Should the Police in the UK have the right to say they don't want to be armed?

Question

Should the Police in the UK have the right to say they don’t want to be armed?

In my view, NO. I think by refusing to be armed they are putting peoples lives in danger. The standard policy of the Police when dealing with an incident possibly involving a knife or a gun is to observe from a safe distance but not to intervene. The are required to wait for an armed response vehicle to attend before taking any action. This can take from 15 to 45 mins to arrive depending on the area. In my view this is not providing the best service to the public who require an instant response by police equipped to deal with any situation.

A real life example: There was a case sometime ago where a women who had been stabbed died because the Police refused to let paramedics go into the flat until the armed response vehicle arrived 40 mins later. This was despite the women pleading with the emergency operator that the person who stabbed her had left the area.

BERT. You make some very good points and I have heard the argument the Police use. However, I dont agree with them. Gun crime is on a major increase at the moment and it will continue to rise whether they have guns or not. They need to have the tools to protect the public. I think the current policy of watch and report is very unfair to all of us.

Answer 1

I guess I am qualified to answer this. I was a police officer in London for 30 years and am somewhat unique in that I was both shot and stabbed. I was trained to use a firearm for over 20 years.

There are several different issues here, one of which is that we select police officers based on certain criteria, none of which is their ability to use a firearm. It therefore goes without saying that many serving officers, if not most, will not have the skills (either practical or emotional) to be armed. We do NOT recruit people into our police forces in order for them to kill our fellow countrymen.

(As far as one of the other contributors to this answer is concerned, just about the only "accidental" shooting was of Charles de Menezes, and we all know WHY he was shot. I think everyone in the police understands that that was a terrible mistake, but the mistake was not made by the firearms officer, who acted (a) in good faith and (b) in the belief that he was protecting the lives of many other Londoners when he fired his shots. There are several other controversial ones, but unfortunately all you ever read are headlines without knowing the full substance behind the stories.

However, the most pressing argument against officers being routinely armed is this: at present officers attend many incidents where physical contact is involved; pub fights, domestic arguments, theft, assault; whatever you can possibly think of where, ultimately, the police officer and the alleged criminal come into physical contact.

At present, in the vast majority of instances, such physical contact results in a peaceful arrest or solution to the dispute. In a few it involves a scuffle or worse. Rarely, if ever, does it involve a confrontation by the officer with a lethal weapon, for the very simple reason that most people do not carry such weapons.

However, arm EVERY police officer and the difference is apparent. Every single time a member of the public comes into contact with a police officer he or she has the opportunity to become an armed criminal by the very simple expedient of overpowering the officer.

Many of our new breed of officers are of very slight build - the smallest I ever saw (I left in 1998) was a 4'10" girl at Brixton, who was the same size as a 12-year-old girl. It takes very little imagination to see how just about anyone could get her gun off her.

Thus, with every officer armed, every single incident they ever attend has the potential to become an armed incident. This would require a profound change of policing practice which would be only of benefit to the police officers, who would be duty bound to protect themselves, and of no benefit whatsoever to the public who they serve. Officers would have to become very aloof and distant. That is the total antithesis of what we expect in a British police officer.

What we DO need is an armed response that is available at very short notice - it was always my view that the system that I left was nowhere near good enough. I understand that armed officers are more readily available nowadays.

The other measure that could be taken to protect society (including police officers) from armed criminals is a robust sentencing policy (which we aren't going to see). In my view, anyone arrested for carrying a knife unlawfully should go to court in the first instance. If convicted they should receive a custodial sentence of 12 months without remission.

Similarly, anyone convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm should receive an immediate custodial sentence of 14 years imprisonment.

Finally, in your example of the house where the shooting took place, the decision not to enter was nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not the officers were armed. It was a very poor management decision by a senior officer.

Unfortunately, in these days of liberal academic senior officers, many of whom are selected to fill some sort of quota, such poor decisions will become less rare. To paraphrase the old footballing joke: they are great on paper, but sh1t at police work.

Answer 2

Of course the police have a right to say whether or not they want to carry firearms. Police are asked on a regular basis by a national questionnaire published by the federation. In the Met the answer was that more officers than not wanted to carry firearms but because it was a national question and lets say Devon Cornwall don't have as many incidents metropolitan forces were over ruled.

If you are a regular on this part of ANSWERS you will read Human RIGHTS banded about. Article 2 is the right to life. lets deal with the above when a female has been shot. Right to life that is everybody at the scene. Police officers are not allowed to put anybody life above another. IE criminal, victim, police officer, member of the public, ambulance crew. The reason that crew was not allowed to enter the danger area was because the officers at the scene felt that going to give first aid would put the crew in mortal danger. No it does not seem fair, but there would have been a real fear that instead of 1 victim there would have been 3 or more.

Tactis are being reviewed all the time and yes response times are not always as fast as would be liked.

the general attitude is that if a police officer pulls the trigger something must have gone wrong, we have to move away from this, yes mistakes have been made The press only report incidents that appear to be wrong. I could tell you of a fair few incidents when the trigger has been pulled for the right reason and you won't have heard of those. The press are liars they want to make news not report the truth.

Answer 3

No. The police themselves do not want to be armed. there are a range of historic causes for this and arming the police will replace perpetually the relationship between the known public [the pay masters] and the police. the relationship between public and police right here in uk is magnificent. right here in uk we've policing through consent. If the Bobby on the beat right here in uk were to be armed, then i think some thing would were lost and lost perpetually. No to arming the police on the beat. I have a image c1850, downloaded from the web, of a Bow street Runner, a Peeler an elementary London Copper. he's wearing a pragmatic uniform [black] with silver buttons in a unmarried row down the front of his tunic. he's wearing a excellent hat [probable made from iron with a fabric masking]. he's likewise wearing white gloves. He has no truncheon or the different weapon of defence that i will ascertain.

Answer 4

I think they should have the choice. i for one would not like to see all officers with guns, it would increase the gun culture with everyone else as the criminals will feel like they should have a fair fight. you have given one example of having to wait for an armed unit when in reality there is probably a lot more detail to it and a very rare occurrence. armed response vehicles are continuously patrolling and covering every area where i live and they are often the first on the scene for many incidents even when not firearms related as they are also trained medics. my partner, dad and many friends are police officers and i work for the police and i can safely say i would not want any of them carrying guns unless they have joined the specialist units. you see any American cop show where its a routine stop check and they already have their guns out, is that what you want it to be like here? because i certainly do not. unfortunately there is a lot more to the argument than the one example people can provide. unfortunately you will very rarely see the good headlines in the paper where the system is working but you always see the once in a blue moon headline where the system has failed.

Answer 5

I am a serving Police Officer in the Met and I agree with everything that Essex Ron has said. However, people must understand that the rise in gun crime over the past ten years has been massive. The gun culture in inner cities is out of control, so ultimately, something must change. Whether that means more ARV's, harsher sentencing, better education, I don't know, but something must change. It quite simply is not safe anymore to be an unarmed PC on the street.
Personally, I think tazers should be considered as an option. A stick and a small spray that never seems to work is not practicle for 21st Century London.

Answer 6

I completely agree with Essex Ron, To arm police would escalate gun crime in this country. How many American police officers have been shot with their own guns after a struggle.

If there ever came a time where it had to happen, then the officer should still be given the right to be unarmed.

There should be more firearms officers as response times can be low but it must be remembered ALL firearms officers MUST serve for a number of years and go though lots of additional training (which takes them off active duty for some time). I think that Tazers should be issued to every officer that wants to carry one, but this again needs extensive training.

As for that Stalin comment, Stalin killed millions you ignorant **. Next time you get shot at or stabbed I hope that the armed response team are dealing with something more important, like some paperwork perhaps?

Answer 7

I think that your view is a valid one but floored in many respects as are a few comments made before this one.

Firstly the police do a great job in this country and they are the ones on the front line day in day out, not you so surley they have the larger right to chose.

the police not being armed has never hurt anyone. it is always the criminal that makes the choice to hurt people.

the police sign up for an unarmed service. they shouldn't be forced to carry fire arms.

at the end of the day even if you make some one carry a gun it does meen they will use it.

you have to bear in mind thatb if you are goign to shoot some one it has to be shoot to kill. once youn pull the trigger there is no way back. it is easy to say arm them so they can kill people when it is not you having to do the killing.

if you arm the police instead of a growing number of criminals carrying guns all will.

if i wanted to live in an armed state i would ove to one. we should do more to cut out gun crime than we do and not arm the police

Answer 8

. The British Constabulary has done a very good job without being armed for many years. They have depended on community ties, which are actively cultivated by every rank of policeman, to establish their role and effectiveness. The UK does not have the gun-toting culture which the US has, which makes it necessary for US policemen to be armed.
. Knife wielding felons do not make much of a case for the police carrying guns. Knives have a fairly short range. It really is sufficient to stay beyond arm's length to avoid the knife. In the event of a knife wielding assailant grabbing a citizen and displaying intent to use the knife immediately, a British policeman WOULD risk injury to protect the innocent. They consider it part of the job. And the possession of firearms by police does not prevent such knife assaults here in the US.
. To a large degree, UK criminals rely on their feet and their fists to get them through their crimes. If the police carried guns, the criminals would be more likely to also carry guns. I'm not saying that approach would work here in the US. I am sure that it would not.
. If the culture in the UK changes such that there are a significant number of miscreants carrying guns, the police will adapt their policies to fit the situation. I believe that their current policies fit their current situation.

Answer 9

I think their input should be listened to carefully, after all, they are the ones on the front line of both preventing and responding to crime in general.
Their argument is that if the police are routinely armed, then the criminals will make sure they are too. This would escalate gun crime putting society more and not less at risk from injury. All the examples we have from around the world support this.
I agree that the response team should be faster when needed. But also bear in mind a lot more British police are now armed than you might think. Their weapons should not be visible when in public and the rules of engagement remain very tight so that all other avenues of persuasion must be exhausted first.
When the police resort to guns, that's when they make mistakes and further isolate themselves from the public they are ultimately meant to protect.

Answer 10

personally i feel most police should not have guns it should be left to the ones with added training i will add that perhaps there could be more armed police but id rather there were more police with non lethal deterrents to deal with criminals, they should be allowed to protect themselves but most people don't want to kill people even by accident, guns are just too lethal and if police officer kills by mistake they are in trouble if they have a non lethal stun gun they just get a telling off if they use it on an innocent, so armed with stun guns or mace yes armed with lethal weapons no - if the time comes for proper weapons id rather wait 30 minutes and complain than find out an officer was in tears and in jail cos he shot a 12 year old with a potatoe gun thinking it was the real thing