[Closed] Terrorism

ninfan - Member
Btw your assertion that 3 out of 4 last attacks would have been stopped ...
No, it's a matter of fact that three out of the last four attacks were stopped by armed police

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_June_2017

I've genuinely lost track of what ninfan wants. Looking at the last couple of pages and who/what he's throwing around as an insult it seems that he wants:

1, No more police for investigating
2, More police with guns (preferably all of them)

So if this is accurate does he just want to allow more plots to come to fruition and then gun the attackers down in the streets rather than find them and stop them before they crash a van into people out to have a drink and a meal?

I haven't read the entire thread so apologies if this has been raised. I'm a cop and have worked predominantly in cid or plain clothes for over 20 years, including almost 10 years in our forces major incident team. I know probably 20-30 cops who have applied for armed response unit roles during that time and of those, I think 5 or 6 have passed the course which consists of a lot more than just firing a gun in a shooting range. Of those 5 or 6 I know two people who despite passing, backed out when it came to actually committing to the role as they didn't feel it was for them. I have no desire to be armed and those who I know who openly express the view that we should be are a tiny minority and they are the ones who I definitely would not want to be given access to a firearm.

Are we to consider lowering the required standards for all of these armed officers?

Are we to consider lowering the required standards for all of these armed officers?

Sounds like we would have to, along with massive assumption that everyone is capable of actually sooting someone. Takes an a certain mindset to be able to actually shoot someone with intention of killing. Many soldiers can't do it when it comes down to it which I guess is one of the reasons behind those people you know backing out

Politically correct bedwetters in charge of the police may disagree

Says the man with subscription to Stormfront and a box of tissues by his bed

Is that a Walter Mitty way of saying you are a store detective or CCTV operator?

Ah, as usual - right wing delusional gun freaks with control issues and low self esteem see they are losing the argument so resort to personal abuse and character attacks 🙂

There is nothing in the Human Rights Act that gets in the way of effectively tackling terrorism. I can say that with this authority. I was director of public prosecutions for five years. I’ve worked very closely with the security and intelligence services and we’ve prosecuted very, very serious criminals. And the Human Rights Act did not get in the way of what we were doing.

This is a diversion ... We’ve had three terrible attacks in three months. The problem is people just coming onto the radar, then the question of how they are risk assessed, and what resource we’re putting in. And the prime minister, because she was facing searing questions about that yesterday, about resources, she has now brought up the Human Rights Act as if that stands in the way of the current problems.

Sir Keir Starmer on R4 this morning

Bregante - my father was a firearms officer for a long time (including being a sniper for a good part of that) and he said never really felt that arming every single officer was a good idea in that it raises the stakes when an incident happens. Like you said when everyone becomes armed, you have to lower the standard to enable everyone to stand a good chance of reaching that standard.

Given we've no idea where the people were killed (I think, I've not seen it at least), it's not easy to say whether or not having every officer in the area armed would have saved those lost lives.

And the prime minister, because she was facing searing questions about that yesterday, about resources, she has now brought up the Human Rights Act as if that stands in the way of the current problems.

May trying to bullshit her way out of a problem she had a hand in creating by pointing at some rules that don't actually prevent anything she wants to do? Never.

It wasn't human rights laws that allowed one of the London bridge attackers into the UK, despite being on an EU watch list, Theresa Mays £88m cuts to border funding is likely to have been a far larger factor

Sir Keir Starmer on R4 this morning

But he was unconvincing when challenged with the specific cases of (2?) convicted terrorists who were not deported (cant remember the cases exactly it will be on catch up) due to a risk to them in their home country.

Like you said when everyone becomes armed, you have to lower the standard to enable everyone to stand a good chance of reaching that standard

Another thing to bear in mind is that every interaction with the public can become "life or death" once every officer has a firearm. Every "scuffle" takes on more significance!!

nope
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_June_2017

Now find a list of failed / thwarted attempts.

surfer

Another thing to bear in mind is that every interaction with the public can become "life or death" once every officer has a firearm. Every "scuffle" takes on more significance!!

No it doesn't. That's exactly the kind of hyperbolic lie that gets trotted out. It might be true in America but it is certainly not true in Northern Ireland. I can assure you the PSNI get in plenty of scuffles and I can't recall a single instance where the police had to shoot someone in such a scenario.

I've genuinely lost track of what ninfan wants.

Attention, and for everyone to bow down and admit he's right.
In lieu of the latter he's happy with the former.

I'm not the only one who finds the thought of routinely armed police scary** rather than reassuring. Not only does it introduce a level of power which goes well above policing by consent, it opens up more potential abuses and mistakes, escalates the criminal element and apart from anything else, it means we live in a state that needs routinely armed police, which is pretty much a sign of failure in my eyes, and despite what many might say I don;t think it's something you can undo once you've done it.

*not because I don't trust individual members of the Police, but because I don't trust 'human beings' as the fallible things they are, and certainly don't trust most of the ones that get into positions of power.

I can assure you the PSNI get in plenty of scuffles and I can't recall a single instances where the police had to shoot someone in such a scenario

Where did I infer police "had" to shoot someone? The point being an armed officer by definition has a gun on his belt. If he is wrestling with a couple of drunks he has to be aware that one of them could end up holding that gun.

I can assure you the PSNI get in plenty of scuffles and I can't recall a single instance where the police had to shoot someone in such a scenario

Seems a bit pointless to carry guns if they don't use them, no?

surfer

Where did I infer police "had" to shoot someone?

surfer

every interaction with the public can become "life or death" once every officer has a firearm.

If that's not the inference of that sentence then I'm lost as to what your point was.

The point being an armed officer by definition has a gun on his belt. If he is wrestling with a couple of drunks he has to be aware that one of them could end up holding that gun.

So what happens? If you're not inferring that the police would need to shoot those drunks what's your point? The cop has to be more on guard? If an unarmed police officer is wrestling with a pair of drunks there's nothing to say they won't get stabbed, or punched and kicked to death.

Cougar

Seems a bit pointless to carry guns if they don't use them, no?

Apparently they carry them to deter terrorists.

I see the gun fantasist is still getting all frothy.

My word, does he ever look at the evidence & the opinion of those whose job it is to understand these things or does he just make sh1t up for the hell of it.....

I can only imagine he's still got his Action Man PJs..

If that's not the inference of that sentence then I'm lost as to what your point was.

I am really struggling to make it clearer but if you need "training wheels" I will try.

Imagine a scenario outside a pub on a Saturday night. Drunk 1 needs restraining, arms flailing etc as he tries to punch drunk 2. Officer gets between and neither is much of a threat other than falling over and banging their head. With me so far? Drunk 2 in the melee and his inebriated state makes a grab for the gun, pulls the gun off the officers belt whilst he is restraining drunk 1. Can you see where this is going?

Both are drunken idiots who will likely regret their actions tomorrow but right now one of them has a firearm.

Can you not see how this officer being armed has changed that scenario from a drunken scuffle that the officer may have felt confident enough to intervene in to one that may result in a shooting?

I'm not the only one who finds the thought of routinely armed police scary** rather than reassuring

Indeed.

After living in the US for a few yrs I've come to the conclusion that more guns in society are a bad thing.

The number of mall cops with a sidearm was frightening, not to mention those who might be carrying a concealed weapon.

And I'm not squeamish about firearms - 10 yrs in the Army.

No it doesn't. That's exactly the kind of hyperbolic lie that gets trotted out.

Even if you are going to ignore all the cops who dont want to be dirty harry.

Whilst largely law abiding I have had enough run ins with shit coppers to find the prospect of arming them all very unappealing.

Apparently they carry them to deter terrorists.

Both are drunken idiots who will likely regret their actions tomorrow but right now one of them has a firearm.

Sounds to me then like the best of both worlds is to carry guns but not ammo.

Just another minor point.

For exactly the reasons outlined above with the drunks scenario, firearms officers in my force only ever deploy in pairs.

The vast majority of unarmed uniform cops in the UK are single crewed because there just aren't the available numbers to double them up.

So are we going to reduce the number of patrols by 50% or double the amount of officers?

firearms officers in my force only ever deploy in pairs.

Great, now we have 2 drunks and 2 guns 🙂

I might of missed this but if Detective Chief Inspector Bribeasy of the Yard is supposed to be blazing away with his Magnum automatic machine cannon, how do you question and interrogate the perps of these crimes?

Seems a bit tricky to quiz the offender and gain intelligence if they are a pile of offal.

Pretty sure the busys and spooks would prefer to question the badun.

Arming the police doesn't necessarily result in carnage. It does however raise the stake in that criminals are more likely to arm themselves.

Off the top of my head the British police shoot and kill a couple of people a year (or they did until recent events which have raised averages), the German police half a dozen, the French about 10 (less than die of heart attacks or other injuries incurred during non-armed arrest or detention). However the Americans shoot and kill about the same as the yearly total for those three countries a week.

I wouldn't be worried by armed British police any more than I am by armed gendarme/police in France.

Given we've no idea where the people were killed (I think, I've not seen it at least), it's not easy to say whether or not having every officer in the area armed would have saved those lost lives.

Despite the incident being attended by our most highly trained specialist firearms officers, one bystander was shot in the head by a stray bullet.

I don't like the concept where in a crowded space such as a concert venue or a city centre, officers trained to a minimum standard are randomly taking potshots at terrorists (or who they think are terrorists) and hitting innocent bystanders as a result. And I suspect they don't either. Or at least the majority wouldn't which is why the majority of officers don't want to be routinely armed, from what people like Bregante have said. And the minority that would are probably the ones who I would least like to be routinely armed and who probably can't become specialist firearms officers because of that.

And I'll predict the response to be 'well how many bystanders have been shot and injured in other countries where police are armed?' And my answer is i don't know but I do know 4 people got shot on Saturday and 25% of those were mistakes. I'll also wonder in the situations we see and are likely to see more of, how many police in other countries are armed but will not when the chips are down be able to react properly.

The Notre Dame attack yesterday for example - one policeman was attacked (with a hammer, natch) either before he could react, or before he was prepared to react, and it was his colleague who shot the attacker. If the policeman had been alone - as many British bobbies are - how would that have played out? We'd better budget for lots more so they can patrol in pairs in future.......

[edit - as other said while I was typing]

I wouldn't be worried by armed British police any more than I am by armed gendarme/police in France

With respect, bollocks. 😀 (oops! missed the smiley!)

[url= https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/20/police-taser-race-relations-adviser-bristol-judah-adunbi ]Tay-zer! Tay-zer! Tay-zer![/url]

surfer

I am really struggling to make it clearer but if you need "training wheels" I will try.

If I respond in kind to your lazy ad hominem I'll probably get another three week ban since I find myself on the "right" of this issue, and therefore a "frothing gun nut".

Imagine a scenario outside a pub on a Saturday night. Drunk 1 needs restraining, arms flailing etc as he tries to punch drunk 2. Officer gets between and neither is much of a threat other than falling over and banging their head. With me so far? Drunk 2 in the melee and his inebriated state makes a grab for the gun, pulls the gun off the officers belt whilst he is restraining drunk 1. Can you see where this is going?

Both are drunken idiots who will likely regret their actions tomorrow but right now one of them has a firearm.

Can you not see how this officer being armed has changed that scenario from a drunken scuffle that the officer may have felt confident enough to intervene in to one that may result in a shooting?

This is a little known secret but Ireland has pubs, and people get drunk. Some of those people actively dislike the police and see them as part of an illegal occupying force. This leads to scuffles like the one you described. Hundreds of them every weekend. Thousands of them every year.

You can create fantasy hypothetical scenarios to back up your worst case scenario all you want but all you have to do to see that it's actually bollocks is go out in Belfast or Derry on a Saturday night.

lazy ad hominem

You are selective in spotting this given you began by calling me a liar after my post at the top of this page.

This is a little known secret but Ireland has pubs, and people get drunk. Some of those people actively dislike the police and see them as part of an illegal occupying force. This leads to scuffles like the one you described. Hundreds of them every weekend. Thousands of them every year.

So the fact that one of these (3) men has a gun on his belt does not heighten the risk in this scenario?

You can create fantasy hypothetical scenarios to back up your worst case scenario

So we shouldn't consider such "everyday" scenarios?

Two is the minimum when armed. Our local vigipirate forces are often groups of three or four as when "les forces de l'ordre" themselves are the target the more the merrier. There are some places where police action requires several minibuses of CRS/BAC to operate safely.

For me:

Police without guns = respect for the rule of law. Confident society.
Police with guns = respect for person carrying the gun. Weak society.

I can see how others would be just 'meh', though.

[s]respect[/s] fear

[s]respect [/s]fear

Depends if you've got a Guns 'n Ammo sub. 😀

How did Dixon of Dock Green die?

Pssst.....

That was a film - not real!

😆

surfer

So the fact that one of these (3) men has a gun on his belt does not heighten the risk in this scenario?

If the "drunk" has murderous intent he has murderous intent. If he doesn't, he doesn't. Does a gun suddenly compel you to murder?

I think this idea stems entirely from the USA and their attitude and training towards this - if you get in a struggle, assume the worst and shoot to kill.

I wouldn't be worried by armed British police any more than I am by armed gendarme/police in France.

Is it still the case the local Police Municipale are unarmed and the Police Nationale and Gendarmerie (which are technically part of the military, if memory serves) are?

Cougar - Moderator
nope
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_June_2017
br />
Now find a list of failed / thwarted attempts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_Great_Britain

some on there if you scroll down, I doubt it's complete in the slightest.

If the "drunk" has murderous intent he has murderous intent. If he doesn't, he doesn't. Does a gun suddenly compel you to murder?

I think this idea stems entirely from the USA and their attitude and training towards this - if you get in a struggle, assume the worst and shoot to kill.

Firstly people act out of character when drunk, secondly he may not have murderous intent however once he has that gun (which he may have grabbed in a moment of bravado to wave in drunks 2's face) he becomes a risk to others and for that reason he will be at significant risk of being shot himself!

Does a gun suddenly compel you to murder?

Dunno, but it makes it considerably easier.

surfer

Firstly people act out of character when drunk, secondly he may not have murderous intent however once he has that gun (which he may have grabbed in a moment of bravado to wave in drunks 2's face) he becomes a risk to others and for that reason he will be at significant risk of being shot himself!

Now we're just writing stories. It's not easy to just "grab" a police officer's gun. They are well strapped in and the movement would be obvious, and there are some fairly effective restraints easily available to the officer, assuming in this particular scenario that the "other drunk" has taken their handcuffs, handcuffed them and perhaps blindfolded them too or some such.

Honestly I think this is another issue where if you are "right wing" you say one thing and if you are a "leftie" you say the other, dig your respective heels in and get entrenched for a stalemate.

It's understandable to look at America and consider that as a terrifying example or worst case scenario of what happens when you arm police but you can't just ignore the reality that 150 miles away there is an armed police force that exhibits none of the issues or concerns people raise about arming the police.

Does a gun suddenly compel you to murder?

No, of course not.

Having seen upclose & personal the damage a high velocity round can do - my concern is that your p1ssed up boyo will have little or no grasp of the consequences of their actions....particularly in the heat of the moment.

For that reason alone I'm against the police being routinely armed - the lack of education regarding firearm use.

There's no reset button & you don't get 3 lives.

Leave the firearms to those who've shown the profiency & aptitude to have one.

I, for one, have known plenty who had access to firearms & in no uncertain fing terms should have ever been allowed to have.

Firearms are not to be taken lightly & given out like sweets to the old bill. I'm very glad that the standards, now, are as high as they are.

Now we're just writing stories

Or "scenarios" The thing is the one I explained is quite possible and not ridiculous. If I was a police officer and I had a gun it would change my interaction with the public given I had a lethal weapon on my belt.

has taken their handcuffs

When more armed police show up and one drunk is waving handcuffs and one is waving a pistol, who do you think will be "neutralised" first?

Could we not have the good old Britsih compromise? A few more armed wouldn't go amiss but I also like the old idea that a Bobby is a friend.