Unarmed Cops in Britain...... no respect

[Scouse]

Ahh right, I took the 'terrorism?' tone of your post the wrong way clearly, fair enough.

I reckon I would argue that our coppers don't need to be generally armed, regardless of their debatable decision to pack military grade hardware for terrorism. Its interesting though that although as you say armed police on the mainland did zero to protect against the IRA campaigns (a neighbour of mine was wounded in the Manchester Corporation St bombing in '96 when I was a kid), the police here have been talking about Mumbai style attacks with heavily armed gunmen with little thought of personal survival, just trying to kill as many people as they can. I suppose police in ballistic vests with automatic rifles might at least have a role in those kinds of circumstances. It does lend a certain paramilitary feel to law enforcement seeing them traipsing round airports looking like they are ready for a tour of Afghanistan, it would be nice if that trend would remain confined to high value targets and not become acceptable amongst the police generally.

I have never really understood some of the institutional responses to the North Hollywood and Miami shootouts . . . I am fairly sure I am correct in thinking that .45 acp is as bad if not worse than 9x19mm at dealing with armoured opponents (at least loadings and bullets exist in 9x19mm specifically adapted for that). Likewise trying to learn lessons about the effectiveness of law enforcement officers mostly armed with handguns, from a horrendous experience of fighting two highly motivated individuals with military experience who significantly outgunned them, like in Miami seems rather strange. This is the case particularly when the officers knew they would be attempting to arrest highly dangerous and well armed men; in which case they should really never have allowed themselves to be outgunned. Well, thats how it looks to me anyway.

With regards to the original question again, it must be worth something that the various British police federations are unanimously against the routine arming of officers. I haven't got any proof for that, but it is mentioned in the press here every time the debate comes up, which is fairly regularly. If they thought they needed them, the police would clamour for them and they would get them, but they don't because they reckon they can do their jobs safely and effectively without them.

 

[SIGSHR]

One shooter I knew 10 years ago or so who went to the UK frequently on business said perhaps one third of the "bobbies" on duty at any time were carrying, but of course it was concealed.
The UK has trod the same road we have-a high rate of illegitimacy-"breeding to get on the Social" they say, with the same result we have had-a "continually renewed cohort of unruly adolescent males" to quote George F. Will.

 

[BlueTrain]

I just don't understand how someone like George Will ever gets elected.

Personally, I think that when people complain that people are polite and respectful the way they used to be, they are thinking of a past that never existed. Yet on the other hand, I think the police are not quite like they used to be, either. I am speaking of the United States now.

At one time a policeman, where I am from, wore a white shirt and looked like a very ordinary person. Someone who might be your next door neighbor's father. Yes, they had heavy armament that I suppose they thought they might need sometime. In our case, they had a couple of submachine guns and a selection of rifles. Their usual armament was a revolver with a six-inch barrel carried in a swivel holster. I'm not sure if they had any motorcycles or not but I kind of think they did. These days, policemen where I live now--and even where I used to live--look like marines (or try to). I guess they visit the weight room a lot. No more revolvers but autos (Sigs here) haven't been around really all that long. Then there are the SWAT teams. I guess there's some justification for them but none of them wear white shirts except the higher-ups. But I do understand there's a world-wide trend for everyone to dress their policemen pretty much the same way, although the Mounties are probably going to be holdouts.

In the last decade there had been a lot of federal money made available to local law enforcement all over the country, so it has probably been a typical spend it or lose it proposition. A lot of that money I suspect has gone for new equipment. But just remember: the police are at war and we are the enemy.

 

[Scouse]

SIGSHR - I am afraid there is absolutely no way one third of British police officers carry guns, and they are most definitely not concealed. A small number of detectives and SOCA agents (a relatively new agency that is probably roughly the equivalent of your FBI/ATF/DEA etc and whose agents are not technically police officers) may carry concealed, but most normal 'bobbies' definitely do not. Seriously, seeing an armed officer anywhere other than somewhere like an airport is unusual and worth remarking upon; there is no way one third of the men and women who perform normal patrol duties (what is generally understood by the word 'bobby') carry.

 

[Ltriker]

Rcently I read that the UK was banning the ownership of knives with sharp points as they are dangerous weapons. All knives must have the points ground off for safety.



What a bunch of horsehockey!


I read almost daily of people being shot/killed in jolly old england with illegal firearms...hmmm, do they actually prosecute users of illegal firearms that uae them in the commission of a crime? One must wonder based on the new reports coming from the queensland...

 

[Scouse]

Ltriker, mind if I ask where you read that 'bout knives having to have the points ground off? Only reason I ask is that that is most definitely not true.

There is a mandatory 5-year minimum sentence for having anything to do with an illegal firearm or ammunition. Actually using one for a crime will get you sent down for a lot of years. Generally prison sentences in the UK tend to be a bit shorter than in the USA for many things, particularly drug related things; but whereas you can have firearms misdemeanour offences with little more than a slap on the wrists, in the UK if you mess with illegal guns and get caught you go to prison for a substantial stretch.

 

[Robk]

A while back I was watching a documentary on crime in England. They were interviewing a thug who had been arrested over 100 times. Never did any serious time as all his offenses were "petty" crimes. You know, beating the crap out of people for the hell of it and robbing them as an after thought. But if he only spent a couple of days in the slam, well maybe it was worth it?? We would have labeled him a habitual criminal and had him locked up for good by now. Talked to a woman who has had her car stolen twice and a purse stolen right from her front hall way while she was at home. She forgot to lock the door. So if the crime is not violent, than its O.K., right. They said that in the cities people just lived with petty theft. It was normal. Normal??!! Guess that's the differnece between us and them.

Got slightly off topic, but how would you feel about the police when you just got your ass kicked and robbed, than when they catch the SOB, he spends the night in lock up and gets released the next morning. Oh and good thing you didn't defend yourself, as you would be in the lock up right next to him.

 

[BlueTrain]

If you read about every homicide in the UK, you'd read about two a day. For the United States, admittedly a much larger country, you'd read about 45 a day.

 

[CUBAN REDNECK]

Not Just in the UK

Iceland also has unarmed police, save for special units. These policemen are regularly mocked and get things thrown at them in demos by agitators and anarchists. Police work is difficult, especially if you are a victim of PC promulgated lunacy. Anyone who wears a badge and does not carry a firearm is either really brave or really stupid. Sean Connery said it best in THE UNTOUCHABLES, " Carry a badge? Carry a gun!"

 

[aarondhgraham]

The British governing class is not concerned with justice,,,

They are concerned with maintaining order.

In the name of maintaining order they will severely curtail the civil liberties that we Americans hold so dear to our hearts.

If someone fights back against a criminal,,,
They are defying that desired orderly behavior.

This is not restricted to our British cousins,,,
Look at what is happening (or has already happened) in California.

British police policy has been indoctrinated by several generations of creeping socialism,,,
And in a socialistic environment the individual isn't important,,,
Maintaining the social order is their only real goal,,,
Individuals must sacrifice for that greater good,,,
Or be sacrificed for societal good if necessary.

In a way it's like the Zero Tolerance policies we see in our schools,,,
It's easier to suspend a student for having a McDonald's plastic knife in their bookbag,,,
Than it is to write sane policies that allow for the individual judges to interpret and apply the intent of the law.

When you have that many people concentrated in that small an area,,,
Tight control of the populace becomes the prime directive,,,
They feel they simply can not allow any self defense,,,
Because if one is allowed to disturb societal order,,,
The rest of the population might decide to follow.

Sad but true,,,

Aarond

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Sean Connery said it best in THE UNTOUCHABLES, " Carry a badge? Carry a gun!"

Just to keep it straight, the character of Jim Malone said that. Sean Connery might have played Jim Malone, but Sean Connery, being anti gun, isn't likely to hold that opinion.

Malone: You, you carry a badge?
Agent Oscar Wallace: Yes?
Malone: [gives him a shotgun] Carry a gun.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094226/quotes?qt=qt1199410

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I would like the thread not divert into WWII strategy - interesting as it is.

Also, let's cut out the blood thirsty Darwnian stuff - not our style.

That's a hint.

 

[Buzzcook]

Personally I think making it more difficult for police to use force and arrest people is a good thing.
I also think that being unafraid of the police enough to give them some lip or push back is a good thing.

As far as WWII is concerned, that was then this is now. The shoes of the greatest generation are too big for the current crop to fill. Living in the reflected glory of others doesn't get the chores done.

 

[Scouse]

Apologies for rising to the WWII bait there then . . . couldn't help myself.

I think the problems in terms of weak sentencing and a wrong headed approach to serious crime in the British judicial systems are a little overstated. It seems likely that the only things that get reported in the USA on this will be the travesties of justice that occasionally take place, but they take place everywhere and do not necessarily reflect the general realities of the system.

Thats not to say problems are not there, 'cos they are. Seeing what are basically scum with a record as long as your arm come out of prison to reoffend AGAIN is disgusting. At the same time though, an equivalent to US three strike rules would not go down well in the UK; I don't believe the legislation would ever get through, and most people would probably be happy with that.

Buzzcock - when the police overstep the mark, like when they start battering people peacefully protesting against government policy, I 100% agree. At the same time that only goes for normal people who are being unfairly treated and having their liberties infringed by the police; when criminal types start messing with them, I am quite happy to see the police smack them . . . if only it could be left at that and not damage the professional culture of the police.

Also, this idea that we don't have legal self defense anymore is off. It is a bit different to in the USA, though the principle is the same it tends to be interpreted a little more conservatively in the UK. For example, we have no castle doctrine equivalents; basically the law says that self defense must be 'proportional and reasonable'. Of course that is entirely subjective, which leads to situations which are obviously ridiculous when judges make crazy decisions; but most of the time the law is interpreted sensibly.

Just a bit of an anecdote from recently: mate of mine was walking down the street minding his own business, some idiot grabs his headphones, mate punches him, he drops (wrong lad to mess with, and obviously from looking at him, dunno what the guy was thinking). Turns out a police car was turning into the street and they saw it. They gave the law abiding fella a pat on the back, bruised knuckle and all and arrested the lowlife who tried to rob him, borderline concussion and all. . . so yano, its not necessarily as crazy as people seem to think.

 

[Boberama]

Yeah, but I have to admire the altruism of the British police, in some ways.

There's something less....alarming....about police officers without guns.



Imagine a little English village by the sea. Cops with Glocks don't "fit".



Also, very few British have guns, including criminals.

Just my $0.00

 

[ClydeFrog]

LAPD-SWAT; Speed(1994), 1911a1 .45acp sidearms...

Not to be a Neddy Nitpicker but....

The Los Angeles police dept SWAT unit was set up in the early/mid 1960s.

SWAT cops & other sworn officers/detectives packed 1911a1 single action .45 pistols YEARS before the BoA-North Hollywood event(1997).
If you watch closely in action films like Speed(1994, www.IMFdb.org ), you'll see LAPD SWAT officers using 1911a1 pistols with the "old school" Surefire white lights.
In fairness, the .45acp caliber was more accepted in SoCal after the BoA-North Hollywood shooting but that incident was NOT the main reason why SWAT or any other spec ops unit used a 1911a1 or a .45acp duty sidearm.

The Glock 21 & S&W model 4506 got more street cred too.

ClydeFrog

 

[Sweet Shooter]

Our thugs are tougher than your thugs nonsense.

I think it's all a lot more simple than this thread speculates. People will fight with whatever comes to hand, and kill if necessary, and of course often by mistake.

People wearing uniforms get no reprieve and actually present a more visible target. I'm British now living in the US for over 15 years, and I can tell you regarding violence/fights that it's not the club, but the swing. A bar fight in the UK can get you a face full of glass, some pubs now won't have glasses for that reason, and the police will turn up late if at all (same as in America). I have seen more fights since I've been working in bars in the US (I'm a musician) but nowhere near as violent and desperate as those my brothers enjoy.

I would say the LEOs are no differently respected/liked/despised here than there. People are the same the world over... good and bad.

Also regarding America saving Britain during the war—tchsssk! an argument that makes my blood race. It's the proverbial stuck pickle jar lid, it always makes you look good when it comes off for you, when actually you're the only one left with clean, dry hands. It's not about who wins the war per se, it's who really fights it when it needs to be fought.

And we didn't have our guns taken off us. We gave them away like lambs to the slaughter, because they were not important to the greatest part of the culture. Not something I personally condone, but hey, I live here now.

 

[shaunpain]

My father just retired, but taught math in England for some time in the mid-1970's. What did he have to say about it?

Cold, rainy, and rude.

I live in a large city and have dealt with fish from across the pond... I'm sure there are lots of nice UK'ers around the globe. I haven't met one Brit that was a nice person in all my years in service and tourism. Seriously, everything about societal mores and respect that we value in this country are non-existent to them. You can't even try to argue with them, they just weren't raised the same way. "Guns are bad. Countries rich in resources should be colonized and plundered. The English are righteously pompous, distinguished, and entitled. It's okay to be selfish and only care about yourself." I swear, if you didn't fart out 2 or so good films a year I don't think I'd have any respect for your country at all.

My mother is from Japan and no, they do not carry guns there unless in the military or special units. Is crime prevalent? You better believe it. Tokyo and Osaka are wrought with Yakuza or otherwise gang-related crime (Triads, etc) and there are pictures/stories galore on the internet for you to see just how exasperatingly ineffective their police force is. There will be a picture of 20 gang members beating the **** out of people at parades with knives and clubs. One of my family members there simply scuffed up a Yakuza car in a traffic altercation... He was forced, upon threat of death, to pay $100k. You think the police would/could do anything about it?

I live in a big city with crappy cops. Not one time has an officer of the law ever helped me with a case I had ongoing or even given me adequete directions to any destination. I've met nice cops, but most are completely and utterly useless on the tax dime. Maybe not in a small town, but in a big city this is just how it is.

Case in point? There is a breakdown everywhere. I respect LE anywhere I go, but that must be taken with a grain of salt. They are humans, they probably suck at their job just like everyone else (the girl ignoring you on her phone at the doctor's office included), and they have no intrinsic or personal interest in helping you with your problem. I've armed myself. That's all I have. The minute they take that away? Well, you might as well turn it on yourself.

Oh, and I hear the weather is nicer in Puerto Rico year 'round anyway

Cheers

 

[Miami_JBT]

Posted by Scouse

I have never really understood some of the institutional responses to the North Hollywood and Miami shootouts . . . I am fairly sure I am correct in thinking that .45 acp is as bad if not worse than 9x19mm at dealing with armoured opponents (at least loadings and bullets exist in 9x19mm specifically adapted for that). Likewise trying to learn lessons about the effectiveness of law enforcement officers mostly armed with handguns, from a horrendous experience of fighting two highly motivated individuals with military experience who significantly outgunned them, like in Miami seems rather strange. This is the case particularly when the officers knew they would be attempting to arrest highly dangerous and well armed men; in which case they should really never have allowed themselves to be outgunned. Well, thats how it looks to me anyway.

The Miami Shootout (I have personal experience with that shooting.... it happened right next to my grandparents house and I was a wee baby then and my Father was a responding officer to that scene) and the North Hollywood Shootout weren't major learning points for American Law Enforcement just because of the arms used.

It was a major learning point in the mindset and training of law enforcement. It led to the development of better ammunition and better tactics. Now most officers carry a semi-automatic with a good 3rd or 4th Gen JHP, a patrol rifle, and a shotgun.

Before the fallout of the Miami FBI Shootout. Most cops were armed with a .38 Special 158gr RLN and two speed loaders. North Hollywood further pushed that patrol rifles are needed and should not be a SWAT only tool.

A good agency will have their cops trained in room clearing, CQB, and cover vs concealment.

It pushed the idea that simply shooting 40 rounds a year at a piece of paper doesn't qualify any more as good training.

 

[Scouse]

Miami JBT - Clearly you know a whole lot more than I do about it, fair play, that all makes a lot of sense re. carrying higher capacity arms, more realistic training and giving patrol officers greater access to more firepower for those sorts of situations. I guess my knowledge of the 'institutional responses' I harped on about previously was a bit limited!

Shaunpain - Mate obviously we can only go on our own experiences ultimately, but you are being way unfair on a whole country of people. You say you are sure there are some nice ''UK'ers'', then go on to make sweeping, derogatory judgements about us all. The fundamental values of the UK and its people are just fine thanks, perhaps visit before declaring otherwise. As for colonialism, for various reasons we just did it better than everyone else for a fairly brief blip of history, we don't do it any more, and no one thinks its acceptable any more, if you knew much about the UK you would know that perfectly well. Half the Americans I met before I actually went there were loud and obnoxious (maybe like the British people YOU have met have been arrogant etc). . . but I didn't decide that made it fine to make the kind of judgements you do about an entire country. Then I visited, now I love the place and plan to be there again before the end of the year. You get idiots everywhere, speaking every kind of language, in every kind of culture, its childish to decide they represent their whole country.