Armed police

Status
Not open for further replies.
ST4 said:
I can assure you I do. I find armed police re-assuring, they make me feel safe.
Click to expand...

A false sense of security if you ask me (how often do you hear of someone with a gun saving the day v someone with a gun causing harm), but fair enough.
P.s. In the case which you referred to at the start of this thread a bystander got shot. No details of how serious or anything but still, someone innocent got shot. You say the Police having guns saved them in this case, I imagine two trained police should have been able to disarm and subdue one armed (most likely, untrained mad man) without the need to firing rounds of into the surrounding crowd. Perhaps its general Police training and their general physical condition that we need to address. Given the job spec you would have thought it was important to be in shape? When I was recently in the US a vast majority of the Police clearly were not. Just a point to note.
 
Adam Wortman said:
A false sense of security if you ask me (how often do you hear of someone with a gun saving the day v someone with a gun causing harm), but fair enough.
P.s. In the case which you referred to at the start of this thread a bystander got shot. No details of how serious or anything but still, someone innocent got shot. You say the Police having guns saved them in this case, I imagine two trained police should have been able to disarm and subdue one armed (most likely, untrained mad man) without the need to firing rounds of into the surrounding crowd. Perhaps its general Police training and their general physical condition that we need to address. Given the job spec you would have thought it was important to be in shape? When I was recently in the US a vast majority of the Police clearly were not. Just a point to note.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but with the rise of extremism, I think we can never to be safe. Completely agree with the bit in bold, but think thats not true here. All ours are reasonably fit and healthy. Not seen a slobby looking police here. Surprise attacks etc, even the fittest might need help. The openning post here shows how a surprise attack went foul becausse the police shot the perp
 
ST4 said:
How would a gun not work in this case, if the intruder doesn't respond to the police with guns, they can open fire.
Click to expand...
Close proximity inside the proximity where they could be around any corner really doesn't work that great for firearms.

Unlike popular belief and rumours I do not live in a Palace :)
 
dejongj said:
Close proximity inside the proximity where they could be around any corner really doesn't work that great for firearms.

Unlike popular belief and rumours I do not live in a Palace :)
Click to expand...

Might have broken your windows too. Gun at close range is effective too, armed police need not open fire to get a subject to comply
 
Have you considered the possibility that negligent discharges in the police are very rare because they frequently get downgraded to accidental discharges - in much the same way that burglaries end up as thefts and assaults on police officers (to quote you) often don't get reported at all?
Click to expand...

And you were involved in the investigations were you Garry?

No is the answer. So, boiling it down Garry, it's simply what you think and nothing more, supported by no evidence and no qualifications?

Lets be very clear here, you are a member of a gun club. Nothing more. Your training and experience of firearms is just that. So your qualifications to judge, given that you have no evidence of circumstances, did not examine the firearm and are not technically qualified as a gunsmith, is you hold whatever form of firearms certificate you do.

Oh and an inability to read investigation reports, which even if you have the qualifications and experience to comment, makes your conclusions flawed.

So, given that you have no qualification, knowledge or experience and you can't comprehend simple English, your opinion counts for sod all Garry.

Now please go and shot at bits of cardboard and leave the subject to be investigated, instead of spouting the usual rubbish.
 
Do the police get regular fitness tests? Some of them I've seen don't look in great shape.
 
Hasn't there been a very recent case where a police gun was fired and a young girl was injured? And another where an officer managed to pepper spray several kids?
 
Nod said:
Hasn't there been a very recent case where a police gun was fired and a young girl was injured? And another where an officer managed to pepper spray several kids?
Click to expand...

Already covered in thread :)
 
I understand that In Switzerland and Norway it is compulsory, or nearly so, for the citizen to have a firearm - not the most lawless of countries
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
ChasG said:
I understand that In Switzerland and Norway it is compulsory, or nearly so, for the citizen to have a firearm - not the most lawless of countries
Click to expand...
I maybe way off here, but isn't it something to do with in case they are "called to arms",
should the need arise? just something in the back of my mind.
 
I was covering my backside as I could not be bottomed to look up the info. However I appreciate the lesson in English
 
ST4 said:
Axeman could take another swing. Being able to shoot the perp dead saved their lives. There can be no doubt about it. You just don't like guns.
Click to expand...

At the cost of injuring an innocent bystander!
 
Bernie174 said:
And you were involved in the investigations were you Garry?

No is the answer. So, boiling it down Garry, it's simply what you think and nothing more, supported by no evidence and no qualifications?

Lets be very clear here, you are a member of a gun club. Nothing more. Your training and experience of firearms is just that. So your qualifications to judge, given that you have no evidence of circumstances, did not examine the firearm and are not technically qualified as a gunsmith, is you hold whatever form of firearms certificate you do.

Oh and an inability to read investigation reports, which even if you have the qualifications and experience to comment, makes your conclusions flawed.

So, given that you have no qualification, knowledge or experience and you can't comprehend simple English, your opinion counts for sod all Garry.

Now please go and shot at bits of cardboard and leave the subject to be investigated, instead of spouting the usual rubbish.
Click to expand...
I don't shoot at bits of cardboard, haven't done that for a very long time, but that isn't relevant anyway.
I do have some qualifications, for example I'm qualified to the level at which I can supervise the military on their own ranges, but that isn't relevant either.
I do in fact have the ability to read investigation reports, in fact I'm quite good at reading reports where the police have failed to include hard written evidence that doesn't suit them, but that isn't relevant either.

What is relevant is that you have ignored the info in this post
Laudrup said:
From 2003 to 2007 recent accidents involving police firearms include:

• A civilian control room operator was shot in the abdomen during a firearms awareness course in Kidlington, Oxfordshire, last year. A Thames Valley Police firearms officer had been showing staff his Glock pistol, unaware it was loaded.

• A Sussex police officer accidentally shot a 48-year-old PC in the body at the range at Gatwick police station in August 2007. Body armour saved him from serious injury.

• A trainee firearms officer shot a Met instructor in the thigh as he was setting up a target in a mock-up of a night-time alley in 2003.

• A diplomatic protection officer in Central London shot himself in the leg getting into a car in September 2007.

• A firearms officer from West Mercia Police shot himself in the leg and foot in January 2006 after his gun became caught in his clothing.

• An airport security officer from the Met shot the top of his thumb off when he put it in front of his MP5 sub-machine gun during training in 2005.
Click to expand...

I don't know whether this post includes all of the (apparently) negligent discharges or not, but I do note that it includes only those that resulted in serious injury (as defined by the HO) so couldn't be covered up
 
No Garry, you aren't very good at reading reports. Look at the rubbish you spouted over the Stockwell shooting. 99% untrue. So I have no interest in what you say you have read, as you have previous for saying you've read things and it being total twaddle.

Anyway, we've established you are not qualified, you weren't at any of the incidents you have passed judgment on, so in short, your comment should have read

"In my opinion , although I wasn't there, don't have any experience of, have never investigated and have no idea what I am talking about, police ND's are very rare because they frequently get downgraded to accidental discharges"

Is that what you mean? Because if it isn't there a civil wrong called libel.

And no I didn't ignore the next post, as you pile of tripe was important to A. Correct and B. put your real qualifications into the public eye, which is erm...none, you hold various firearms certificates nothing else, that makes you a gun nut, not an expert in police use of firearms.
 
Last edited:
Looking into the police and firearms accidents this was in 2009:

An improperly trained police firearms instructor shot and nearly killed a former champion rifle marksman during a gun-awareness training exercise, a court heard yesterday.

PC David Micklethwaite, 52, who has admitted breaching health and safety rules, mistakenly loaded a Magnum .44 revolver with a live round he had plucked from an old Quality Street tin. He then pulled the trigger while pointing it at a civilian colleague on one of his classroom courses.
Click to expand...

Do we use Magnums a lot in this country in the police? Seems a bit Dirty Harry. Maybe he kept the blank rounds in the Roses tin.
 
Last edited:
Oh and I forgot Garry

Lets see your evidence of

1. ND's being classified as AD's
2. Cover upds

Just a clue, I want to see some proper evidence, not things you think, or have invented, or been told by another gun nut down the club.

So statements, reports from qualified gunsmiths, witness statements along with some proof there's been a cover up. I wont hold my breath, we both know you don't have any do you?
 
It wouldn't matter much even if Police did want it, the fact the public would be in the main mighty upset is the reason why no matter what the Government would never allow it.
A few dead police is a good opportunity for Emelda May to make noises about how much they 'support' police (she never misses a chance to lie through her teeth), and that gives Tory voters confidence, albeit misplaced.
For Senior Police officers it's good, as it causes an up swell in public confidence through sympathy, (Misplaced in that respect) so they are happy.
For the PBI front line Police, its business as usual, no support from above, lives at risk. However, my, the generation before mine, and the one after live and sometimes die because of it.
 
Cobra said:
I maybe way off here, but isn't it something to do with in case they are "called to arms",
should the need arise? just something in the back of my mind.
Click to expand...

Scary place, the back of your mind :p
But yes, IIRC Swiss men between 20 - 30 carry out national military service (some exceptions, I think).
After that they are required to retain their military issue forearms in their homes.
But not ammunition.
Might be wrong....haven't checked :)
 
viv1969 said:
Scary place, the back of your mind :p
Click to expand...
Not just the back, the whole area (y)
viv1969 said:
But yes, IIRC Swiss men between 20 - 30 carry out national military service (some exceptions, I think).
After that they are required to retain their military issue forearms in their homes.
But not ammunition.
Might be wrong....haven't checked :)
Click to expand...
I thought it was something like that.
Someone I worked with years ago lived there for awhile
and related the "story" I was never sure if he was telling the truth or not though ;)
 
Wiki is your friend link

So my statement about almost compulsory earlier IMHO stands as correct
 
Bernie174 said:
And you were involved in the investigations were you Garry?

No is the answer. So, boiling it down Garry, it's simply what you think and nothing more, supported by no evidence and no qualifications?

Lets be very clear here, you are a member of a gun club. Nothing more. Your training and experience of firearms is just that. So your qualifications to judge, given that you have no evidence of circumstances, did not examine the firearm and are not technically qualified as a gunsmith, is you hold whatever form of firearms certificate you do.

Oh and an inability to read investigation reports, which even if you have the qualifications and experience to comment, makes your conclusions flawed.

So, given that you have no qualification, knowledge or experience and you can't comprehend simple English, your opinion counts for sod all Garry.

Now please go and shot at bits of cardboard and leave the subject to be investigated, instead of spouting the usual rubbish.
Click to expand...

Bernie,

You're being a bit harsh on Gary, extremely basic-basic procedures were not followed.

When taking possession of the gun at the beginning of the shift the person handing over the fiream should of showed the Officer that the chamber was empty, when the Officer received the firearm from that person, he should of also visibly checked that the chamber was empty so he/she knew it was empty. He either did not check the firearm and assumed it was empty. Or he inserted a magazine, pulled the topside back loading a round into the chamber, let the safety catch off and squeezed the trigger. Rounds do not pop into the chamber on their own initially without manual intervention as the breech block conceals the rounds in the magazine.

There are only two scenarios here. The round was in the chamber before taking possession of the firearm. If so the Officer was at fault for not establishing the weapon was clear, Or he has manually loaded a round into the chamber. Most firearms have a trigger pull of around 12 lbs or greater to stop them being discharged accidentally.

What is even more of a concern is that Nottinghamshire Police have sat on this information for a week before this was realised to the press - so much for openness and transparency !

http://www.nottinghampost.com/Girl-...tinghamshire/story-24395085-detail/story.html
 
Blank_Canvas said:
Bernie,
You're being a bit harsh on Gary, extremely basic-basic procedures were not followed.
When taking possession of the gun at the beginning of the shift the person handing over the fiream should of showed the Officer that the chamber was empty,
Click to expand...
When I was shooting "action pistol" many years ago, before the ban,
at the end of the "course" you faced down range, dropped the clip
rack the slide back, (locking it open ) "over hand"
eject the round into your left hand, and present an empty chamber and the ejected round a range officer.
Who would then issue the command (assuming they happy)
Slide forward, hammer down and holster.
(Pick the clip up and leave the area).
It takes two seconds.

On entering the range the reverse was true,
you showed the RO the empty chamber,
waiting for the instruction to "load, safety on, and holster".
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
ChasG said:
Wiki is your friend link

So my statement about almost compulsory earlier IMHO stands as correct
Click to expand...

Qualify it as compulsory for those who have served in the military, but not for those who haven't and you'd be right.
 
Nick

You're being a bit harsh on Gary, extremely basic-basic procedures were not followed.
Click to expand...

Actually, no I am not. He constantly makes allegations, which he has no evidence of support, apart from his assertion he is an 'expert'. That would be fine, if he made his comments as opinion, but he doesn't, he puts them forward as if they have some form validity.
Now, obviously, he's no expert on firearms at all, he's simply a holder of various licenses, he's not a gunsmith and he's certainly never been allowed near any form of investigation. And yet, although unqualified, with no access at all to any form of evidence, he feels he can state things as factual.

Now, I don't doubt there's some failings in the Notts case, but unlike Garry, I'd prefer to wait for a proper investigation to be carried out before I leap to unsupported conclusion.

The problem with internet sites is that self appointed experts like Garry perpetuate fiction, you only have to look at his miss representation of the facts around Stockwell as an example.

Another being his conclusion about ND's being covered up. Now, I can assure you he's talking utter crap. I worked at a Station where at the time 60% of officers were armed, so I have an idea of what happens when a police firearm goes off. Garry does not. I know that the weapon is immediately sealed and taken to 2 experts, one usually an ATO from the army and one the manufacturer. They test the weapon, and while they are doing that, the officer is interviewed, under caution, along with any witnesses. I know of 2 incidents, one H&K found a fault is the weapon that caused it to go off in exactly the circumstances the officer described. The other, the officer, although the weapon was faulty and the person handing it him had apparently cleared it went off, the officer was disciplined.

Challenging him to produce his evidence is therefore perfectly valid, he's making the allegation, not me, it's for him to prove it.

Now, I and I suspect you already know he has nothing to support that allegation, and really he's no expert on the subject, however thats not a defence to his libelous allegations.
 
Bernie174 said:
Nick



Actually, no I am not. He constantly makes allegations, which he has no evidence of support, apart from his assertion he is an 'expert'. That would be fine, if he made his comments as opinion, but he doesn't, he puts them forward as if they have some form validity.
Now, obviously, he's no expert on firearms at all, he's simply a holder of various licenses, he's not a gunsmith and he's certainly never been allowed near any form of investigation. And yet, although unqualified, with no access at all to any form of evidence, he feels he can state things as factual.

Now, I don't doubt there's some failings in the Notts case, but unlike Garry, I'd prefer to wait for a proper investigation to be carried out before I leap to unsupported conclusion.

The problem with internet sites is that self appointed experts like Garry perpetuate fiction, you only have to look at his miss representation of the facts around Stockwell as an example.

Another being his conclusion about ND's being covered up. Now, I can assure you he's talking utter crap. I worked at a Station where at the time 60% of officers were armed, so I have an idea of what happens when a police firearm goes off. Garry does not. I know that the weapon is immediately sealed and taken to 2 experts, one usually an ATO from the army and one the manufacturer. They test the weapon, and while they are doing that, the officer is interviewed, under caution, along with any witnesses. I know of 2 incidents, one H&K found a fault is the weapon that caused it to go off in exactly the circumstances the officer described. The other, the officer, although the weapon was faulty and the person handing it him had apparently cleared it went off, the officer was disciplined.

Challenging him to produce his evidence is therefore perfectly valid, he's making the allegation, not me, it's for him to prove it.

Now, I and I suspect you already know he has nothing to support that allegation, and really he's no expert on the subject, however thats not a defence to his libelous allegations.
Click to expand...
I am in fact pretty experienced with various types of firearm - a little experience of assault rifles and heavy machine guns, some experience of semi auto pistols and revolvers and a lot of experience of shotguns and rifles. I have been shooting since I was 15 or 16, that's over 50 years and currently fire more than 7000 shotgun cartridges per year, plus rifle bullets.

That doesn't make me an expert and I have never claimed to be an expert - the use of that word is yours and yours alone. Nor am I a 'gun nut' as you claim, I just like shooting, just as I like watercolour painting and chess, but for some reason you don't allege that I'm a painting nut or a chess nut...

I have quite a number of friends who are police officers, and some of those are armed police officers. Frankly I'm appalled by the standard of their training.
I've had police officers (try to) hand me shotguns that are closed and rifles that have their bolts in the fire position, and who have seen nothing wrong with that because "I know it isn't loaded" - no civillian shooter would ever behave so irresponsibly, and nor would anyone in the military. The simple fact of the matter is that there are established procedures that everyone else knows and follows, and if those procedures are followed then accidents can't happen. I don't blame the individuals (much), i blame the standard of their training.

I've known police officers to leave guns in unattended cars for hours at a time, complete with ammo - if a civilian shooter was caught doing that they would lose their certificate.

I've been told by an SAS instructor (a few of the top police "marksmen" are sent to them for a training course) that he is appalled by their standards of safety awareness and macho attitudes, but there is nothing that can be done as the SAS just provide the training, they aren't allowed to fail or even to assess the trainees.

I didn't misreprent any of the facts re the Stockwell shooting, I merely pointed out that senior police officers had misrepresented the facts and had claimed that Mr. de Menezes had run away from police, had vaulted over the barriers and was wearing a quilted jacket that could have hidden a suicide vest, none of which had any truth in it.

As for not having any evidence, this is the reverse of the truth, but I can't disclose that evidence at this time. This evidence takes the form of documents that the police were forced to disclose following a court order. It is in their own documents so is irrefutable. All that I can say on this subject is that some of these documents are evidence of police misconduct, lies and cover ups that their own professional standards department was "unable" to find.

Bernie, instead of attacking me, why not just answer the points made by myself and others - or just admit that you really don't know much about the state of policing today?
 
None of which Garry answers my point.

I asked you to provide the evidence that supports the allegations you made. Stop mudding the waters with a load flannel, very little of which I believe.

As for not having any evidence, this is the reverse of the truth, but I can't disclose that evidence at this time. This evidence takes the form of documents that the police were forced to disclose following a court order. It is in their own documents so is irrefutable. All that I can say on this subject is that some of these documents are evidence of police misconduct, lies and cover ups that their own professional standards department was "unable" to find.
Click to expand...

Is utter rubbish Garry, I've heard that all before, it's the second most childish answer in the world, I know, but it's a secret. Grow up sunshine.
 
Last edited:
Bernie174 said:
None of which Garry answers my point.

I asked you to provide the evidence that supports the allegations you made. Stop mudding the waters with a load flannel, very little of which I believe.



Is utter rubbish Garry, I've heard that all before, it's the second most childish answer in the world, I know, but it's a secret. Grow up sunshine.
Click to expand...
Obviously you have absolutely no understanding of the rules of the High Court. Just wait until the case is over, all will be revealed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top