Brutal?? Yes.
Effective?? Very.
Just look at various reports into Law Enforcement Organisations and their current tactics.

8 Nov 2006

Quote by duncanlondon
Its a no from me. Simply because many plods have already been rejected by the armed forces as unsuitable.

and you got this information from where?

8 Nov 2006

From the boys in blue themselves, who had applied for enlisting to the armed services.
you know 'licensed to kill' , one big thing to achieve for some people.

8 Nov 2006

what they all told you personally?
we have the best and most respected police forces in the world,because they don't carry guns........lets keep it that way!

8 Nov 2006

Quote by duncanlondon
Its a no from me. Simply because many plods have already been rejected by the armed forces as unsuitable.

Totally different selection requirements for the two, and that sentence could be flipped round because many armed forces have already been rejected by the plods as unsuitable.
Based on similar sources to yourself.
Jas
XXX

8 Nov 2006

Its verry intresting reading your views.
Are we as a sociaty becoming more of a gun culter because of the like of America with all there gangsta rappers ect.
Just a week ago i was watching one of the programmes that follows the police and they drove past a bus stop at this bus stop was a group of teenage girls one of which had two replica airsoft BB gun tucked in the front of her jeans, when the officers turned around and approched her she said they was there as a fashion accessory :shock: where is this mentality coming from.
And if it did come to arming the police would it be somthing the goverment just did or would it go to a vote of the people?
It would be interesting to see how many innocent victims are shoot in europe,USA or austrlia, by accident
What is the answer are we becoming a more dangrous place?
Even the NHS are starting to promote and offer Anaethatists surgeons A&E staff training in ballistic injuries

8 Nov 2006

Quote by de_sade
If people are interested to know the source of the report they can PM me and I'll be glad to tell them.

I'll save them the bother then shall I?

If you received it from anywhere else then it'll have been a rehash.

Quote by de_sade
Not arguing with you The Laird. Really have got better things to do with my time than to be drawn into some pointless tit-for-tat posting war.

Dont flatter yourself de sade.
rolleyes

8 Nov 2006

Quote by de_sade

Dont flatter yourself de sade.

Whatever.

:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:
:thumbup:

8 Nov 2006

Quote by de_sade
But it has happened too many times already as I said earlier Stephen Waldorf (Unarmed), James Ashley (Unarmed), Harry Stanley (Unarmed - but believed to be carrying a gun. It was a chair leg), Jean Charles De Menezes (Unarmed).
One innocent killed by police fire is one killing too many. Those policemen who are trained to carry guns know how to incapacitate or kill with one shot, yet in so many of the police error shootings there is always an element of over-kill. One shot to the head is enough if carried out by a trained marksman. Not 5. Or 6. Or 7.

This was the point of a detailed investigation on panarama, very enlightening. For example why people are shot in the back by Police (Takes .x seconds to turn, but .y seconds to raise and fire once decision is made so most people have turned to run but Police react to sudden movement and fire).
Harry Stanley (Unarmed - but believed to be carrying a gun. It was a chair leg)
This was covered in some detail, drawing on the Police reports and evidence. Basically he turned and they both fired as they thought (rightly with evidence they had at the time) that he was pointing a gun at them. The head shot was a freak since the hand shot caused him to spin (like drawing away from hot kettle, no reaction time) and the head shot caught him. When the Police officers fired (or made mental decision to fire) he would have been pointing the bag right at them. A bullet hole found in the sleve proves that he was facing them when shot, and spun away as there is no other way the hole could have got there without hitting his body unless his arm had been thrown up as in a turn and the bullet then went through his head.
This is a tragic case, but the officers involved honestly thought they were about to be shot. If we arm Police they will make mistakes, and innocents will die. However of the 10 or so innocent deaths, and few hundred times a weapon was fired over 10 years, they responded to (if I remember rightly) 3000 calls a day that requested armed backup.
So thousands of calls a year, and 10 or so errors in 10 years. I am sorry but it is a price worth paying. However we should not routinely arm Police. Not with the availability of tasers, CS, etc the 'normal' officer can look after himself and the trained units can be there very quickly.

8 Nov 2006

Quote by felixx1416
Whilst surfing the net i came across this on :-
A survey has revealed that almost three out of ten police officers have been threatened with a knife while on duty.
Nearly 6 per cent, amounting to about 7,000 officers, have been threatened with a gun.
So with the seeming rise of reported violent crime, is it time for all police to be armed?
Would you feel safer knowing every single police officer was carrying a deadly weapon?
What is your views

n some police officers have been threatened with a table leg n shot the poor guy...
ought to bring back capital punishment....people might think twice before killing someone else
and police officers these days look like kids.......

8 Nov 2006

Quote by da69ve
we have the best and most respected police forces in the world!

codswallop... i think thats how you spell it..................

8 Nov 2006

Oh and on overkill, you think you are about to die, the biggest call of your life is to pull the trigger. Do you fire 1, 2, 3, or 5 shots with your heart pumping... We forget even the best trained armed units are human beings and I dont care if they shoot 5 or 10 times if all the bullets go into who they are aiming at. If they were innocent then the fact it was 1 or 5 bullets wont matter since 1 can happily kill as per Harry Stanley, shot once only by each officer.

8 Nov 2006

Quote by DeeCee

we have the best and most respected police forces in the world!

codswallop... i think thats how you spell it..................
care to explain why? rolleyes

oh and i fucking hate it when i only get part quoted! :roll:

9 Nov 2006

Quote by da69ve
care to explain why?

you first..... thats one of the most sweeping statements ive ever heard and at first blush i was gonna call it absoulut crap.... i settled for codswallop. thats the sort of thing they write in the daily mail or in a police force application prospectus.
even if i was to conceede that there was some truth in what you say......
t b h it matters not what others abroad think..... its what those who are policed by (and pay for) it think..........
and even if those who respect the police and those who dont is split at 50/50 ( as alot of threads tend to be split even on here, if you can call that a representative poportion of the population) .... that sort of percentage is outrageous..... and nothing to be proud of.

Quote by da69ve
oh and i fucking hate it when i only get part quoted! :roll:

i know this is gonna sound harsh. but maybe thats because a proportion of what you sometimes put is codswallop .........

9 Nov 2006

Quote by the_Laird
We already have a routinly armed Police Service, The Mod Police.
Do you really think a Police officer would shoot anybody unless his or an innocent life was at stake.

But it has happened too many times already as I said earlier Stephen Waldorf (Unarmed), James Ashley (Unarmed), Harry Stanley (Unarmed - but believed to be carrying a gun. It was a chair leg), Jean Charles De Menezes (Unarmed).
One innocent killed by police fire is one killing too many. Those policemen who are trained to carry guns know how to incapacitate or kill with one shot, yet in so many of the police error shootings there is always an element of over-kill. One shot to the head is enough if carried out by a trained marksman. Not 5. Or 6. Or 7.
:(
Sorry de sade but with that comment you show your glaring lack of knowledge.
I read your earlier list, published above, again with interest.
Harry Stanley was shot and killed because he had an item, reported to the Police by a witness to be a shotgun, declared by Stanley to be a shotgun, wrapped in a plastic bag and therefore undistinguishable and an unknown quantity to all but Stanley. Despite repeated warnings from armed officers, over a not inconsiderable amount of time it has to be said, Stanley refused to comply with the officers and eventually brought the item to bear at the officers who responded by opening fire.
Was Stanley the one responsible for getting shot?? I reckon so.
Similar incident in Glasgow recently involving a man with an umbrella wrapped in a towel who eventually knelt down and took aim at armed officers despite repeated attempts to comply.
He was shot and survived.
Was he the one responsible for getting shot?? I reckon so.
Accidents will happen, mistakes will be made. We are not talking about robots, we are talking about human beings, albeit highly trained ones, and as the previous thread on "Could you Kill" has highlighted, no one really knows until it comes to the crunch.
Where mistakes are made in that arena, unfortunately the chance of someone dying is extremely high and rightly those involved should be thoroughly investigated and where action neccessary it should be taken swiftly.
I will however leave you with this thought
In the case of unlawful killing of Jean Charles De Menezes the officer who did the shooting was given information from the Security Service and surveillance team that De Menezes was a suspected suicide bomber who had been followed from a target address and as he entered the station, just after a failed attempt previously, the belief was that this male was about to detonate a bomb on board the train and possibly kill and maim hundreds of innocent passengers.
Knowing this information (not the armed officers fault it was wrong, someone elsewhere should be brought to task over that one and hopefully will) that officer boarded the train and took the action neccessary to disable a suicide bomber (In the "uneducateds" eyes it was overkill, experts would argue convincingly that it is neccessary overkill for a particular reason)
So knowing that he was walking up to a believed walking bomb, and may be killed as a result, the officer did so and carried out his duty.
Brave man or fool?
Hero or villan??
I'm still very much in the NO camp for routine arming but I do take my hat off to them for the role they undertake.
Have you ever heard the term 'Suicide by police'. It is used in America.

9 Nov 2006

Quote by
We already have a routinly armed Police Service, The Mod Police.
Do you really think a Police officer would shoot anybody unless his or an innocent life was at stake.

But it has happened too many times already as I said earlier Stephen Waldorf (Unarmed), James Ashley (Unarmed), Harry Stanley (Unarmed - but believed to be carrying a gun. It was a chair leg), Jean Charles De Menezes (Unarmed).
One innocent killed by police fire is one killing too many. Those policemen who are trained to carry guns know how to incapacitate or kill with one shot, yet in so many of the police error shootings there is always an element of over-kill. One shot to the head is enough if carried out by a trained marksman. Not 5. Or 6. Or 7.
:(
Sorry de sade but with that comment you show your glaring lack of knowledge.
I read your earlier list, published above, again with interest.
Harry Stanley was shot and killed because he had an item, reported to the Police by a witness to be a shotgun, declared by Stanley to be a shotgun, wrapped in a plastic bag and therefore undistinguishable and an unknown quantity to all but Stanley. Despite repeated warnings from armed officers, over a not inconsiderable amount of time it has to be said, Stanley refused to comply with the officers and eventually brought the item to bear at the officers who responded by opening fire.
Was Stanley the one responsible for getting shot?? I reckon so.
Similar incident in Glasgow recently involving a man with an umbrella wrapped in a towel who eventually knelt down and took aim at armed officers despite repeated attempts to comply.
He was shot and survived.
Was he the one responsible for getting shot?? I reckon so.
Accidents will happen, mistakes will be made. We are not talking about robots, we are talking about human beings, albeit highly trained ones, and as the previous thread on "Could you Kill" has highlighted, no one really knows until it comes to the crunch.
Where mistakes are made in that arena, unfortunately the chance of someone dying is extremely high and rightly those involved should be thoroughly investigated and where action neccessary it should be taken swiftly.
I will however leave you with this thought
In the case of unlawful killing of Jean Charles De Menezes the officer who did the shooting was given information from the Security Service and surveillance team that De Menezes was a suspected suicide bomber who had been followed from a target address and as he entered the station, just after a failed attempt previously, the belief was that this male was about to detonate a bomb on board the train and possibly kill and maim hundreds of innocent passengers.
Knowing this information (not the armed officers fault it was wrong, someone elsewhere should be brought to task over that one and hopefully will) that officer boarded the train and took the action neccessary to disable a suicide bomber (In the "uneducateds" eyes it was overkill, experts would argue convincingly that it is neccessary overkill for a particular reason)
So knowing that he was walking up to a believed walking bomb, and may be killed as a result, the officer did so and carried out his duty.
Brave man or fool?
Hero or villan??
I'm still very much in the NO camp for routine arming but I do take my hat off to them for the role they undertake.
Have you ever heard the term 'Suicide by police'. It is used in America.
Yes. Isn't that where people who want to die but can't bring themselves to end their own life deliberately put themselves into a position where they get shot?

9 Nov 2006

Quote by vdub

One innocent killed by police fire is one killing too many. Those policemen who are trained to carry guns know how to incapacitate or kill with one shot, yet in so many of the police error shootings there is always an element of over-kill. One shot to the head is enough if carried out by a trained marksman. Not 5. Or 6. Or 7.

I'm not getting involved in the debate, but contrary to worryingly popular belief (Including the media) there has never been, nor will ever be, anything BUT a shoot to kill poilicy. Anyone who is trained with firearms realises that the instant you make the decision to discharge your weapon at someone then you have the made the decision to kill them.
Secondly, it's only since the suicide bombing stuff that officers are ordered to go for the head. Again, anyone trained will be trained to aim for the torso where possible - and that includes snipers and marskmen.
Aiming at a small target, such as a hand is not practical. Hands move, they are hard to hit. The villain then kills you and anyone else they need to, or wish to. Aiming for the torso stops the villain, sometimes dead, but who do you want to die? Villain or Innocent. Head shot are now encouraged as you can see the body. Therefore there is no explosive to detonate.
Travis.

9 Nov 2006

Quote by Jas-Tim
Its a no from me. Simply because many plods have already been rejected by the armed forces as unsuitable.

Totally different selection requirements for the two, and that sentence could be flipped round because many armed forces have already been rejected by the plods as unsuitable.
Based on similar sources to yourself.
Jas
XXX
Police; independent, self motivated, inter-personal skills.
Army; team player, orders are orders,
Mission
Police; to protect life and property, keep the Queens Peace. Prevent crime and bring offender to justice.
Armed Forces; to deter action against Britain and is allies. To kill the enemy before they kill us.
So yes, I would turn down the best Police Officer.... if I wanted a rifleman.
Travis.

9 Nov 2006

Quote by twos_company
Whilst surfing the net i came across this on :-
A survey has revealed that almost three out of ten police officers have been threatened with a knife while on duty.
Nearly 6 per cent, amounting to about 7,000 officers, have been threatened with a gun.
So with the seeming rise of reported violent crime, is it time for all police to be armed?
Would you feel safer knowing every single police officer was carrying a deadly weapon?
What is your views

n some police officers have been threatened with a table leg n shot the poor guy...
ought to bring back capital punishment....people might think twice before killing someone else
and police officers these days look like kids.......
The flip side of that is, they might think twice about surrender, conviction and hanging. They may kill again to escape, nothing to lose.
...but I do agree, capital punishment does fit some crimes.
Travis.

9 Nov 2006

Quote by DeeCee
care to explain why?

you first..... thats one of the most sweeping statements ive ever heard and at first blush i was gonna call it absoulut crap.... i settled for codswallop. thats the sort of thing they write in the daily mail or in a police force application prospectus.
even if i was to conceede that there was some truth in what you say......
t b h it matters not what others abroad think..... its what those who are policed by (and pay for) it think..........
and even if those who respect the police and those who dont is split at 50/50 ( as alot of threads tend to be split even on here, if you can call that a representative poportion of the population) .... that sort of percentage is outrageous..... and nothing to be proud of.

Quote by da69ve
oh and i fucking hate it when i only get part quoted! :roll:

i know this is gonna sound harsh. but maybe thats because a proportion of what you sometimes put is codswallop .........
that sweeping statement as you put it......is my opinion and i'll stand by it!
to be honest i don't really care if you think i write codswallop ....i won't be loosing any sleep over what you think :roll:

9 Nov 2006

Quote by da69ve
care to explain why?

you first..... thats one of the most sweeping statements ive ever heard and at first blush i was gonna call it absoulut crap.... i settled for codswallop. thats the sort of thing they write in the daily mail or in a police force application prospectus.
even if i was to conceede that there was some truth in what you say......
t b h it matters not what others abroad think..... its what those who are policed by (and pay for) it think..........
and even if those who respect the police and those who dont is split at 50/50 ( as alot of threads tend to be split even on here, if you can call that a representative poportion of the population) .... that sort of percentage is outrageous..... and nothing to be proud of.

Quote by da69ve
oh and i fucking hate it when i only get part quoted! :roll:

i know this is gonna sound harsh. but maybe thats because a proportion of what you sometimes put is codswallop .........
that sweeping statement as you put it......is my opinion and i'll stand by it!
to be honest i don't really care if you think i write codswallop ....i won't be loosing any sleep over what you think :roll:
i thought that you'd put something like that..............nice....................
im not meaning to be argumentative and it is feasable that you could be right....i would happily withdraw my label ofit being a "sweeping statement" or "codswallop" ....... if you could explain what you mean by it and give it some substance............ im all ears......
this is a forum afterall...... sort of like a debate......... nice to see how you view these debates tho.........
biggrin

9 Nov 2006

There are more armed police officers than any of us are likely to know about and frankly I think that is the best way for it to be. The more officers there are that carry fire arms the less proficient they are likely to be using them as they will very rarely get firing practice and even more rarely need to take their weapon out of it's holster. A friend of mine - get this a former beauty queen in Sweden - is a police officer in Stockholm, she is one of their most highly trained tactical fire arms officers and she has NEVER had to take her weapon out of it's holster. More officers should be armed but not all of them, there are a good few around that Ciara could over power very easily so they should probably be left without a weapon to have stolen from them!

9 Nov 2006

Quote by DeeCee
care to explain why?

you first..... thats one of the most sweeping statements ive ever heard and at first blush i was gonna call it absoulut crap.... i settled for codswallop. thats the sort of thing they write in the daily mail or in a police force application prospectus.
even if i was to conceede that there was some truth in what you say......
t b h it matters not what others abroad think..... its what those who are policed by (and pay for) it think..........
and even if those who respect the police and those who dont is split at 50/50 ( as alot of threads tend to be split even on here, if you can call that a representative poportion of the population) .... that sort of percentage is outrageous..... and nothing to be proud of.

Quote by da69ve
oh and i fucking hate it when i only get part quoted! :roll:

i know this is gonna sound harsh. but maybe thats because a proportion of what you sometimes put is codswallop .........
that sweeping statement as you put it......is my opinion and i'll stand by it!
to be honest i don't really care if you think i write codswallop ....i won't be loosing any sleep over what you think :roll:
im not meaning to be argumentative and it is feasable that you could be right....i would happily withdraw my label ofit being a "sweeping statement" or "codswallop" ....... if you could explain what you mean by it and give it some substance............ im all ears......
:shock:
ok....a Police Officer comes up against an armed man....and all he has is his truchon and pepper spray(if he's lucky)....well these won't help against someone waving a gun in your face....the only real weapon this officer has is his training in negotiation....all he can do is talk to this armed person to stand down....he knows that anything he might say could anger the armed man....but he has been trained to put the lifes of innocent people before his my opinion this takes balls.....if this was an armed officer would it have been left to a stand off until someone pulled the trigger....probably....but because he wasn't armed i believe he has the advantage of the incident ending without injury or death....thats why in my opinion we have the best Police Officers in the world....i doubt there is a police force in the world that would be happy to let their officers onto the streets without their weapons....ours do it everyday,putting their lives on the line thats what make them unique.