Armed police

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have to say that I can't find anything that supports the claim of a doubling of assaults on Police either.

However, there's a couple of points on the issue that people should think about before chasing stats.

1. The charge of assault of police isn't the be all and end all of the number of officers assaulted. If the assault is more serious that cuts and bruises it should be charged as ABH/GBH and as such there's no differentiation between the victim being a police officer or a member of the public. Looking for assault on police charges to use as stats therefore isn't conclusive.

2. Not all assaults are reported. So if I was shoved for example while arresting someone it's an assault on police (it could also be a different charge). Would I add that to a list of charges? Depends on who did it, and how I felt at the time, but not always. Even if someone wasn't changed, it wouldn't go in the book as an injury on duty, so wouldn't be recorded anywhere as an assault on a Police officer. So workplace reports aren't a good guide either.

3. Along with all violent crime, the grown ups, who mutter 'community', 'engagement' and 'partnerships' all the time, and who have never done a days policing in their lives are quite happy to under report assaults on police in the same way as any other crime as it makes them think they look better at their jobs. So even if 1 & 2 were accurate, there's always the re-spinning by senior police officers to consider.

So in short, I don't think anyone can prove either way assaults have gone up, or down. The data on the subject isn't reliable.
 
Last edited:
Im seeing them going up on ground level.

But of course, if stats on Google don't show this, it's not happening.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
odd jim said:
Im seeing them going up on ground level.

But of course, if stats on Google don't show this, it's not happening.
Click to expand...

Exactly, I will trust someone who actually works in the Police to tell me this, rather than some keyboard warriors with a search ability on google. These very people will say what you say is anecdotal - but they have the comfort of saying that from the luxury of their keyboards.
 
For me the whole debate is very simple. We give the tools the police need to do their jobs. From what I've read & seen the vast majority of our police don't want to be armed. I always thought that was because they don't feel it's needed but hadn't considered the above reason of they're fearful of the consequences if they do shoot someone.

But the reason doesn't matter. The fact is the majority of our police don't want it. So if we make them carry then we end up in a bizarre situation where we've given them a lethal tool they don't want then hold them to account for that.

It makes absolutely NO sense.

The day the majority do want a gun then I will fully support that too. After all, they're on the front lines. We're (thankfully) not.
 
Exactly, I will trust someone who actually works in the Police to tell me this, rather than some keyboard warriors with a search ability on google. These very people will say what you say is anecdotal - but they have the comfort of saying that from the luxury of their keyboards.
Click to expand...

I still have friends in the police, they say it's not really one way or the other. Now, I do know these people, as in worked with, drunk with and socialised with them, not someone who I have no idea of the identity or access to information of.

I'll go with that information. It may be equally anecdotal, but it's from informants who have proven them,selves reliable in the past.

Anyway, the facts are simple to show, all Jim has to do is mention which force he works in, and we can look it up.
 
Last edited:
No, as I prefer a degree of anonymity in my profession for obvious reasons.

Though I do believe I might have told Bernie in the past?

Either way, it's pointless in me contributing further, and TBH really I don't want to. But Bernie, I'll point out, the facts aren't easy to "show", you should know that.

Anyway I'll leave it by saying this - I could go on until I'm blue in the face and people would still troll for Google links to prove me (or others) wrong so they can bathe in an air of Internet smugness. It's a subject I'm far too passionate about, and an issue that's affected me very badly in the past, so to let people so detached from it lecture me with regards to my contributions, on figures and 'facts' just doesn't sit well. When I know how bad it's getting its galling to be told what is see is not what's happening. Maybe I shouldn't have said "doubled" (people LOVE to seize on things behind their keyboards), maybe I should have said "more than significantly increased"? Or should I have said simply in my experience, I now see it everyday, to the point it's frequency isn't even recorded as lower levels of it are accepted as "part of the job" thanks to the current government and weak judiciary?

Nighty night.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
odd jim said:
It's not a "claim".

Figures are being compiled as we speak, but not by me (police federation) but as it's still 2014 for a few more weeks those figures won't be published for a while.

But I'm not someone who needs to post a Google link, I've only got to look at the daily state when I come into work to see "officer assaulted" numerous times when it lists the previous day's events.

I can put my hand up and say I've been assaulted in various ways far more frequently now than I did 10 years ago, and it's now seen as part of the job. Not for much longer.
Click to expand...
What would be the definition of assaulted for it to be recorded in that category?
 
Dejongj

As I said above, the problem is that not all assaults on Police are recorded.

The simplistic way is number of injuries on duty recorded, but not all assaults result in an injury.

OK, that sounds a bit odd, but it's not. An assault is the intentional application of force to the person of another, so for example, pushing someone, barging into someone or kissing them. None of these usually result in an injury, but all are assaults.

So getting a number is near on impossible with any accuracy. Number of people charged with assaulting Police is equally fraught, not everyone who does gets charged, some manage to leg it, some are discontinued by the CPS. Just to add to the confusion, if you assisted a Police officer who was acting in the execution of his duty, and you are assaulted then that's also assault on Police (Which ought to shut a few of the 'its not fair' brigade up!)

So in summary, not all assaults result in an injury on duty, not all on assaults on police are actually assaults on a Police Officer. Not all assaults on Police Officers are charged as assault on Police, and not everyone assaults Police gets charged.

The end result is a very muddy puddle, from which is near enough impossible to get a meaningful number.

However, in anecdotal terms, some will say assaults have gone up, some say they are the same, and some have gone down. People I know who are front line say its not really any different from any time in the past. Jim says they are up, maybe at his nick they are. Maybe it's his interpretation, maybe its my friends interpretation.......

But whatever the story, none of it is really resolved by bolting a canon to every police officer in E&W.

Where's my Guinness?
 
Have we lost the plot here ? Assaults on Police that may-or-may-not be on the increase depending on how they have been crimed /recorded' or not, should not prevent a knee jerk action to immediately arm all Police Offices ! There is simply not the need each police force have armed response vehicles on duty 24/7 365. The driver of each ARV has had extensive driver training, the deployed unit will get to anywhere in the county with due expedience. It's actually one aspect of policing we have right at the moment.
 
I wouldn't agree with you on ARV's. There really are not enough of them, and in a big constabulary, having, for example one covering the whole of South Yorks isn't sufficient, doesn't matter how good the driver is.

Even in London, it can take a long time to get an ARV, which is fine for something that is a slow burner, but armed incidents by their nature are not.

I would be in favour of more ARV's, but that would also depend on them taking non firearms calls as well. Now, it wouldn't bother me if an armed PC turned up at something I called Police too, but I accept it would bother some. However, there's not the flex now in Police Officer numbers to have them just dealing with firearms issues.
 
Laudrup said:
Not the greatest advert for more guns:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29943441
Click to expand...

She cut her lip. It's a tiny accident. I knew the anti gun lot would fasten to any little incident involving guns.

Given modern criminals, terrorist threats I fear our police are under equipped. Plus police in other countries have guns, it's not a child killing frenzy over there.
 
Laudrup said:
Not the greatest advert for more guns:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29943441
Click to expand...
Agree it will resonate and justify the anti stance. Whilst in reality it is a very stupid act by an individual, however we don't know the full story that lead up to this. I find it very hard to belief an experienced officer would discharge in such close proximity allowing for this to happen. I'm sure what is in the story is factual correct, I just want to know the parts they left out of the story.
 
ST4 said:
She cut her lip. It's a tiny accident. I knew the anti gun lot would fasten to any little incident involving guns.

Given modern criminals, terrorist threats I fear our police are under equipped. Plus police in other countries have guns, it's not a child killing frenzy over there.
Click to expand...

The more guns the more these accidents and more serious ones will happen. If the police were under equipped why wouldn't they themselves be pushing for guns? Your view of reality seems distorted.
 
Laudrup said:
Not the greatest advert for more guns:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29943441
Click to expand...
That injury wasn't caused by a gun, nor even by the very low velocity impact of a spent brass being ejected from a gun.
It was caused by the fact that the gun was loaded when it should not have been loaded, i.e. by the failure of the person responsible to follow even the most basic safety procedures. It's something that happens far too often within our police forces, and my thinking on this is that if even their 'elite' firearms officers can't follow basic safety procedures, the situation would be even worse if guns were routinely issued to all and sundry.
 
Garry Edwards said:
That injury wasn't caused by a gun, nor even by the very low velocity impact of a spent brass being ejected from a gun.
It was caused by the fact that the gun was loaded when it should not have been loaded, i.e. by the failure of the person responsible to follow even the most basic safety procedures. It's something that happens far too often within our police forces, and my thinking on this is that if even their 'elite' firearms officers can't follow basic safety procedures, the situation would be even worse if guns were routinely issued to all and sundry.
Click to expand...

The more people are exposed to something, the more they become second nature. There is no concerns in other countries with police having guns, just hysterical Britain.
 
Whilst I agree with that, I do think it should the operational decision of those involved. Whilst we are as country can be involved in whether we allow it or not, we shouldn't impose it.

I'm happy with it either way.
 
That injury wasn't caused by a gun, nor even by the very low velocity impact of a spent brass being ejected from a gun.
Click to expand...

The 'apparent' injury, it's a press report, not words of god.

It was caused by the fact that the gun was loaded when it should not have been loaded, i.e. by the failure of the person responsible to follow even the most basic safety procedures. It's something that happens far too often within our police forces, and my thinking on this is that if even their 'elite' firearms officers can't follow basic safety procedures, the situation would be even worse if guns were routinely issued to all and sundry.
Click to expand...

Erm, no, if there really was an injury, it was caused by the cartridge being ejected.

Of course, you gun nuts never do anything dangerous do you...Oh hang on yes do! Even though they constantly tell us how safe they are, and how everyone else isn't. Oddly, I've seen 2 gun clubs closed down for a number of stupid and reckless acts.

Then again, armchair criticism without knowing what actually happened is always an easy option, and the one thing you excel at Garry. Wind it in until you know all the facts there's a good chap.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Bernie174 said:
The 'apparent' injury, it's a press report, not words of god.



Erm, no, if there really was an injury, it was caused by the cartridge being ejected.

Of course, you gun nuts never do anything dangerous do you...Oh hang on yes do! Even though they constantly tell us how safe they are, and how everyone else isn't. Oddly, I've seen 2 gun clubs closed down for a number of stupid and reckless acts.

Then again, armchair criticism without knowing what actually happened is always an easy option, and the one thing you excel at Garry. Wind it in until you know all the facts there's a good chap.
Click to expand...
Well, actually, the report said that the gun was fired into the ground, this would have caused the cartridge to be ejected from a semi-auto - it's caused by a gun that should not have been loaded being fired, that must be obvious to everyone.

Of course not all civilian gun users are as safe as they should be, and when they behave irresponsibly their guns are removed from them, quite rightly. But it is extremely rare for negligent discharges to happen among the 700,000 + civilian gun owners, and extremely rare in the armed services too, compared to the number of times that it happens in the police.

But of course, negligence and unsafe behaviour isn't limited to armed police officers, the unarmed ones make silly mistakes too, see here
 
So, you are part of something that isn't safe? So, you aren't in a position to make critical comment on other people, even if you knew all the facts which of course you don 't. So, as I said wind your neck in, until you do, don't do what you normally do and preach pretending you know what you are talking about, one day someone will be daft enough to believe you.

And of course, if this officer has done something wrong, he will doubtless loose his job and be prosecuted, as opposed to in gun clubs where usually it's covered up. Oh and yes, I do know that to be factual, its one of the reasons why one of the gun clubs I know about was closed down.

It's also very rare for ND's to happen to police, I can think of 4 or 5 now over 20 years. I doubt that rate is matched by you 'experts'.
 
No one dees to have picked up on the fact that in the Highlands the police are routinely armed as in they drive around with an arsenal but don't carry.
With ref to the young lady - a gun was discharged she was injured what other facts do you need
 
ChasG said:
No one dees to have picked up on the fact that in the Highlands the police are routinely armed as in they drive around with an arsenal but don't carry.
With ref to the young lady - a gun was discharged she was injured what other facts do you need
Click to expand...
Was she at safe distance, but did little Johnny push her into a risky zone. Just for starters, I could go on an on with scenarios that may be applicable and haven't been reported yet.
 
dejongj said:
Was she at safe distance, but did little Johnny push her into a risky zone. Just for starters, I could go on an on with scenarios that may be applicable and haven't been reported yet.
Click to expand...

Clearly not - surely they should factor in little Johnnies.

Don't get me wrong I am definitely not anti gun. I used to have a shotgun certificate before I gave it up on a cost basis and believe that it makes for law abiding citizens. Get drunk, do drugs, have a motoring incident or any other incident and it can/will be withdrawn so stay within the law
 
Easy to say from a distance.

I've been shot before as an accident. And that is what it was.

I just have a feeling that whilst the report doesn't lie, it hasn't provided the full story either. I do have faith in our police force and find it staggering that an officer wouldn't have taken any reasonable precaution.
 
Last edited:
Bernie174 said:
So, you are part of something that isn't safe? So, you aren't in a position to make critical comment on other people, even if you knew all the facts which of course you don 't. So, as I said wind your neck in, until you do, don't do what you normally do and preach pretending you know what you are talking about, one day someone will be daft enough to believe you.

And of course, if this officer has done something wrong, he will doubtless loose his job and be prosecuted, as opposed to in gun clubs where usually it's covered up. Oh and yes, I do know that to be factual, its one of the reasons why one of the gun clubs I know about was closed down.

It's also very rare for ND's to happen to police, I can think of 4 or 5 now over 20 years. I doubt that rate is matched by you 'experts'.
Click to expand...
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?

A negligent discharge is a gun going off due to the actions of the person in charge of the gun.
An accidental discharge is blame free, and is due to a mechanical fault with the gun - with an accidental discharge, the only fault that can be apportioned is not noticing the fault before the gun decided to fire itself.

There is a major difference in approach and use of guns between civilian and police/military, which greatly adds to the risk where police/military are concerned - civilians never load a gun until they need to fire it when sports shooting, and when shooting over land, although a rifle may be loaded, the bolt will be pulled back so that it cannot be fired until required, and a shotgun, if loaded, will be in the open position until needed, again preventing negligent discharge. The police and military though, need a higher state of readiness and they also point their guns at people, which civilians never do and never need to do.

But the military address this risk via training, procedures and hardware, so that, for example, a live round can never be fired during a training exercise - if only the police adopted the same standards, there would be far less incidents.
 
ST4 said:
More personal remarks. As they are from you, I am ok with it. If the US would let me live there, I would go. I find your bit in bold bordering on racism. America is a success story IMHO.

I think we must be the only country where normal police aren't armed. In Italy, Greece, Spain, France, any police you see has a gun. We are the exception and therefore I am comparing the UK to more than the USA (which you know politically I am more aligned to)
Click to expand...

In New Zealand our Police are NOT armed. The way I see it, guns are a problem, not a solution.
 
Last edited:
Bernie174 said:
So, you are part of something that isn't safe? So, you aren't in a position to make critical comment on other people, even if you knew all the facts which of course you don 't. So, as I said wind your neck in, until you do, don't do what you normally do and preach pretending you know what you are talking about, one day someone will be daft enough to believe you.

And of course, if this officer has done something wrong, he will doubtless loose his job and be prosecuted, as opposed to in gun clubs where usually it's covered up. Oh and yes, I do know that to be factual, its one of the reasons why one of the gun clubs I know about was closed down.

It's also very rare for ND's to happen to police, I can think of 4 or 5 now over 20 years. I doubt that rate is matched by you 'experts'.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Nottinghamshire Police, didn't they leave a firearm on top of an ARV a few years ago. A member of public handed it in. It was either last year or the year before two police dogs died at Notts Police HQ after being left in a police vehicle to overheat.
 
ST4 said:
Way I see it guns are the solution to problems we have here.
Click to expand...
That's a really interesting comment to me. How are they the solution? Do you think giving everyone gums will stop people doing wrong? If that's what you think how do you explain the following? The countries with the most guns are by far the countries where the most harm is inflicted on the general population by those guns. In countries like New Zealand, where gun ownership is low, and police are unarmed, we have very few gun related crimes, a low murder rate and almost no fatal attacks on the Police. I don't want to be controversial, but I feel this is an important issue and I have not to date heard a rationale, factually based explanation, of why guns are a solution to anything. Can you explain?

By the way, I have lived in London for over 5 years so I am not talking from an completely isolated point of view.
 
Last edited:
Adam Wortman said:
That's a really interesting comment to me. How are they the solution? Do you think giving everyone gums will stop people doing wrong? If that's what you think how do you explain the following? The countries with the most guns are by far the countries where the most harm is inflicted on the general population by those guns. In countries like New Zealand, where gun ownership is low, and police are unarmed, we have very few gun related crimes, a low murder rate and almost no fatal attacks on the Police. I don't want to be controversial, but I feel this is an important issue and I have not to date heard a rationale, factually based explanation, of why guns are a solution to anything. Can you explain?

By the way, I have lived in London for over 5 years so I am not talking from an completely isolated point of view.
Click to expand...

Guns allow the police to deal swiftly with violent criminals swiftly and safely. It also levels the playing field between criminals and citizen. Criminal has a gun, I have a gun, 50:50 chance in either way. Criminal has a knife, I don't, odds maybe 80:20 against me. Plus if someone wants to kill me, I'd rather be shot than stabbed. Quicker death...
 
ST4 said:
Guns allow the police to deal swiftly with violent criminals swiftly and safely. It also levels the playing field between criminals and citizen. Criminal has a gun, I have a gun, 50:50 chance in either way. Criminal has a knife, I don't, odds maybe 80:20 against me. Plus if someone wants to kill me, I'd rather be shot than stabbed. Quicker death...
Click to expand...

Sorry but this in no way answers the quesiton "Why is a gun the solution?" which was the statement you made previously. Also doesnt take account of the fact that if the Police have guns, criminals are more likely to have guns. I just don't see why increasing the chance of the Police and criminals having shoot outs in the streets helps anyone. Maybe im missing something.
 
Last edited:
ST4 said:
Guns allow the police to deal swiftly with violent criminals swiftly and safely. It also levels the playing field between criminals and citizen. Criminal has a gun, I have a gun, 50:50 chance in either way. Criminal has a knife, I don't, odds maybe 80:20 against me. Plus if someone wants to kill me, I'd rather be shot than stabbed. Quicker death...
Click to expand...

Oh wait, I'm assuming that you're going to change the title of the thread now then, seeing at it's become how you yourself would like a gun, and not just about arming the police.
 
To be honest. I grew up in a country with police with guns, and don't recall much gun crime. Here only specialists are armed and there is a fair bit of gun crime.

Firstly I don't think one can draw any particular conclusion out of crime rates and armed police.

Secondly I don't feel any less safe here then if they were armed.

I just think they are all non arguments. When I had a big burglary those drawn batons worked much better than any gun would have done. And I had six of them at my property.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top