[eye30]

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.

[meehalych]

Has this made international news?

no 
not in Russia as far as I know

[asathorny]

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> 

[Asterix]

It's in our e-newspaper today.

So sad. 

[Dazzler]

That is absolutely awful.. 

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 

[AlanHo]

An absolute tragedy

Now brace yourself for the cries of "bring back the death penalty".

[Phil №❶]

Just doing their jobs too, poor souls RIP 

[Lester]

Yes, made our news. Tragic incident, Rest in Peace, you have done your duty.

[Doggie 1]

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.

[AlanHo]

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.,

[AlanHo]

As predicted........

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19643846

[Shambles]

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.

[Doggie 1]

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.

[asathorny]

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

[Phil №❶]

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 

[Doggie 1]

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.

[bumpkin]

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

[Doggie 1]

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.

[Phil №❶]

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. 

[Doggie 1]

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. 

Thank you.

[bumpkin]

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

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.

[Doggie 1]

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

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."

[Phil №❶]

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.

[Dazzler]

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 .. 

[Surferdude]

^^^
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.

[Surferdude]

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.

[Doggie 1]

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.

[asathorny]

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

[Doggie 1]

I agree, except today you have two dead, innocent police women.

[2i30s]

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.    sorry Dave,but I'm just being honest.    my condolances to the officers families.