Unarmed Policing
 

After two police officers were killed in the execution of their duty, the question of whether or not the British police service should be routinely armed has arisen again.

I found this article really interesting:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19641398

The article looks at the very particular relationship the police force has to the public, it's history and how it has developed into an unarmed force.

Also, immediate reports of the incident suggest that the two PCs would not have had time to draw arms anyway, given that they were walking into a trap.
This may change as they look into it further.

But to set a trap to kill two random members of the Police Service knowing he would not be able to evade capture suggests that the man was disassociated from the consequences of his actions. Not the death penalty nor armed police would have been a deterrent.

First time I ever saw guns IRL was waiting for a flight to Cuba at Stansted. Well, except from those carried by soldiers in London. A flight was coming in from Israel and the airport was being monitored. I found it very disturbing. I'd watched 12 Monkeys.

I remember being surprised by the armed soldiers patrolling Heathrow when I had a layover in England. I was thinking "unarmed cops, but machine guns in the airport."

Perhaps they can reach a compromise in which each police officer carries an unloaded firearm on their waist belt and just one round of ammunition in a shirt pocket for dire emergency.

But don't go into a panic when Gomer starts shouting "Citizen's arrest! Citizens arrest!"

Americans can't grasp the concept of "only bad guys have the guns."

I can't. And I've talked to plenty of Brits.

We also don't get how a homeowner who defends himself with a cricket bat goes to jail and the criminal who broke in walks free for giving evidence against him.

How? For the same reason this happened...
And a few more from here...

Setting a trap with the intention of harming someone (not that it wasn't a pretty clever idea) has clear elements of responsibility and liability in a civil lawsuit. that is not the same as a person acting spontaneously in defense of self and property in the middle of a home invasion robbery.

How about a homeowner getting sued by the home invader he shot?

I think all cops should have at LEAST one arm removed.

http://www.peninsuladailynews.com/ar...news/310199995

I find it interesting that the public are far more open to the idea of routinely arming the police than the police themselves.

I think they know that if they are armed when patrolling then the criminals are far more likely to start carrying guns. There are currently guns amongst the gangs, but they're not ubiquitous yet. And very little crime in this country is committed by people with guns.

You're probably more likely to run into a criminal armed with a blade than a firearm in most parts of the country. With some areas of London and Manchester as exceptions.

I would not like to see the police routinely armed. I think we'd see a sharp increase in guncrime if they were. I also don't think the relationship between communities and police would fare well with that change. There is still a connection there in most comunities between individuals and local police teams. People in very unstable and fractured estates, who hate the police as an institution will probably at some point have stood on a streetcorner laughing with the community police officer, who's ambled over to have a chat with the group of kids he's seen loitering about.

Dixon of Dock Green they are not, and relationships between individual police constables and the local community are forged and broken at an alarming rate, as police staff are moved around and policing structures changed with various initiatives from government. But...they do try, generally. And often succeed in small ways even as their institution fucks things up on a grand scale.

Those links are fragile though. And they rely on that police officer being able to convince the person they're talking to that they are there for them not against them, at least for the duration of that conversation. I really don't think that would be in any way helped if one party in that conversation was carrying a lethal weapon.

I think your police know that more is expected of armed officers than unarmed officers when they encounter violent crimes in progress and that they're not going to be compensated anything more for accepting the additional responsibility: they may as well leave it to specialized armed response teams. Those specialized teams know that by the time they arrive on scene the violence will often be over with since there are no armed routine officers to contain the perpetrators until backup arrives. Seems like a win-win situation for police officers and violent criminals at the public's expense. Government also potentially saves through avoiding possible post-intervention civil liabilities when it reduces the number of armed interventions.

I get the impression that half the public simply doesn't trust its routine police to be armed. They would rather take their chances with encountering armed criminals than face the uncertainty of arming their police. Claims that arming all police would significantly diminish civil-police relationships, when the trust is that limited anyway, would seem to be a red herring.

Half the public not trusting the police to be armed is a major improvement on previous decades :P

Maybe your police watched too much telly and have been brainwashed into thinking that because they had police boxes they weren't supposed to use guns. Before you know it they'll be wanting to be called lords instead of bobbies and demanding government issued companions. Say, that might make a nice hiatus from teaching!

Good article from the BBC.