i30 Owners Club
OFF TOPIC => WORLD NEWS => General => Topic started by: eye30 on September 18, 2012, 18:03:34
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19635239 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19635239)
Two unarmed female police officers have been killed in a gun and grenade attack in Greater Manchester, which led to the arrest of a wanted man.
-
Has this made international news?
no :undecided:
not in Russia as far as I know
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19635239 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19635239)
Two unarmed female police officers have been killed in a gun and grenade attack in Greater Manchester, which led to the arrest of a wanted man.
Unbelievable.... shocking, awful <sigh>
-
It's in our e-newspaper today.
So sad. :disapp:
-
That is absolutely awful.. :disapp:
We missed last nights news went out for a meal .. But I reckon it would be covered over here.
Something that bad usually would be :undecided:
-
An absolute tragedy
Now brace yourself for the cries of "bring back the death penalty".
-
Just doing their jobs too, poor souls RIP :disapp:
-
Yes, made our news. Tragic incident, Rest in Peace, you have done your duty.
-
Yes, it made our news.
RIP colleagues.
Over here they would have at least have been armed.
I can't believe the UK still allows it police officers to go unarmed.
-
Yes, it made our news.
RIP colleagues.
Over here they would have at least have been armed.
I can't believe the UK still allows it police officers to go unarmed.
The theory about policing in the UK is that it is best done with the consent and cooperation of the population. Officers are more likely to be able to do their job if they are accepted as "one of us" and accepted as there to look after us.
As soon as they don body armour and carry guns - they become "one of them" - sent to rule over us. This invokes hostility and they can no longer rely on the willing cooperation of the subjugated population.
I may not have explained that very well - but put it this way. I am more likely to cooperate with and help a law enforcement officer who I feel is just doing his legal duty to help people - rather that what I see as an armed thug sent to rule over me.,
-
As predicted........
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19643846 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19643846)
-
As predicted........
But not just for the killing of Police officers - if it returns (subject of another debate on here?) it should be a "shadow of the gallows" for all murderers.
-
Yes, it made our news.
RIP colleagues.
Over here they would have at least have been armed.
I can't believe the UK still allows it police officers to go unarmed.
The theory about policing in the UK is that it is best done with the consent and cooperation of the population. Officers are more likely to be able to do their job if they are accepted as "one of us" and accepted as there to look after us.
As soon as they don body armour and carry guns - they become "one of them" - sent to rule over us. This invokes hostility and they can no longer rely on the willing cooperation of the subjugated population.
I may not have explained that very well - but put it this way. I am more likely to cooperate with and help a law enforcement officer who I feel is just doing his legal duty to help people - rather that what I see as an armed thug sent to rule over me.,
Thanks Alan. With all due respect, Britain needs to bring itself into the reality of the 21st century and each person needs to ask themselves whether they would be willing to do that job themselves, or send their own son or daughter in to do that job, unarmed.
I am not talking about a (perceived) U.S. style "all guns blazing" approach, but a commonsense approach where law enforcement officers are protected and properly equipped to do their job.
I think it is totally inexcusable to allow frontline police officers in Britain in today's world to face these thugs and low-life criminals whilst armed with an ever-so-deadly baton.
It is just ludicrous.
The days of the nice friendly English bobby belong in the sixties when we didn't have the ever-present threat of terrorist attacks, drug-affected lunatics and heavily armed criminals.
In Australia, gernerally speaking, most people still have respect for police and do not view the police as armed thugs.
-
Yes, it made our news.
RIP colleagues.
Over here they would have at least have been armed.
I can't believe the UK still allows it police officers to go unarmed.
The theory about policing in the UK is that it is best done with the consent and cooperation of the population. Officers are more likely to be able to do their job if they are accepted as "one of us" and accepted as there to look after us.
As soon as they don body armour and carry guns - they become "one of them" - sent to rule over us. This invokes hostility and they can no longer rely on the willing cooperation of the subjugated population.
I may not have explained that very well - but put it this way. I am more likely to cooperate with and help a law enforcement officer who I feel is just doing his legal duty to help people - rather that what I see as an armed thug sent to rule over me.,
Thanks Alan. With all due respect, Britain needs to bring itself into the reality of the 21st century and each person needs to ask themselves whether they would be willing to do that job themselves, or send their own son or daughter in to do that job, unarmed.
I am not talking about a (perceived) U.S. style "all guns blazing" approach, but a commonsense approach where law enforcement officers are protected and properly equipped to do their job.
I think it is totally inexcusable to allow frontline police officers in Britain in today's world to face these thugs and low-life criminals whilst armed with an ever-so-deadly baton.
It is just ludicrous.
The days of the nice friendly English bobby belong in the sixties when we didn't have the ever-present threat of terrorist attacks, drug-affected lunatics and heavily armed criminals.
In Australia, gernerally speaking, most people still have respect for police and do not view the police as armed thugs.
MMMMMmm you may not be aware of this, BUT, there are still a majority of police officers in the UK who do *NOT* want to carry guns as a regular part of their equipment. As for joining the 21 century, well, this all depends on your view of what the 21st century is.
We do have armed response units permanently on the street ready to deal with firearms situation. In this case I doubt very very much if an armed officer had attended that it would have resolved any different to what it did. He used a gun and a grenade....... without for warning
-
The theory about policing in the UK is that it is best done with the consent and cooperation of the population. Officers are more likely to be able to do their job if they are accepted as "one of us" and accepted as there to look after us.
As soon as they don body armour and carry guns - they become "one of them" - sent to rule over us. This invokes hostility and they can no longer rely on the willing cooperation of the subjugated population.
I may not have explained that very well - but put it this way. I am more likely to cooperate with and help a law enforcement officer who I feel is just doing his legal duty to help people - rather that what I see as an armed thug sent to rule over me.,
So why is the logic of governments & senior police different in other countries eg here :undecided:
-
Maybe it would have helped.
Maybe it wouldn't.
But at least they might have stood half a chance.
Two police women who got up this morning and went to work and died for nothing.
Listen to what your PM said about what your police officers face every day.
I have no doubt that we will agree to disagree, but I will never accept that modern policing in western countries such as yours or ours should be undertaken whilst unarmed.
Never.
-
Extremely sad news :'(
I think that in the UK we are in the 21st century more than it appears, ten years ago police firearm units were actually pretty few and far between, now every constabulary has a unit and they are on the streets much more visibly than they were.
In this case I believe that it was a "honeytrap", there was no evidence from the call made that they were attending anything other than a "routine" incident and so the armed response units would not have been alerted, I think that we have that balance correct, we can't have armed police attending every incident, sometimes that would cause more harm than good IMO.
The biggest question around this one is that despite it being called as a routine incident, it was in an area where they are aware of ongoing serious problems and perhaps the management of the situation will be called into question (it has already been hinted at, but I think that more time immediately is being spent on allowing the families of the two officers in particular, time to absorb and come to terms with the tragedy of the day). Once this has happened I believe a full inquest will be held to determine if the managers made an error, even then I think it's bloody difficult to make that judgement call.
Unfortunately perhaps an outcome of any such enquiry will see a ramping up of armed police in this country, something I can see the point of but which leaves me feeling rather uncomfortable nevertheless :undecided:
-
I have no doubt that any inquiry will hang "management" out to dry as they look for a scapegoat.
But it doesn't alter the fact that everyone is expecting these people to do a job (of protecting you) without giving them (each, personally) the tools with which to defend themselves.
There is no use having armed units in the area when something unfolds.
I, and many others, have stopped cars with people and firearms on board.
It's no use having a "back-up" ten kilometres or ten minutes away. Zero use at all, just so that the public can feel all warm and fuzzy that their police don't carry guns.
It is just not on, IM (not so humble) O these days in modern policing.
-
Sorry, have to agree with db08 on this one. Police don't go blindly shooting weapons here like the wild west, but in Melbourne, there have been incidents where shooting was the only option. There is always an enquiry into these incidents and to fire a weapon in public in any state triggers an inquiry and a tonne of paperwork. I for one feel safer with armed police available and it can certainly tone down aggressive people. With the possibility of terrorist activities, police need all the tools available to them IMO. :neutral:
-
Sorry, have to agree with db08 on this one. Police don't go blindly shooting weapons here like the wild west, but in Melbourne, there have been incidents where shooting was the only option. There is always an enquiry into these incidents and to fire a weapon in public in any state triggers an inquiry and a tonne of paperwork. I for one feel safer with armed police available and it can certainly tone down aggressive people. With the possibility of terrorist activities, police need all the tools available to them IMO. :neutral:
Thank you.
-
My neighbours are very elderly (approaching their 90's) and unfortunately he has been getting very forgetful recently. So much so that he left the keys of his car hanging in the door the other week which were taken by an opportunist passing by. He simply forgot where his key was believing he had misplaced it in the house and went off out using the spare. This was at lunchtime. Approx. 9pm that night his car was taken by the opportunist and thrashed to death along the beachfront in Aberdeen.
The first he knew about it was when the police arrived at his door and when he looked over their shoulders realised his car was gone.
As a question do you think it would have been suitable for two armed police to be standing on a pensioners doorstep and requesting entry to their house to discuss this particular matter with them? I can't decide, I wonder how I would feel for example if it was my parents as I am sure it would scare the sh1t out of them :undecided: :undecided:
I completely see what you are saying, I just can't work out if the positives outweigh the negatives or vice-versa.
I also have no doubt that at some point the matter will be decided and we will finally have armed police as standard and then the debate will be closed.
-
My neighbours are very elderly (approaching their 90's) and unfortunately he has been getting very forgetful recently. So much so that he left the keys of his car hanging in the door the other week which were taken by an opportunist passing by. He simply forgot where his key was believing he had misplaced it in the house and went off out using the spare. This was at lunchtime. Approx. 9pm that night his car was taken by the opportunist and thrashed to death along the beachfront in Aberdeen.
The first he knew about it was when the police arrived at his door and when he looked over their shoulders realised his car was gone.
As a question do you think it would have been suitable for two armed police to be standing on a pensioners doorstep and requesting entry to their house to discuss this particular matter with them? I can't decide, I wonder how I would feel for example if it was my parents as I am sure it would scare the sh1t out of them :undecided: :undecided:
I completely see what you are saying, I just can't work out if the positives outweigh the negatives or vice-versa.
I also have no doubt that at some point the matter will be decided and we will finally have armed police as standard and then the debate will be closed.
I understand what you are saying. I do.
But our police attend those sorts of jobs hundreds of times a day and their guns are firmly hostered in their leather holsters and fastened away.
The elderly here would not think anything of it because they see our police every day and our frontline police carry firearms.
You can't see them unless you look for them and even then, you will only see the grip.
It doesn't stop our police from being friendly or compassionate when the need arises. It is the "norm."
-
My experience, and I've had some, is that the weapons are holstered, with a safety strap and relatively unobtrusive. Yes you can see thay are there but if they're not in the police(persons) hand then no harm done. Surely you've seen armoured guards delivering money in public, no one freaks out that they have guns, because they're not normally using them. If the scenario you described Bumpkin happened here in Adelaide, they would have guns and no one would be bothered in the least, it's just simply part of the uniform, like a radio. An entirely different thing if it's pointed at you though.
-
Looks like we are divided on Country lines because the last two replies from Phil and Dave are nearly word for word what I was thinking .. :goodjob:
-
^^^
As Dave has just said.
The other thing is that police have a Batman style "utility belt" these days. AFAIK it's the same in the UK. So they have things like handcuffs, maybe a nightstick, pepper spray, mobile phone and/or two way radio. One more item like a holstered gun showing only the but at the extremities of the strap, would hardly stand out.
I have to say, if two uniformed police knocked on my door I doubt I'd notice what items they had hanging on their belts.
I also agree they may not have helped in this particular instance but we'll never know now.
My commiserations to the victims' families and their workmates.
-
One further point. I can remember when Queensland police were unarmed and the changeover.
There was some opposition along the same lines of what is occuring on here but these days, it's just a part of the uniform.
-
The other point that should probably be mentioned here is that the firearms are a last resort.
Firstly you use your mouth.
Then, if necessary, you use you physical force.
Every frontline police officer is equipped with pepper spray.
Every officer has handcuffs.
Every officer has a long baton.
And every frontline officer is armed.
If it is at the point where a police officer is required to draw their firearm, then it is at a point where it is done for the preserverance of life (the police officer's or members of the public).
Police do not draw their firearms unless they are willing to follow through and use it and they do not draw their firearms lightly or with intent to maim or injure.
The only time you draw your firearm in this state is when you fear for your life or the lives of others and police officers here are trained in those circumstances to shoot to kill.
If it is deemed serious enough to shoot someone then you aim for the largest body mass with the intention of killing.
Otherwise, don't draw your firearm.
There have been many instances when offenders who have been shot are able to return fire and kill police or others.
You don't fire one round, you fire at least two.
And I say that to demonstarate that it is an absolute last resort that no police officer would ever want to have to do, believe me.
-
We all come from different scenarios don't we, our police have never been a semi military FORCE.... So we usually don't see the need for guns. In fact it is only about a year ago that during a training excersice *with guns* that one copper shot another copper dead....
Anyhow, you have cops with guns, we don't and we like it our way and you clearly like it your way... problem solved
-
I agree, except today you have two dead, innocent police women.
-
with respect too all police around the world,i work in a factory without people shooting at me for the same if not better pay,its not a job I'd do. :scared: sorry Dave,but I'm just being honest. :neutral: my condolances to the officers families. :blubber:
-
Understood.
And if an armed offender invades your factory tomorrow who will you call?
The Salvation Army?
No, it will be the police.
And if they were my officers I would want them adequately equipped to deal with the situation and save your lives whilst at the same time, being able to defend themselves.
-
Funnily enough, I am quite comforted that the police have guns. It make me feel that if the S**t hits the fan they have more chance of controlling the situation.. :undecided:
-
I have tremendous respect for all members of the force. Yes it's a job, but with the level of risk involved and the pay scale, these people have a genuine desire to help and assist the public, when things go terribly wrong. All police in all countries, strive to keep the community safe and work continuously to thwart organised crime. Not a popular job by anyone's standards, but I'm glad they're there.
-
I agree, I have tremendous respect for the police and would possibly go as far as to say that in the UK my generation are amongst the last to have that respect.
This has resulted in the terrible events such as yesterdays becoming more commonplace.
I don't think we are "divided", I think we see good and bad from both sides and have to admit that my own view is not helped by the fact that the automatic image which comes to mind when we mention armed police is those who have the LMG style weapon strapped around their bodies as has become the norm in our airports for example, certainly not a hidden weapon by any stretch of the imagination. A fully holstered handgun as described is potentially a different scenario completely and as mentioned attached to the utility belt along with all the other items would, as stated become accepted.
Interestingly I recall that much the same debate was held in this country when they introduced tasers, I can't be sure if they are still specialist units or if they are being increasingly rolled out, but certainly the furore surrounding police carrying tasers did cool down fairly quickly.
I guess the old skool amongst us constantly point to our old friend the USA when this discussion comes around and look at the stats which say despite their police force being prominently armed, the level and severity of crime has not diminished. What are the stats like for Australia in comparison?, to be honest I don't think I was even overly aware that all front line officers in Oz were armed.
I think there is a heavy belief in the UK that by arming our officers we are making them even more "fair game" for the low lives of society to have a pop at by whatever means they deem necessary and that kind of scares us :undecided:
-
Very understanding of you Bumpkin, I agree, I remember getting off a plane in Bahrain on the way to London 25 years ago, it was a confronting sight to see a guard with a military weapon in his hands and ready to use it on anyone misbehaving. I guess that any "lowlife" that wants to have a pop at an officer here knows he is likely to get a pop back and that tends to dissuade the people, bit like the cold war, deterrents.
-
I guess the old skool amongst us constantly point to our old friend the USA when this discussion comes around and look at the stats which say despite their police force being prominently armed, the level and severity of crime has not diminished. What are the stats like for Australia in comparison?, to be honest I don't think I was even overly aware that all front line officers in Oz were armed.
This is a good point. However I doubt any accurate stats can be quoted, for the simple reason that we can't be sure how much worse (or better) things would be if police weren't armed.
It's a bit like the old argument which says half of all advertising is wasted. So you could halve your advertising budget except no one knows "which half".
-
If it becomes common practice for each Police officer to have a gun then I believe that all crims will decide to arm themselves, even the petty crim.
As it is today only1 or 2 are armed and usually for the "hold job" but I can see this becoming the norm even with the petty theft.
Also, I can see ordinary law abiding people thinking "well I'll have to get a gun just in case I'm attacked when I'm out or even in my own property".
When I've been abroad and the Police have gun it doesn't make me feel any safer. In fact it is the opposite.
I feel safe here in the UK even when I've been out drinking in some of the so called bad areas of my home city.
-
I'm trying to feel a little guilt at starting this "conversation" with my post about armed police. But I'm not - so perhaps I should add to my argument.
I am not competent to talk about law enforcement in other countries - but in the UK I feel the lawlessness we face is more the result of soft sentencing and the fact that our prisons are more like a holiday camp than confinement as a punishment. Some of the judgements made for very serious crimes are totally unbelievable.
The public in general and the police in particular are being exposed to excessive danger because criminals no longer have any fear about the possible punishment. Why worry about going to prison - no matter how heinous the crime the death penalty cannot be applied and in the unlikely event you will be given a custodial sentence, you will get free meals, Sky TV, drugs and even sex unlimited. You only serve half of the time you are sentenced to, and you will get a discount on that if you are seen to be a good boy or the prisons are over -crowded.
It is my honest belief that the punishment should really fit the crime and anyone convicted of a premeditated murder or one involving knives or firearms should face a choice of the death penalty or be used for valuable medical experiments. Either way, society would enjoy some benefit. Either the scum bag would be dead and no longer a threat - or would be helping to develop new drugs that otherwise would take years to test using poor innocent monkeys or beagles.
We could even perfect hemorrhoid transplants.
-
It does make a change tho, I mean the trend of this thread. IN years gone past we, the Brits, would wander the world telling each country how they should run things, like the Brits do.
So, I suppose it's a refreshing change to hear the colonials telling us how we should do things :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Needless to say, we're not listening... :whistler: :whistler: :whistler: :whistler:
We have our fingers in our ears and we're shouting Lalalallalalalalallalalalaa aa :rofl: :rofl:
-
Very good ASA :snigger: (love it)
and Alan I so much agree with this and it applies over here too.. Guns or no Guns...
I feel the lawlessness we face is more the result of soft sentencing and the fact that our prisons are more like a holiday camp than confinement as a punishment. Some of the judgements made for very serious crimes are totally unbelievable.
The public in general and the police in particular are being exposed to excessive danger because criminals no longer have any fear about the possible punishment. Why worry about going to prison - no matter how heinous the crime the death penalty cannot be applied and in the unlikely event you will be given a custodial sentence, you will get free meals, Sky TV, drugs and even sex unlimited. You only serve half of the time you are sentenced to, and you will get a discount on that if you are seen to be a good boy or the prisons are over -crowded.
It is my honest belief that the punishment should really fit the crime ...
-
I am not competent to talk about law enforcement in other countries - but in the UK I feel the lawlessness we face is more the result of soft sentencing and the fact that our prisons are more like a holiday camp than confinement as a punishment. Some of the judgements made for very serious crimes are totally unbelievable.
I know Dazz has already commented on this but I wanted to add my agreement too.
This is a problem both our countries share.
And don't start me on all the resources employed to "rehabilitate" the offender while the victims and their families get virtually nothing by comparison.
IMO every magistrate and judge who doesn't apply a deserved sentence for crimes of violence is pretty much setting themselves up as an accomplice. (Now THERE's a controversial statement :evil:)
-
Well we've all drifted :offtopic: and although we have different opinions, it was a very interesting discussion. :neutral:
-
I really don't like to talk about my past, some good and bad memories. But I was a Police Officer in New South Wales, Australia, from 1967 to 2003, yes, 36 years, a fair innings. As all police in NSW had/have I had a personal firearm, firstly a Smith & Wesson .38 revolver and later on a Glock 17, automatic pistol. Suffice to say it was 'comforting to have,' sometimes. My feelings on arming all UK Police? I think it is time. Yes, I know quite a few UK police carry firearms on specilaist duties, I have been to UK Four times and have a friend in the police in Northampton, England.
Carry on chaps.
-
Thanks Lester we appreciate your feedback from an insider point of view :goodjob:
-
:whsaid: