61 replies to this topic

[Miercolini]

This means that regardless to how fast/well armed the first response is, it will NOT engage the potential threat directly unless forced to anyway.. That is why incidents like columbine go on for so long.. Who is the subject in question?  What are they armed with? How many? Do they have hostages? Will we further endanger lives by moving in too fast without correct intel?  Did they set traps? Are there IEDs present?

 

Columbine could be considered the first of its kind, where the police took it as a hostage type situation. Alot has changed since then in police tactics such. http://en.wikipedia....apid_Deployment  Even my local county police has a emergency plan like this, if there was something happening at a school, the first two or three patrol cars would divide up into like two teams of two and make immediate entry. It doesn't always prevent the damage from occuring, but it defiantly stops sooner. It is also one reason why many places provide assault rifles to officers in patrol cars. In these cases, SWAT or ESU gets there after the fact. 

[MikeyPI]

Yeah uhm, no you have a protocol for a lone shooter situation, then you have one for a potential barricade/terrorist... Go in on a hostage situation or a terrorist group and you'll just add to the body count.  Trying to guess what the situation is, is the problem in these scenarios. Shots fired in a generally populated area does not mean rampaging gunman every time.  Columbine wasnt the only one, nor will it be the last.  The sad reality is you can't really stop those types of incidents, especially if the suspect is suicidal.

[Fred03]

I think the most successful recent intervention by LEOs in a situation like that was at the Navy Yard.

[MikeyPI]

Yeah their response time was pretty commendable, the ones I always worry about are the mall type environments because they are the worst situation to attempt to control.  Military/Gov buildings you generally have a pretty good chance of armed security forces roaming about them so the response times are pretty fast on scene for them. In the end I wish I could say there was a way to completely prevent them, but most of the people who do em are frankly suicidal anyway and want to be taken out in the incident anyway... Hard to prevent an incident if the subjects generally get their wish in the event.  Tis why bank robbing isnt a popular gig anymore, you get caught you're gna goto jail.. Shoot something up, you end up dead most the time.. To them that's a win.

[met police999]

I think what we have to remember it's hard arguing this as everyone else knows police to be armed and that to be of the norm but here not so much a gun wouldn't have changed the outcome of the video the officer only had one cuff on anyway (they also should have searched before hand anyway) and for the panicky officer well you would officers here don't see things like that

[theocd]

I dread to think what would have happened if one of the officers had been armed in the lovely tussle we saw in the most picturesque of English towns - Luton (lol). The officer lost hold of his CS Spray and couldn't get his TASER out of its pouch (interestingly both Sect. 5 Firearms in the UK) within the first few seconds and if you were, as Hoppah put it, the 'fattier', would you by trying to put a couple of shots into the suspect as he wrestles with your buddy, fingers crossed for that overpenetration? In a crowded street? What would the IPCC and the Media think of an officer gunning down a man armed with a motorbike key? They have enough trouble in this country when we shoot armed suspects! Had that been an ARV crew I doubt they would have drawn for the following reasons:

2. CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN WEAPONS MAY BE FIRED

2.1 Firearms may be fired by AFOs in the course of their duty only when absolutely necessary after traditional methods have been tried and failed or must, from the nature of the circumstances, be unlikely to succeed if tried.

2.4 The test of using ‘force which is no more than absolutely necessary’ as set out in Article 2 (2) of the European Convention on Human Rights, should be applied in relation to the operational discharge of any weapon.

 (ACPO Manual of Guidance on the Police Use of Firearms, 2003)

One assumes the talking, tussling and the attempt at TASER-ing were the attempts at traditional methods, and in the end, they worked, and nobody got shot.

 

I wholeheartedly agree with Hoppah, two officers were struggling to restrain one guy, I'm sure that happens in the US, Netherlands, Spain, Canada etc. too. I would just like to point out that glasses guy gets punched in the head by the patrol car and is rapidly losing consciousness throughout the fight, so its one and a half officers at best!

 

The OC-D

[SparkyTheGamer]

I dread to think what would have happened if one of the officers had been armed in the lovely tussle we saw in the most picturesque of English towns - Luton (lol). The officer lost hold of his CS Spray and couldn't get his TASER out of its pouch (interestingly both Sect. 5 Firearms in the UK) within the first few seconds and if you were, as Hoppah put it, the 'fattier', would you by trying to put a couple of shots into the suspect as he wrestles with your buddy, fingers crossed for that overpenetration? In a crowded street? What would the IPCC and the Media think of an officer gunning down a man armed with a motorbike key? They have enough trouble in this country when we shoot armed suspects! Had that been an ARV crew I doubt they would have drawn for the following reasons:

2. CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN WEAPONS MAY BE FIRED

2.1 Firearms may be fired by AFOs in the course of their duty only when absolutely necessary after traditional methods have been tried and failed or must, from the nature of the circumstances, be unlikely to succeed if tried.

2.4 The test of using ‘force which is no more than absolutely necessary’ as set out in Article 2 (2) of the European Convention on Human Rights, should be applied in relation to the operational discharge of any weapon.

 (ACPO Manual of Guidance on the Police Use of Firearms, 2003)

One assumes the talking, tussling and the attempt at TASER-ing were the attempts at traditional methods, and in the end, they worked, and nobody got shot.

 

I wholeheartedly agree with Hoppah, two officers were struggling to restrain one guy, I'm sure that happens in the US, Netherlands, Spain, Canada etc. too. I would just like to point out that glasses guy gets punched in the head by the patrol car and is rapidly losing consciousness throughout the fight, so its one and a half officers at best!

 

The OC-D

 

Completely different in the United States, lol. If they have a weapon they are either tased or shot, especially when they have a knife and you cannot get close to them with CS. I have no idea why, but I recently have gained A LOT of interest in the Law Enforcement in England, specifically the Roads Policing Unit. So, I am highly interested in finding anymore information on the police force, you think you have any links you can shoot me in a private message?

 

I also find this quite interesting (the first bit)...CO19, wow.

 

Spoiler

[Wkboy714]

Regarding officer fitness in the UK, pretty much any average Joe can pass it. I've passed the test and didn't have to do any particular preparation or training for it, and I'm not exactly a bag of muscle. I think that officer safety and effectiveness, though, are much more reliant on correct defence and control techniques rather than brute force and weight. Also strength in numbers.

In terms of arming police...boy, it sure is complicated. As callous as it might sound, I think the idea of arming all police is never seriously considered here because of the massive infrastructure and training costs it'd require, which aren't feasibly affordable especially as the police forces are taking 20% budget cuts. There's weapon costs, a lot of training, upkeep, insurance, likely court cases from police shootings, and so on.

Another issue is that our unique policing system here in the UK is built heavily on trust and approachability. As theocd pointed out, when people feel that the police are no longer trustworthy, an "us and them" feel can easily develop which is actually one of the main factors of those massive nationwide riots we had a few years back. Those high up in police will be extremely careful to avoid a repeat of that.

PS Sparky - if there's anything specific you want to know, you can PM me I'll try to help

[SparkyTheGamer]

Another issue is that our unique policing system here in the UK is built heavily on trust and approachability. As theocd pointed out, when people feel that the police are no longer trustworthy, an "us and them" feel can easily develop which is actually one of the main factors of those massive nationwide riots we had a few years back. Those high up in police will be extremely careful to avoid a repeat of that.

PS Sparky - if there's anything specific you want to know, you can PM me I'll try to help

 

Yeh, I see in documentaries about british police, that no body likes you, lol. They try and make ya look bad to make you public enemy #1. 

[Handsup!]

MY point is watch the language please, you've used inappropriate language in this topic a few times, tis against the TOS round these parts.

 

I think if you want people to stop abusing the TOS, you should actually have one...

http://forum.emergen...dex.php?app=tos

[MikeyPI]

Enjoy your vacation We have one somewhere around here, want to be a smartass we can treat you as such.

[Hoppah]

Don't forget to send us a card! 

 

[TACRfan]

i think the best thing to do here in the uk is to mainly have unarmed officers but have more armed response units and equip most officers with taser, and maybe make it so more of the traffic police and special sections of the police force are also armed response police

[theocd]

i think the best thing to do here in the uk is to mainly have unarmed officers but have more armed response units and equip most officers with taser, and maybe make it so more of the traffic police and special sections of the police force are also armed response police

 

More Armed Response Units cost money, and compared to their amount of deployment, we don't need any more. Equipping most officers with TASER is again a massive expense for something that officers won't use on a day-to-day- basis. The Police Foundation estimate equipping all officers with TASER would cost £160 million*; call that half, its still £80 million of money we don't have. 

As for equipping more Traffic Police or other 'Specialist Units', you don't need me to tell you guns are dangerous and not exactly desirable at RTC's or in a Riot. Most other 'Specialist Units' aren't armed because we deemed they shouldn't be armed - Dog Handlers and Mounted Officers have an animal to control; Public Order officers** would struggle to keep hold of a weapon when wrestling with offenders, who else do we have - marine policing?

 

The OC-D

* Source is here but can't be dead sure of the maths as their reference can't be followed: http://www.police-fo...rs_briefing.pdf

** I am aware of the exception that is Level 1 trained TSG Officers - hey, that's the Met.

[MikeyPI]

The problem with tasers are that they are assumed by the class they are assigned "less than lethal" that they are a response that is not quite as bad as a true firearm.  Depending on the subject's health conditions (most the time you can't tell someone has these issues outwardly).  For example equip them with EKG's to check a suspect before they taze em, not likely.  Tasers can be just as deadly to someone as a firearm.  In the usa they have a tendency of over-using the taser for non-compliant subjects.  Their idea of non-compliant can vary greatly from someone who actually poses a physical threat, to someone who is just non-compliant and argumentative.  Excessive force with tasers tends to be a relatively common thing in agencies which are outfitted with them.  Because most people do not suffer long-term effects it is accepted far more frequently than if you were to shoot them.  However, in some of the population out there, there are many conditions that can be extremely dangerous to hit them with 50,000 volts, leading to cardiac arrest/and or death.  Age does not play into this populace, it can be a 15 year old kid, or a 70 year old grandmother that suffers adverse reaction all because they opted to be "non compliant" by asking an officer questions when the officer feels they should not.

 

Training for any weapon is required, but IMO any weapon that can be activated within the blink of an eye is a dangerous thing to give to people without proper training on not only HOW to use them, but also WHEN their use is appropriate.  The billy club for example takes a good deal of effort to actively use to inflict serious trauma into a subject, therefore it is less likely to occur, a firearm/taser on the other hand simply draw and squeeze a trigger and you're done.  Makes for a far easier go of it when it comes to inflicting trauma.  Most people don't think of a taser as a potentially fatal weapon when in some people they unfortunately are very much so, in a small select of the population you're nearly 90% on cardiac arrest as result of the use of them.

 

Beanbag rounds and rubber bullets suffer the same issue, they are classed as less than lethal but if you strike a subject in the wrong place they'll kill em dead just the same as a real round.

[met police999]

You just need to look at the troubles in northern Ireland to understand why plastic bullets are problematic

[Fred03]

You will find however that incidents of death from the use of a taser are pretty rare, especially considering how "over used" tasers are.

[MikeyPI]

Imagine if every officer around the world had them, the lucky stroke of fate is that not everyone has rubber/plastic bullets, bean bags, or tasers/stun guns.  They don't issue a ton of tasers out there, probrably because of cost, so that lowers the number of incidents involving them alot more than say the baton which most officers/security carry.  The only less than lethal that has an ungodly rare risk of fatality is the pepper spray/pepper guns.

[Fred03]

Unfortunately the only sure way of avoiding injury is to not apprehend criminals at all. Some risks are associated with that particular occupation (criminal) and yes people get hurt and occasionally people die, that's what happens when you break the law. All humanitarian stuff aside they are criminals, not law abiding citizens, they can be treated more roughly.

[MikeyPI]

I could pull up several incidents where the taser has been used on people for minor traffic violations and things of that nature, filming law enforcement (not interfering, just filming them).  Believe it or not, not every interaction with law enforcement involves hardened criminals.  A good deal of incidents involving law enforcement are emotionally charged, but not the type of incident that requires heavy force to address.  Each offense is not created equal, and likewise the response to an offense should be judged by the incident, not by what you have available to use at your disposal alone.  Domestic issues (fighting between a couple) for example are rather emotionally charged incident, but rather common incident.  As a LEO you must have the ability to address people with diplomacy as well as force when appropriate, such is why alot of law enforcement agencies are looking into psychology degrees along with conventional LEO degrees now.  To assume that oh a criminal, we have a right to use whatever force we deem necessary is a great way for a lawsuit to occur, or in mother russia to do the job.