Unarmed Policing

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by sexobon

<snip>

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.

For those of us who grew up in the 60's, there was a paradigm shift in attitudes towards the police.
Not because they were armed... LE in America has been armed since the earliest days
... after all, that's where the Western movie got started.

But instead we saw the polarization of LE - from protecting the public to protecting the policer officer.
The primary force in this change was first putting police officers into patrol cars,
and next was adding a second officer as the partner.
The WE vs THEY way of thinking among LE became common place,
and the militarization of American LE has been underway ever since.

Of course, the endless rough cop ("Make My Day") movies from Hollywood made such attitudes heroic among some
... maybe that's the half of the public that doesn't start from a position of trust.

[sexobon]

I was around to see when metropolitan foot patrol officers began carrying their trusty 6 shot revolver on one side of their waist belt AND a high capacity semiautomatic pistol (oriented for cross-draw) on the other side along with a couple of extra magazines. The polarization of LE came about as the organization of civil unrest became large enough to conceal violent factions which would strike and then blend back into a crowd. The crowds of mostly peaceful demonstrators did largely nothing to help the vastly outnumbered individual LE officers who responded to the violence, since it didn't suit their purposes to do so. Demonstrators publicly denounced the violence in order to be PC; but, privately reveled in the publicity the violence brought to their agendas and permitted it to continue by not policing themselves.

LE reacted to protect itself from what today could be construed as aiding and abetting domestic terrorism. The general population has no one to blame other than itself after it reneged on its partnership with LE (not the other way around) by subscribing to the idea that population subsets of sufficient numbers could turn a blind eye to action factions that operated outside the law: 'All that's needed for evil to prevail is for enough good men to do nothing.'

LE was cut out of the general population loop and forced to fend for itself. It's not unlike soldiers abroad encountering roadside IEDs knowing that local civilians must know about the emplacements; but, they say nothing and soldiers get killed. The soldiers adopt procedures to protect themselves first and then worry about protecting the locals. For LE, their IEDs are violent flash mobs. LE knows that when the shit hits the fan, they're not going to get any help from the general citizenry; so, it has adopted tactics and strategies (like the military) that enable its survival to continue its mission.

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

... Of course, the endless rough cop ("Make My Day") movies from Hollywood made such attitudes heroic among some
... maybe that's the half of the public that doesn't start from a position of trust.

That's why Republicans had Clint Eastwood speak at the RNC.

[richlevy]

I don't think we can disarm US police, but I do see a downside to having armed police. As a law enforcement officer, the officer represents authority and needs to maintain control of the situation. This is perfectly acceptable as long as professionalism is maintained. Unfortunately, for some officers this devolves into a non-sexual (or maybe not) game of dominance and submission with the civilian. The local cops in my township would concentrate their policing on teenagers driving at night. While some of this was legal, some of it was 'proactive', with police essentially engaging in mild harassment to keep everyone 'in line'. I much prefer police officers who treat a traffic stop the same way a clerk at a coffee shop handles a transaction. "License. Registration. Ticket.". Public safety lectures, fashion tips, life coaching, and other off-topic rants to what is literally a captive audience are not appreciated. Maybe without the gun a cop might consider his words and demeanor more carefully and avoid conflict.

[DanaC]

Since the idea of homeowners being charged for defending their property against burglars has been raised:

A judge has told two burglars permanently injured when they were shot by a homeowner: "That is the chance you take."

Judge Michael Pert QC jailed Joshua O'Gorman and Daniel Mansell for four years each after rejecting a plea that he take the shooting into account.

O'Gorman, who was shot in the face, and Mansell, who was hit in his right hand, had pleaded guilty to the break-in in Welby, near Melton Mowbray, at an earlier hearing.

Sentencing them at Leicester Crown Court, the judge said: "I make it plain that, in my judgment, being shot is not mitigation. If you burgle a house in the country where the householder owns a legally held shotgun, that is the chance you take. You cannot come to court and ask for a lighter sentence because of it."

He was responding to a mitigation plea from Andrew Frymann, representing O'Gorman, who said being shot was for his client akin to a "near-death experience" for which he was not prepared. His injuries left him with blurred vision, severe pain and problems with his balance.

Replying to Mr Frymann's suggestion that O'Gorman was traumatised, Judge Pert said the arrest of Mr and Mrs Ferrie on suspicion of grievous bodily harm could be considered just as disturbing. He said: "Some might argue that being arrested and locked up for 40 hours is a trauma."

Mr Ferrie, 35, and his wife Tracey, 43, were held in custody for nearly two days after Mr Ferrie called police to tell them he fired his shotgun at the intruders. Their arrests prompted widespread criticism. The couple were later bailed and told they would not face criminal charges.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/jail-burgla...130520655.html

Seems a reasonable response to me. Would have been different if they'd been shot in the back whilst attempting to flee (as in one much quoted conviction against a homeowner who 'defended' his property). Because if someone is attempting to get away then the immediate threat of harm is no longer a factor.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Since the idea of homeowners being charged for defending their property against burglars has been raised:

Tangentially, if someone has invaded your home, how would know your property was the only thing threatened rather than your life and property? I always think of it as a threat to life and property. I suppose burglars are operating within a different reality, so they don't get that?

[DanaC]

Also, it's really not that common for households to have firearms. So not something British burglars are going to expect.

[Sundae]

Not all that common for me to agree with Judges (well, not when they make the news) but I think his comments were reasonable.

You gambled, you lost. Hazard of the profession.
Burgling I mean, not being a Judge.