With so many shootings, you'd thinks the police would busy chasing down criminals, in facts, they are constantly chasing little criminals like the Hot Dog sellers, cyclists in the Park and street flower sellers.
A lawyer friend of mine was surrounded by 25 policemen in London for using his video camera near buckingham palace! A policeman had wrongly told him to stop filming. He kept on and 25 police officer surrounded him and questionned him for 40 minutes for apparently being a terrorism threat... Please note that my friends is a blue eyed man with spiky blond hair and tight jeans, a typical indie kid!
I can tell you that they weren't happy when at the end of this questionning my friend also told them that with such missuse of counter terrorism ressources it was just a matter of time before somebody manages to do something really bad.
Please, spare me the paperwork excuses... If they had to do paperwork for arresting real criminals, London would be a safer place!
2007-09-16 08:40:49 · 19 answers · asked by gumtrunk 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
I can understand the "TARGET" excuses but one will happen if a policeman doesn't fufill his and arrest a small number of people who are REAL criminals? I doubt he would be fired!
About the FIREARMS excuses: the crack dealers down the street never carry firearms, they can barely walk straight! It would take a clever policeman to make an arrest there and without the need of a gun!
2007-09-16 09:02:14 · update #1
I can understand the "TARGET" excuses but what will happen if a policeman doesn't fufill his and arrest a small number of people who are REAL criminals? I doubt he would be fired!
About the FIREARMS excuses: the crack dealers down the street never carry firearms, they can barely walk straight! It would take a clever policeman to make an arrest there and without the need of a gun!
2007-09-16 09:03:35 · update #2
I agree, limited resources should be targetted, but there will be those who say a crime is a crime and they want a zero tolerance approach. I don't think the Great British public want to spend thousands on getting a student an unconditional discharge for putting her feet on the seat on a train, while people are going around shooting each other. Priorities!!
2007-09-16 08:48:31 · answer #1 · answered by Phil McCracken 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
1
2016-06-11 21:14:05 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Firts of all police forces have various departments for various roles.
CID will investigate the shootings that you talk about.
For every shooting there will be thousands of minor crimes. If people complain about these minor crimes the police are obliged to investigate and deal with them.
Officers on the beat will deal with the majority of minor crimes.
Not too many years ago the government introduced NCRS (National Crime Recording Standards), which was allegedly introduced to give an accurate picture of what crime was being committed. They wanted officers to record all crimes, whether there was a complaint or not. Previously any crimes where there was no complaint was recorded as a few lines in the officers notebook..... something to the effect that they did not wish to complain, followed by a signature. The officer was then free to go to other jobs or patrol. Now officers have to investigate those offences, including interviewing the suspect and filling out crime reports. This clearly takes a lot longer than a few lines in a notebook. Multiply this by several per day and the officer is tied up dealing with jobs that are never destined to go further than being a paper exercise.
Let me also enlighten you that many drug dealers have access to firearms. The ones you see (drugged up) will be the lowest of low in the scale of things. Many dealers don't even touch the stuff.
2007-09-17 09:28:26 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
It is for the votes and politics easy way to gain them in arresting or questioning people like you. I really think the police are scared to arrest not as fault of them but the do gooders out there & the Law Courts so they bully the easy targets. Why do u think motorists get a hard time? (easy money.) Also does it really matter if the police let a few drug dealers shoot each other? They are only really concerned if an innocent person gets involved then they come down hard.
2007-09-17 09:36:23 · answer #4 · answered by A . Z . 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The fuzz are right to concentrate on small crimes. Stopping someone riding their bicycle on the pavement can often result in stopping the very criminal you were looking for. Same with stopping cars are random and doing breath tests. Such things should continue to happen. Never know, the next car may have a boot/trunk full of cocaine.
Keep up the good work.
London fuzz supporter.
2007-09-17 20:02:45 · answer #5 · answered by Dragoner 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The government sets targets which chief police officers have to meet. One of those is the dreaded clear-up rate. You get one clear-up for formally warning somebody with a speck of cannabis. You get one clear-up for charging somebody with possession of 1 kg of cannabis (before people start bleating that that's possession with intent to supply, no, it's not unless you've got other evidence). As far as the government is concerned the offences are the same. Another example, based on fact is a suspect who is renowned as a major drug dealer, involved in several shootings. Despite best efforts, murder units and drug squads could never proved it. In amongst his criminal activities, he assaulted his girlfriend. Police persuaded her to tell all and, as a result of a 3 month investigation, he is currently facing charges of multiple rape, kidnap, GBH and ABH on her. This counts (due to the ridiculous counting rules) as much as a caution for a man pushing his wife onto the sofa during a row.
If you were a chief officer, what would you do?
2007-09-16 09:05:04 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because it puts their clear-up rate up without using all their budget. Big crimes are generally harder and more expensive to investigate and unless the CPS is 99% sure of a conviction they don't even allow a prosecution. The police are just as frustrated as everyone else about it. They have to work with their hands tied behind their backs these days and make political decisions instead of moral ones.
2007-09-16 11:48:26 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Un-licensed hot dog carts and flower sellers are easier to track down than your average Bin-Laden wannabe. They have targets to keep to you know. If all they ever did was solve serious crime then they would never hit target! They need a few easy ones to make the numbers look good
2007-09-16 23:29:02 · answer #8 · answered by Big kid 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Thats because a firearm ban was placed in Britain and not even their patrol police can carry guns, so special tactical units have to be deployed for every shooting, and the reguler bobbies are defenseless and can only deal with small matters. As for the criminals they get firearms easily from a black market. Thats whats happens when firearms go under prohabition.
2007-09-16 08:54:27 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
if you remember in New York a few years ago, the police targeted small time crooks on the streets which in the long run let to the bigger crims,i feel the justice system needs looking at though as crims are going to court and getting a slap on the wrist instead of a long prison sentence, if somebody gets 5yrs they are out after about 3, scrap the remission and if they are good in prison let them out after the 5 and if they are not good add time on that would be better
2007-09-16 20:16:08 · answer #10 · answered by denco26 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋