The Policeman's Blog

I work in one of the divisions in Westminster "The Capital of the Capital" or so they call it. On ausually busy night duty recently we had 2 PC's and 1 PS on our response team to cover our division with aproximately 600k residents and visitors on a usual night duty.. Admitedly if the shit hit the fan then we could have about a hundred PC's on us within 10 - 15 minutes but unless someone is about to get killed or is already having a significant kicking then everyone else is on a 'static post' and can't/won't deal with anything that it 'not in their remit'. That said though we had 15 PCSO's which makes up for it doesn't it??
 

There's no point in the Police carrying a gun.

That's because the one the Home Office would provide would :

(1) cost £ 10,000 per unit with a four year delivery time. (It is rumoured Police procurement have recently authorised the use of the longbow for Officers. Authorisation of the arrows is estimated at another 14 years)
(2) have different sized bullets to the barrel
(3) the exit hole would be facing towards the Police Officer, so firing it in a normal manner would result in him/her being shot.
(4) when fired, the bullet would only travel a distance of 20cm before dropping to the ground.
(5) all explosive matter would be removed from the bullet for Health and Safety reasons.
(6) the end of the bullet would be flattened to avoid it endangering the potential offender.
(7) each shot fired would require the filling in of form 1A/706 through 1A/742 detailing such information as the distance the bullet travelled and whom it was aimed at.
(8) which it would be a requirement to hand in and get stamped before the shot was fired.
(9) it would refuse to fire underground or in buildings.
 

You forgot to add an ethnicity questionnaire to be filled out by the shootee.
 

Perhaps the question should be should the police be armed to protect the public?

If I as Joe public am threatened by one of the increasing number of street thugs with a gun and stood next to me is an unarmed police officer what use is he in offering me protection from the criminal?

Do I ask the criminal to wait while this officer calls in for someone with a gun?

Or would it not be infinitely better to have the policeman armed so that he can deal with the threat there and then?

We live in a society where gun crime has increased manyfold since 1997 yet we bury our heads inthe sand a claim we live in one where the police do not need to be armed.

Perversely we then deny the citizen the means to defend himself as well.

The sooner the police patrol armed the safer they will be and the safer the citizen will be.
 

There is little or no point in carrying a gun, because as DC explained today, the majority of the culprits are like The Living Dead!
 

If things keep going the way they have, there soon won't be a chance of any officer being shot as they'll all be in the station for the whole term of their duty.

Incidentally, doesn't it get rather cramped in said station with all the personnel milling about? And does everyone have their own computer? DEll must make billions from the police.
 

A voice from the American side of the pond here.

I actually agree that with the current Police philosophy that there's little use in arming most of the officers.

However, if there were a shift back to 'real' policing then yes, I think essentially all police should be armed. Not that I think they'll need to use a gun, just that they need to have the option. Even in some of the worst parts of America there are officers who go entire careers without ever drawing their weapon.
 

That's a good point - I am armed with a baton and CS but have never actually required either in the line of duty in place of verbal tac comms or a bit of, um, elbow grease :)
 

There are about 25% of officers I would never want to give a gun to. They are bad enough with staplers.
 

Carrying is a pain in the ass. Heavy, and a huge responsibility keeping it secure both on duty and at home. You need a well hidden safe and locking it away needs to be the first thing you do when you get home. Then you need to keep the keys secure.

Carrying a gun produces a temptation to use it.

Cops carrying causes more crooks to carry. Its the arms race all over again.

Training. There are few natural shots out there but for most, being able to use a handgun effectively involves ongoing regular training. I am talking about several visits to the range a week, firing several hundred rounds. People who cannot do this are more a danger to themselves than the criminals they chase.

You don't want to go there.
 

Every time a tragedy like this happens the same question is asked ’Should the British police be armed?’

Firstly I believe PC Gray was from the armed response unit, so presumably he was armed. Yet regrettably it didn’t save his live. So if all officers were armed it wouldn’t prevent all officers being shot.

I agree that in some situations it would be good to have the option at least.

Like the previous comments it would just be another thing for the bureaucrats to preside over. I.e another load of forms for the average bobby to contend with.

The style of the British policing system is so different to other countries I’m not sure where guns would fit into our day to day duties. You only have to look at footage of say an American police officer stopping a vehicle and speaking to the driver and compare that to the way a British officer would act. Would the British public be ready for that style of policing?

Also I don’t know if I could trust some of my colleagues with a loaded weapon!
 

An Australian copper's view. Firstly, my thoughts go out to the family and colleagues of the slain officer. (The other 'dead man', well... I'll only mention that he's not worth mentioning in the same breath).
In Australia, all the Police are armed, except those that whose jobs keep them buried in the office. When you are stopped for speeding, spoken to about your noisy party or are reporting a vehicle collision at the front counter, the officer you are speaking to will be obtrusively armed.
Yet, because our model of policing comes directly from Peel himself (and in some instances, long before many UK forces existed) we 'Police by consent'. That we are armed is never an issue with the public we deal with. They do not cower away from us in fear. They do not call us 'Dirty Harry', 'Nazis' or 'Stormtroopers' (though, I suspect if they did, they'd be thinking of Darth's, not Adolf's). And, the consent isn't given grudgingly, either. No, it is just accepted.
But, we do not resort to them at every job we go to ("Noisy neighbours, eh madam? We'll soon sort them out!" "ker-CHAK") it is simply an option and one of last resort once all others have been exhausted.
I am not some raving gun-nut, spouting nonsense about 'right to bear arms' and 'cold, dead fingers', to me and the vast majority of my colleagues it is a tool, albeit one we hope to never use. Being armed did not change me into an irresponsible loony and nor should it.
And I don't think that Australians join the Police to get armed either. Colleagues of mine in recruiting have commented that after a (rare) Police shooting (where we have shot someone, not vice versa) one of the most common questions they get asked by potential applicants becomes "I wouldn't have to shoot anyone, would I?" When told it is a possibility, they become quite dismayed.
I am dumb-founded by the attitude displayed by coppers from the UK whenever the issue of being armed is raised. It appears that it is vociferously resisted and one of the reasons appears to be 'tradition'. Well, some traditions should be left in the past where they belong. The past is like a foreign country. They do things differently there.
Don't look to the continent or to the US for comparisons, look to Australia compare "apples to apples" and you will see it is possible to be routinely armed AND still Police by consent.
 

I say if so many of you want to carry a gun then apply to become a firearm officer and go throug the training,or failing that leave the job and join the armed forces, you can carry one every day there and you have a good chance of using it.
But please leave the police as they are with officers who do a great job unarmed and have the publics support and who have support units who are highly trained in firearms use. not every police officer in this country is suited to carry cs or a batton let alone a firearm
 

Anonymous : 3:53 PM

Maybe the public should be armed, to protect the police.

If I as Joe public am threatened by one of the increasing number of street thugs with a gun and by some freak mischance, there doesn't happen to be a convenient police officer standing next to me, should I ask the criminal to wait while I call 999, or should I just shoot him?
 

When I was younger in service, I was asked by some US officers whether I would want to be armed. My answer was NO. The scenario I used to explain my choice was that of a simple bank robbery. The bandits have armed themselves with sawn-offs and pistols, to wave around inside the bank, or perhaps fire into the ceiling, as a tool to encourage the release of money. As they run outside, the same techniques are used to persuade everyone to get out of their way. As an unarmed officer, I will happily duck with everyone else, then radio in whatever information I can to assist in their apprehension. The likelihood of them deciding to cross the line and shoot me or a MoP seemed slim, as they know I'm not armed.

The older officers I served alongside thought the same way, despite having started their careers before Harry Roberts crossed the line from criminal to murderer. Their attitude was the same as Inyoka's "Cops carrying causes more crooks to carry. Its the arms race all over again."

That was nearly 20 years ago. Every so often one of our number falls victim to the armed villain. Each time the question comes up again. This time, the officer WAS armed, so how the hell does the argument even begin to make any headway.

Despite more guns on the street and greater publicity about every violent death, I'm not sure that we or the general public are in any more danger than we ever were - it's just recorded and reported more graphically. Having seen how liberally some of our younger officers deploy their sprays, the thought of giving them guns fills me with dread.

The scenario comes back - I'm on foot outside the bank when the gang come out. They see me as I see them, but this time they know there's a chance I'm armed. What do you think they'll do? I'm not in the Met, or in any of the big forces. My nearest backup could be ten minutes away. I'm outnumbered and outgunned, with MoPs all around. Should I start the gunfight and hope that I can kill them all before one of them gets me ?

Over what ? Money ? That should make automatic weapons and hostage taking the universal standard.

It's a theoretical scenario, but if I put a gun on my belt during a real incident like http://maneatingcheesesandwich.blogspot.com/2007/05/perils-of-lurking.html then we'd be looking at a dead man. And for what ?

If having guns could stop gun crime and assaults on police and MoPs, then I'd say Yes. But it won't. Sorry.
 

Deepest & sincerest wishes to the family of Richard Gray. We are doing a job where those that can, should. As gadget has already said. Every now & then this sort of thing happens to put the nature of the job into perspective. Those that make policy, decide on targets and make our pay future an uncertainty should take a moment out to think about of the consequences of what they do. Do you want just numbers, who go out and tick boxes or do you want people who care about what they do ? For all you politicians who do not face anywhere near the same risk or responsibility, I say to you, if you have got an ounce of conscience in your body the next time you look in the mirror when you are thinking about saving money in the name of ‘efficiency’ or ‘modernisation’ or your next meeting about protecting the public, take off your hindsight spectacles and just spare about one second to think about Richard Gray and all those other officers who have given their lives for you and the people of this country. Just one second. Surely you can fit that into your busy schedule. Those that can, should, and in the case of Richard Gray, he did, ultimately.
 

I do love this debate, and always it comes down to tradition (as already stated) I think the answer is in between, tasers?! Less lethal option and still has the desired effect.
Policing is changing in this country and as we all know, we're desk bound. I was stuck behind a desk on Sunday night when we had 4 outstanding emergencies, i reponded to two, and pushed my paperwork back to 6am. One of them i wished i had a taser, not a gun. FSUP decided we could go to a guy, with a knife who wanted to kill his family.. Luckly, he'd calmed down a bit when we got there. :-)
I have no problem carrying or using a gun, as i could justify its use.. i just worry about the escillation from criminals...Tasers are the way forward (with little cameras for evidence to silence any critics)
 

PC Gray was a firearms officer. He was responding to a report of his colleagues being held at gunpoint and I imagine had been Level 1 authorised (ready to shoot). It may have been his gun that got him shot.

In no way should that be read as criticism of him, but we weren't there and we don't know.
 

Bloggs is correct, we weren't there, so we don't know. With the gunman dead, we'll never know why he opened fire. If he'd survived, I doubt he'd ever have explained himself properly. Why he did it doesn't matter. The fact that he did do it is all that counts.

Another family loses its father. There but for the Grace of God go the rest of us. Nothing any of us say can even begin to make the death of Richard Gray any easier for his family, but our thoughts and prayers are with them.
 

I am a firearms officer and a Firearms tac adviser and i am sick to death of the mantra that we should not be armed.

The training issue is not an excuse not to give officers the means to protect themselves when confronted with an armed criminal.

I am not suggesting that patrol officers attend an overtly armed incident for example an armed robbery. But they should have the ability to respond in kind and proportionality when during the course of their duties they are confronted with and armed offender.

Why should an officer faced with some oik with an eged weapon have to close to within 6' to deploy PAVA or CS or less than 3'to hit them with a bit of carbon steele that is next to useless if they are drugged or drunk.

The fact that some people would not trust their colleaguse with incapacitents or batons speaks volumes about the current selection and assesment process for police officers.

As for carrying a gun produces "temptation to use it" what colour is the sky in your world.

For most of my adult life i have carried a firearm, and for some of it have had control or command of far worse things and i have never been "tempted to use them" but i will concede that the cariage of a firearm requires ongoing and regular training. But consider this..................

The AFO's in the UK as a whole are police officers first and AFO's second and as such their trg does not come close to what you might imagine.Oh yes and we still have to justify our existance with the home office statisticains who twist the stats to show armed crime reducing when mine and my colleagues deployments on ARV's are going through the roof.

You have read this blogg i would hope for some time apply the apathy related to normal policing to firearms trg and you might just come close.

Thats not that the trg is bad but the time allocated to it is not sufficient. Because............. you got it i am a police officer first and AFO second. I have no issue with that as long as my unarmed colleagues have the ability to protect themselves as long as they don't, it should be the other way round and their should be more of us.

If you don't want to carry a gun thats fine with me, but in this day and age is that realistic.
 

I don't have any objection to being armed but I don't think it's the first thing we should be looking at here.
Our training in dealing with incidents is pitiful. I don't know of any force that teaches officers practical response skills such as lines of approach, safe cordons and lines of sight.
How often do officers go barrelling into dangerous situations before fully assessing them?
Secondly is an obsession with spreading officers as thinly as possible to meet response targets.
Single crewing or safer crewing depending where you work is a poorly concieved policy which depends upon the myths that dangerous incidents can be predicted to only occur at certain times of day/night and that situations can be accurately risk assessed from the 'chinese whispers' that inevitably occur between initial call, dispatch and patrol officer.
I don't need a Glock to be safe. I just need it to be recognised that Policing has unique risks and the means and will do deal with those risks.
 

"Having seen how liberally some of our younger officers deploy their sprays, the thought of giving them guns fills me with dread"

Since when was using your spray a big thing? We use ours all the time rather than going hands on. You test for compliance and if it isn't there you spray. and before anyone starts i'm not a "younger officer".

Teeth Grinder of the South
 

>"Since when was using your spray a big thing?"

Do you ever ask the sprayees how they feel about it? Mind you, I bet they snap to it and obey ze orders a bit more schnell next time.

Oops, Godwin's Law. My bad.
 

I left the UK and became a police officer in Western Australia 12 years ago. I've always carried a fire arm but although I have drawn it a couple of times I've only had to use it to destroy injured animals. We also carry spray and a taser. I couldn't tell you the last time I used my spray but my taser is drawn maybe once a month. Once that red dot is on an offenders chest he turns to water and is compliant. Best bit of kit in the world. Once someone has been zapped the word soon gets out and everyone calms down when they see it.
 

This concept that arming the police will cause criminals to use firearms, i.e. 'escalation' is nonsense.

The criminals who carry guns use them to intimidate people who haven't got guns. It works quite well that way. Criminals who are willing to arm themselves in order to confront armed police will tool up anyway. The brigher stars amongs you will already have a dawning realisation that the restrictions on firearms ownership in this country have achieved absolutely nothing in the reduction of firearms crime.

In the US states that permit citizens (as opposed to subjects) to carry concealed firearms, crime rates have dropped.

The only trouble with arming the police in this country is the management's approach to recruiting and training means that there are damn few new bobby's these days who are capable of achieving the required standards of professionalism necessary to carry firearms.

For most of them, I suspect that it will be a case of 'If the only solution you have is a hammer, then every problem starts to look like a nail'.
 

The more firearms there are in any society, both legal and illegal, the more gun crime there will be. It's a simple equation. Despite the increase in gun crime in the UK, we still have far less firearms at large in the society than either the US or Australia. We certainly need to constantly review the availability of weapons to police officers and the regulations controlling use, but I am inclined to believe that issuing all patrolling officers with side-arms would be a retrograde step for the reasons already stated by police officers with rational functioning brains.
 

"Since when was using your spray a big thing?"

We originally needed it to protect ourselves from attack, but it quickly became away of making people do what you told them without engaging in verbal persuasion. I have seen instances where people have been sprayed for what could best be described as passive resistance - they weren't threatening anyone, they just weren't doing what the officer wanted them to do....

If spraying someone with CS or Pava is no big deal, I have a sneaking suspicion that, a few years down the line, your response might be "Well, I only winged him, he's still alive, it's no big deal." Sorry, but it is.

If we use every tool in the box, just because we can, and apply every law there is, just because we can, we will end up in a very different world.

What if someone in authority decides that the limited use of torture, in the pursuit of state security or the prevention of serious crime, is justified ?

Pass the electrodes Brian...it's no big deal.
 

"Since when was using your spray a big thing?"

Maneatingcheesesandwich where have you been, the example you give of passive resistance just doesn't hold water. Suspect decides not to follow officers instructions ie " your under arrest take your hands out of your pockets where i can see them" i would suggest preemptive use of CS or pepper spray is totally justified and inaccordance with the officer safety manual. Perhaps thats why i can't remember the last time one of my officers got assaulted BUT i do have to reissue spray quite regulary.
 

times have changed big time .

I have carried a holstered gun for the last 24 odd years with a long arm carried also on the odd occasion. I haven't fired at anyone yet and I don't expect to ! We get trained once every 6 months . It's no big deal ,we are used to carrying and people are well aware that Police carry it/them.

on the otherhand
I had a lovely solid wooden baton which when used to defend myself always got the desired effect / result . Most didn't stay around to be hit the 2nd time .
Now I have this two bit thing that flicks out to use . Totally useless ,
I'd be better off with a wet dandelion !

bring back the wooden baton
PS I do have CS .
 

Arming everyone as a matter of course would never in a million years work. Why ?

1/ Look at your average American Cop on the news, he/she is a big bulking figure with a short haircut who looks like they have served in the Marines and looks like they can handle a gun.
I can't think of one single cop at my nick who looks remotely like that like that. They are a good bunch but some of them (including me) would look ridiculous waving a gun about.

2. Training. As someone touched on above, the training involved with firearms is immense. We have 1 AFO at our nick and he is always off training, refreshers etc. My nick is a small one and when just that one PC goes off it causes massive disruption, preventing folk taking their leave etc. Multiply that by everyone in the nick (or even the division) and bingo no cops cos they are always off training. No leave, sorry mate PC so and so is on his firearms refresher for the next two weeks not a chance.

3. Red tape. Just look at the way we are investigated now just for talking in a loud voice to members of the public. Now imagine what happens every time a gun is drawn. Lok at the two who shot that bloke who had a chair leg. Totally justified but dragged on for years. this would become common place if every cop was armed.

4. This country would need a complete u turn in its attitude to armed officers, this isn't going to happen. As I said above joe average will pick up the phone and complain about the way he was spoken to at the drop of a hat, just wait till he has a gun drawn on him.

5. What with cuffs, spray, leg restraints etc I have no room left on my belt as it is. Where am I going to stick my gun.

6. Eyesight. Firearms officers have to have good eyesight, obvious really. My eyesight is nowhere near good enough to be a firearms oficer, even with my glasses on. I suspect many others are in the same boat. What are they gonna do with us when the guns are handed out, ship us off to office jobs, no thanks thats not why I joined up. Sack us, you never know could happen and then replace us with a load of ex squaddies.

7. Bad apples. Like every job the Police has its share of bad apples. The worse they can do at the moment is illegally divulge information. Whats to say some folk will join up with the express intention of getting their habds on a gun.

8. Not being racist or anything but with the huge increas in Islamic Fundamentalism coupled with the drive to recruit more Officers from ethnic minorities we could easily end up with an Islamic terrot cell actually armed by the Police.

Guns, no way Jose, not for me. Lets have more cops on response teams and most importantly lets have proper life means life sentences and very very long prison sentences for all types of crime.

Rant over.
 

>"Since when was using your spray a big thing?"

If you look at the Conflict Resolution Model using an 'incapacitant' is below 'restraint' as a method of Officer Response. The reason is simple when you use it because:

1) It causes no permanent injury to the subject

2) The chances of it making the subject compliant are very high thus preventing them attacking the officer and causing injury to themselves.

So using spray quite simply isn't a big thing compared to standing toe to toe and swinging batons which could come under 'deadly force' the final officer response. That may seem more macho, but simply isn't needed with a can of PAVA at your side.

The last little toerag who had the misfortune to swing a left hook at me got the whole can. Funnily enough talking to him didn't exactly help as the mind altering Speed he was on at the time wasn't good for his mood.
 

I have to agree with Antipodean, the Australian example of police carrying guns is probably a more comparable example for future British policing with guns.

Almost all police carry guns, and this allows them to immediatley respond to lethal incidents. However, use of guns by police in Australia is not at all common, and they do not reach for the gun instinctively. Australians are not used to seeing people wandering around heavily armed, like with machine guns etc, but they are quite used to seeing the police force with their hand guns, and there is never any sense of fear that the patrolman who pulled you over is going to use the gun on you or anything like that. In fact if it ever had to be used, there is always a major inquiry and it really is a last resort, because police are trained that they should not get their gun out unless they are needing to use it and for lethal purposes, which is not at all encouraged and this is known. Sorry if this is rambling, but although I am not in favour of proliferation of firearms, I do think it will be inevitable that British police will carry hand guns. But I am sure that beaucracy will ensure that they will not be used except in dire circumstances.
 

PCPurple helmet

1/ thats why you get trained and if you aint up to sctractch you don't get in.

2/ the reason an AFO's trg is so intense and regular are the other specialist skill that they have. I am advocating that patrol officers IE response are issued with them for thier own protection

3/Thats a cultural problem and granted one that needs addressing but its not an excuse not to give officers the tools they need to do thier job.

4/ Iam overtly armed and have been for years. IE i go on duty i put the side arm and it stays on until i go off shift. It has never been a barrier to the public approaching me. Even in the early days of overt arming. And yes sometimes we do get complained about for pointing guns at people, your point?

5/ i carry the same gear just re arrange it.

6/ I wear glasses and you might just be surprised at my eyesight levels. Not all ex squaddies would make good police officers, and depending on thier trade may or may not have handled firearms that much. As for those that can't, won't or fail well its not part of oyur contract so i can hardly see them sacking you.

7/ Not sure what your implying in this one.

8/Not even going to comment on that one.

But the sentecing thing with you all the way mate.



7/
 

Mop-head

"The more firearms there are in any society, both legal and illegal, the more gun crime there will be. It's a simple equation."

The only problem with that simple equation is that it's wrong.

John Lott has done the most famous studies on the matter with the signature book being "More Guns, Less Crime".

The basic premise of your simple equation is that most people are either bad people or totally irresponsible idiots. Hard as it is to argue with that last, it turns out that most people are good people rather than bad, and criminals, while generally not too bright, are smart enough to figure out that getting shot could hurt.
 

As a Brummie in my 40's who in the best past of his life has never even seen a firearm in the UK. I would have always hated the thought of the Police having fire arms. The past year has seen my mind change, so many shootings and arm robberies, if it came to a vote with the general public, as long there was full training and constant on the job reassessment of capability I would vote for an armed police service.
 

PC Purple Helmet

1/ We've got our share of out-of-shape officers as well.

2. Staffing will always be a problem worldwide. In my state, our standard is 52 hours of pistol training (minimum) during the recruit academy, done in four-hour blocks. After basic recruit training, further training is the responsibility of individual officers and individual departments. We require a quarterly re-qualification shoot, which is fairly common. Then again, most of us practice 2-4 times a month. If your force can't find time to preserve perishable skills, then never mind arming everyone: might as well send everyone home and let the chavs send each other nasty SMS messages all night.

3. That'll take a cultural shift. It will take a SMT with training and experience enough to know when to tell a complainant to go away. (Wait, I think I just destroyed my own response)

4. See above

5. On my belt, I've found room for pistol, two magazines, two pairs of cuffs, light, OC spray, ASP, flashlight, and ring for a wooden baton. I've got room for a taser if they ever get funded. It can be done.

6. How correctible is your eyesight? Have your shot before? Depending on how bad your eyesight is, there's often some way to work around it.

7. Background investigation and psychological testing of your recruits. That's what we do. By the time we swear someone in, we know everything he's done in the last few years. A speeding ticket a few years back won't sink an applicant, but any history of violent or unstable behavior will result in a non-hire.

8. Same as above. If they wanted weapons, they'd be more likely to smuggle them into the country than go through an entire police recruiting process. Some of our cities ran into the same problem some years ago, only the problems were ordinary criminal gangs rather than terrorists, and they wanted access to information rather than the guns they had anyway. Good background investigation largely ended that problem.
 

6am domestic.......
bet the rest of his shift were queuing up to back up on that one.
How shitty must they feel now
 

Pava is great, we had a chap kicking off big time the other night he was in a rage and we started grappling with him but as soon as someone sprayed him he screamed, threw up and started crying.
No contamination like CS where you all get a slice just a little tickle in your throat.

God it was funny and he didnt remember a thing the next day - what was he arrested for - A WARRANT.
 

Condolences from the USA on the officer who was killed. Every morning when I leave the house to head for the office either a CZ-2075 mini 9mm or a lightweight Colt 38 snubbie revolver in appropriate pocket holster goes into my right front pants pocket. At night they reside in the night stand beside the bed. My wife carries a 7 shot S&W Scandium snubbie in her purse. I am not a police officer, rather, a retired USAF officer and business owner. There are bad people out there, why wouldn't someone carry a gun when it is not that inconvenient to do so???
 

The coppers who shot the guy with the table leg were lying through their teeth, incidentally.
 

The problem with carrying guns when it's convenient is that it becomes a vicious cycle. When citizens are armed, then police officers most be armed which leads to criminals being twice as armed, not good.
 

First of all I must say my thoughts are with PC GRAY's Family and work mates.

The issue with arming officers boils down to training and a decent situational use of force model. In my state in Australia training includes being aware of the discomfort/pain various uses of force can inflict.

This includes being on the receiving end of:-
OC spray and foam, VNR sleeper hold (deemed lethal use of force and not recommended), nerve/muscle strikes, TASER (nothing like a few volts to make you dance – only currently available to District and Regional Duty officers i.e. Senior Sgts and Inspectors on a trial basis), ASP baton strikes -although with light padding, take downs using handcuffs (often bruised wrists), verbal judo (otherwise known as learning to bullsh*t and/or bore the offender into giving up). In relation to firearms we are required qualify several times a year and undergo a simulation of shooting and being shot by firearms trainers (similar to skirmish, but with rules and skewed towards reality scenarios i.e. responding to armed robbery, hostage situations - also larger bruises) better than shooting at paper targets that don't move erratically and don't shoot back (this can be rather frightening and emotional the first time you are shot or have to shoot, but the idea is that you obtain a good indication of how you react in a high stress life threatening situations and enables you to be prepared for it, god forbid should you be in that situation on the street).

As to being able to carry all your accruements, being a average framed female I carry the following on my belt - Chubb handcuffs, ASP baton, Motorolla radio, OC spray, two ammo pouches, Glock pistol, mini mag-light. Notebook in front pocket - for the smaller officers we have vests in which everything other than the pistol can be placed.

As to if the police carry firearms the offenders will carry firearms, this doesn't hold water if a violent offender wants to obtain a firearm he will, it would be naïve to think that offenders in England are an exception to this reality.

Further traditions although they can be quaint, warm and fuzzy sometimes need to be overturned in favour of an identified need and reviewed in the harsh light of reality – society is becoming more violent (all you have to do is look at the year in year out increase in assaults on police in all services in the world to see this is true).

As to if an officer would become gun ho and use the firearm as first resort instead of last resort – proper training, recruiting would weed out this type of person. All shootings should be investigated by an independent crime commission and internal investigators and if found not be justified, authorised or excused in law the officer/s should be charged.

On my first shift of night-work (now 17 odd years ago) with the grand total of 3 days policing under my belt I was faced with an suspect decamping from a murder scene, being green I chased after him without back up and eventually caught up with him only to have him pull a pistol on me, pull the trigger and have the gun jam. I was only a foot away from him (yes, I know very stupid) and had my (at that time) revolver in my hand and instead of shooting him (which I was quite lawfully entitled to do in self defence) ended up pistol whipping him and breaking his jaw on both sides and dropping him like a bag of proverbial. The moral of the story is even though I had the revolver drawn I still managed to find an alternative non-lethal use for it – and I would think in my humble opinion most police would rather use a non-lethal option if at all possible, but still need that other option open in the worse case scenario – I think it is better that an officer gets home to his family than some drugged scum bag.

AUSSIE COP
 

I still don't want a gun and from speaking to my colleagues lasy night neither do they.

As for my eyesight, not correctable to a good enough degree for either advanced driving or firearms. Belive me I wish it was (not so that I can drive fast or carry a gun but so that I see better), but I am still able to do my job without needing either of those skills.

From what I have read, people I have spoken to etc pistol shooting is a pretty skilful job and pistols are notoriously inacurate. Its not like in the films where the here shoots someone with his pistol and hits them every time no matter how far away they are.

The only time we would realistically need a gun is when coming face to face with an armed criminal who was about to shoot us. This I say does not happen very often (very rarely and unfortunately it didn't do poor PC Gray any good and he WAS armed.

It's not like america here, we would nver point the gun at an unarmed suspect and shout "police stop or I'll shoot, get on the floor and spread em". The crim knows we would nvere ever shoot someone for failing to comply or running away.

Even the most highly trained firearms officers have the occasional acident such as accidental discharges. Giving every one a gun with not as much training as these officers would see this incidents occur much more frequently possibly with tragic consequences.

How many pairs of handcuffs, asps etc are lost every year by cops chasing suspects, being disarmed by them, or simply through carelessness. Would hate to think of it happening with a gun.

By all means increase the number of armed officers, just don't try and force one on me or my many thousands of colleagues who don't want one.
 

Ok the original post was correct. There was no dog, and there was no helicopter because they don't start work till 0800. These two things proved crucial but that will all come out. Someone has suggested taser as an alternative to routine arming. It has a range of 7 metres max and shouldn't be used against a firearms threat. Something else to think about....West mercia ARV officers get a pitiful 12 days training a year - this includes requalifying shoots, first aid, and tactics refreshers. On average they get 3 days a year diversity training by the way. And as for the view that an armed criminal won't shoot an unarmed officer - tell that to the family of Sharon Beshenivsky and her colleague. And what about Ian Broadhurst ? All gunned down in cold blood and none of them were armed. Of course, ACPO would shake their heads and say something about it being "not cricket", and of course it doesn't happen very often does it ? So we can make some sympathetic speeches, and concentrate on finding someone to blame (privately of course). And then we can get back to policing Britain in our "unique" way. Well, by definition our way is unique because no-one else does it (obviously). Ask yourself why.. But we know best... I'm not suggesting that all officers need to be armed now, but ACPO can start by treating the ARV role seriously and not paying it lip service. Regular training might be nice, and some decent kit.
 

"it's not like america here, we would nver point the gun at an unarmed suspect and shout "police stop or I'll shoot, get on the floor and spread em". The crim knows we would nvere ever shoot someone for failing to comply or running away."

Perhaps that's why they keep on offending/running away..........
 

Having only been a bobby for a relitivley short period of time (4 yrs), i possibly (some might dis agree) joined at the right time, the fact that all these forms were already in place when i got here means i actually don't know any different, i am always intrueged by the old school bobbies (most of which i certainlly agree with).
I feel we've got to remember the police is constantly changing sometimes not for the better, more and more people carry guns (not just the criminals) abviously minus the offence for actually carrying the gun, are we as a force changing or adapting!!! i feel adapting, and my personal comment should be "if the officer feels he/she should carry one" then why not let them decide, any officer who reads this will no doubt recall going to "Just another domestic" and once there really and trully be scared as to what they've been met with, not just in the sence, what you've seen but the fact that what you were told you were going to, is nothing of the sort.......we are all adults and i've no doubt we are all wanting to do the same thing which is help people, and if this means that to stop two people being killed or seriously injured then unfortunately one will die......we have only probably a second to make this desicion, and solicitors and the likes of them have weeks to figure out why we should't of done it, but you know that you done it for all the right reasons, and just HOPE that your force will be willing to back you up, not sure what the actual point of this message is, just thought everyone has an opinion, sometimes its the right one and sometimes not however nobody, i'm sure will admit to always being right...
 

The coppers who shot the guy with the table leg were lying through their teeth, incidentally.
# posted by Anonymous : 7:04 AM

How exactly.... The man had previous for carrying shotguns....He had been in a pub bragging to punters that he was in possession of a firearm..... When confronted by armed officers he decided not to lay down the offending item and payed the price. Could you tell a sawn off from a chair leg when it is hidden in a carrier bag???I can't imagine the split second decision these officers had to make and I am a front line response officer. Its a sad day when these officers are taken before courts time after time for doing there jobs.
 

Theres all this talk of being armed - it didnt do PC GRAY anygood. Even if we were armed 24/7, we dont make a habit of entering a garden/house/building like Starsky & Hutch - ie. guns drawn and checking every corner! In fact I think that we are quite the opposite - we are too lapse. IF the two PC's had known that the nutter had a gun then firstly they wouldn't have been sent and secondly West Mercia would still be waiting for a gaffer to make a decision to go in - we would be too busy supplying him with the nicer things instead of enforcing the law!

To PC GRAY - a true hero.

Rural Traffic Cop.
 

Surely this is an issue for individuals to answer....

I personally would carry but know many others that would choose not to. It would after all be just another officer safety tool for a response officer to use to defend himself/ MOP and not a weapon to be used in an offensive role. We aren't SAS or SFO's and would never be deployed in that way.
Its a basic right I should have to be able to defend myself whilst at work. If other colleagues choose to decline carrying weapons then so be it but don't deny me that right.
 

Arming the police would have, i think an obvious effect on the members of the public. Other police forces around the globe use fear as a main method of crime prevention far too readily for my liking.
My main concern though, would be with the already criminal element. There is an exsisting and increasing gun problem, that would only worsen with the arming of the police. Criminals, who before, never would have thought about have using a weapon, could feel the need to arm themselves against such an equipped force. I think it would create a keeping-up-with-the-enemy/fighting-fire-with-fire attitude. And then we would see more unfortunate loses of life than we do now.
 

To all those people throbbing for the chance to carry a concealed weapon(none of whom I reckon are police officers)and who used the phrase 'gun toting street thug', I ask you this: When was the last time you met this gun-toting street thug? Only villains I've ever met who had access to firearms were very well established with nice houses in the suburbs and a posh car.
 

Only villains I've ever met who had access to firearms were very well established with nice houses in the suburbs and a posh car.
# posted by Anonymous : 10:28 AM

Well all due respect to you my friend . I understand that policing throws up its challenges where ever you maybe. I am glad that one of your challenges is not dealing with firearms but for me it is. On a weekly basis we have incidents that could easily turn into the next 'dead cop' newspaper story. Just 3 days ago firearms officers had to shoot dead a man outside his arms factory on my ground. We have no go area's on estates because of threats to kill lone police officers.
Now tell me it's not a right to be able to protect myself from this. I don't want to be abseiling through windows etc. I just want to know that if the worst happened then I could help myself or a MOP.

I realise that in many towns and rural area's routine arming is not necessary. I also concede that not all officers have the aptitude to carry a firearm.
This is why it MUST be down to personal choice and suitability of each officer.
Just a thought thats all!
 

I guess it amazes me the idea that a Police Officer does not have the aptitude to carry a firearm.
I’m from USA,(Peoples Republic of Kalifornia) to be more exact. I have carried concealed firearm all most every day for past 12 years. I have a concealed carried permit (CCW) issued by my local sheriff. The state has 30 odd million people in the state and around 50,000 CCW permits. I have I been around firearms my entire life, but the official training for a CCW, in California, is 8 Hours initial training and 4 hours refresher course every 2 years. I also have permits in Utah and Florida; these three permits allow me to carry in 41 states.

Here in the states, at least most of them, we trust the ordinary citizens to carry firearms in public. Some of the larger cities have been trying to stop such practices with some success. The idea that COP’s could not carry weapons is so foreign to us there in the USA.

I do not consider myself or other CCW holder to be a threat to safety and security of the community. On the contrary I believe that we (CCW holders) add to the safety of our communities. I personally have used my weapon to defend myself and others on two occasions in 12 years.
In both instances no shots were fired and no one hurt, the perpetrators left the seen as soon at I pulled the weapon on them. I have no wish to ever have to shoot someone, if it comes down to shooting someone to defend myself, or family I will do so without regret.

This whole Orwellining thing going on in UK is just kind of creepy. I see happening here in the states, but no where near as bad as in the UK.

Random Thoughts of a Lunatic mind
Mindy Johnson (Kalifornia USA)
 

Mindy.... I take your comments on board but you have to admit that our cultures are vastly different as far as gun carrying goes. I am tired of people comparing us to the states with this issue . People say that police carrying guns would lead to a 'high street arms race'
Maybe we should be looking far closer to home at the gun enabled crime in Scandinavia and on the continent. All these countries have armed police and there are no such effects on their populous.
 

When a scrote gets £45,000 and a police dog gets destroyed for doing exactly what it’s trained to do, what do you think would happen if the average plod was armed and shot some scrote in self-defence? Arming all police in UK will not happen for a very long time. Increasing AFO's/ARVs is the only practical way to ensure guns are available when needed, and providing more Bobbies with tasers would I think go a considerable way towards providing the average PC with some level of protection other than his asp and CS spray. Again looking at the police dog scenario above, using any brings a high level of risk in today’s politically correct society.
 

You whining morons could always leave your cushy index linked pension; Clown Prosecution Service protected; overtime for watching footie sinecures and get a proper job.