Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[TheBoy]

A few less trouble makers within the Met's juristiction is fine by me.  The authorities shouldn't have to pussyfoot around people bent on bending or breaking the law for their own benefits. The laws are there for the benefits of all.

[Dishevelled Den]

A few less trouble makers within the Met's juristiction is fine by me.  The authorities shouldn't have to pussyfoot around people bent on bending or breaking the law for their own benefits. The laws are there for the benefits of all.

The police should never shy away from discharging their duties – lawfully and with determination – but, thinking about some of the people I've worked with over the years, I shudder to think of the consequences of the leash being removed.

[TheBoy]

A few less trouble makers within the Met's juristiction is fine by me.  The authorities shouldn't have to pussyfoot around people bent on bending or breaking the law for their own benefits. The laws are there for the benefits of all.

The police should never shy away from discharging their duties – lawfully and with determination – but, thinking about some of the people I've worked with over the years, I shudder to think of the consequences of the leash being removed.

Would that in itself be a decent deterent?

We seem to have bred a generation of self-centered troublemakers who think they are untouchable....

[cem_devecioglu]

A question for Cem, are Turkish Police armed?

to the teeth

and now they want the right to use very heavy weapons which the military object..

[Dishevelled Den]

A few less trouble makers within the Met's juristiction is fine by me.  The authorities shouldn't have to pussyfoot around people bent on bending or breaking the law for their own benefits. The laws are there for the benefits of all.

The police should never shy away from discharging their duties – lawfully and with determination – but, thinking about some of the people I've worked with over the years, I shudder to think of the consequences of the leash being removed.

Would that in itself be a decent deterent?

We seem to have bred a generation of self-centered troublemakers who think they are untouchable....

We seem to have bred a generation of self-centered troublemakers who think they are untouchable

I certainly agree but people will always try to do what they want irrespective of the immediate consequences at the hands of an armed constabulary or a constabulary where the gloves have been taken off.

We need to act within the law, with determination as I’ve said, but the last thing anyone wants is to come under the scrutiny of police officers who are acting with force beyond that which is reasonable, given the circumstances, as it’s often the case that the individual officer concerned may be far from capable of discharging their duties in a competent, lawful and unbiased way.

[cem_devecioglu]

imo there is a more important point we mustnt forget..

police is also a human .. and works under stressing conditions..

personally I wouldnt prefer the situation where a police had fight in home with swmbo carries dum dum bullets in public.. here , in my country there are many cases where police shoots the wife, or public or friends in depression moments..

so my vote is definitely NO..

[TheBoy]

A few less trouble makers within the Met's juristiction is fine by me.  The authorities shouldn't have to pussyfoot around people bent on bending or breaking the law for their own benefits. The laws are there for the benefits of all.

The police should never shy away from discharging their duties – lawfully and with determination – but, thinking about some of the people I've worked with over the years, I shudder to think of the consequences of the leash being removed.

Would that in itself be a decent deterent?

We seem to have bred a generation of self-centered troublemakers who think they are untouchable....

We seem to have bred a generation of self-centered troublemakers who think they are untouchable

I certainly agree but people will always try to do what they want irrespective of the immediate consequences at the hands of an armed constabulary or a constabulary where the gloves have been taken off.

We need to act within the law, with determination as I’ve said, but the last thing anyone wants is to come under the scrutiny of police officers who are acting with force beyond that which is reasonable, given the circumstances, as it’s often the case that the individual officer concerned may be far from capable of discharging their duties in a competent, lawful and unbiased way.

I hear what you're saying DD. And agree to an extent, but genuinely believe that things currently are biased too much in favour of the lawbreakers.

[TheBoy]

imo there is a more important point we mustnt forget..

police is also a human .. and works under stressing conditions..
personally I wouldnt prefer the situation where a police had fight in home with swmbo carries dum dum bullets in public.. here , in my country there are many cases where police shoots the wife, or public or friends in depression moments..

so my vote is definitely NO..

Indeed, so should they not have the same right of defence as it seems criminals do?

More guns is always a bad thing, but if those properly trained armed response units (who used to drive Omegas here ) are allowed to drop someone quickly when the need arises, surely thats a good thing?

[Dishevelled Den]

I hear what you're saying DD. And agree to an extent, but genuinely believe that things currently are biased too much in favour of the lawbreakers.

I certainly agree with that - successive governments through trendy 'enlightened' legislation have made it more likely for people to believe that they can act without sanction.

There is a need to rebalance things and make people aware that if anyone blanks about with Roy Rogers (or his horse) there will be robust consequences.

[cem_devecioglu]

imo there is a more important point we mustnt forget..

police is also a human .. and works under stressing conditions..
personally I wouldnt prefer the situation where a police had fight in home with swmbo carries dum dum bullets in public.. here , in my country there are many cases where police shoots the wife, or public or friends in depression moments..

so my vote is definitely NO..

Indeed, so should they not have the same right of defence as it seems criminals do?

More guns is always a bad thing, but if those properly trained armed response units (who used to drive Omegas here ) are allowed to drop someone quickly when the need arises, surely thats a good thing?

imo there must be a distinction between an army and a police force.. here in the east of country those things happen more frequently and in those cases there are special teams specially trained handle the situation..but they are not permitted to wander/patrol between us in big cities .. they use heavy weapons automatic guns and trust me they are very easy to ignite  

and the question remains why is not enough a normal weapon .. this means you cant hit the target properly also leading to the conclusion: not enough training.. :-/

[aaronjb]

imo there is a more important point we mustnt forget..

police is also a human .. and works under stressing conditions..
personally I wouldnt prefer the situation where a police had fight in home with swmbo carries dum dum bullets in public.. here , in my country there are many cases where police shoots the wife, or public or friends in depression moments..

so my vote is definitely NO..

Indeed, so should they not have the same right of defence as it seems criminals do?

More guns is always a bad thing, but if those properly trained armed response units (who used to drive Omegas here ) are allowed to drop someone quickly when the need arises, surely thats a good thing?

imo there must be a distinction between an army and a police force.. here in the east of country those things happen more frequently and in those cases there are special teams specially trained handle the situation..but they are not permitted to wander/patrol between us in big cities .. they use heavy weapons automatic guns and trust me they are very easy to ignite  

and the question remains why is not enough a normal weapon .. this means you cant hit the target properly also leading to the conclusion: not enough training.. :-/

I thought we'd covered that bit - hit someone with a ('normal') full jacketed slug and it'll probably go in one side and out the other if it hits a 'soft' area (i.e. most of you).. doesn't matter how good a shot you are if the bullet then ends up lodged in the innocent bystander standing directly behind the person you got a perfect shot on.


Also if I understand correctly we're only talking about the 'MET' here, not the regular police in the other 99.9% of the country, right? The MET have always been a bit of a special case I think..

[cleggy]

This is very interesting reading, and I can see  both points of view. Giving the tools to do the job is all well and good, the problem is the person using the tools.

Humans make mistakes, and  all the training in the world is not going to remove this element of any given situation.

The terrorists, gangs, and criminals have no rules to obey, so we mustn't restrict the policing of these
people who ruin our society. If situations arise where an armed response is required then use the most effective tools available, to quickly resolve the situation. If soft nose rounds are the most effective then use them.
I do think that the number of highly publised errors, are far outweighed by the number of successful outcomes that we hardly hear about.

Perhaps if the courts sent people armed with a gun to prison for 10 years hard time, as a deterent then perhaps the escalation in armed police wouldn't happen.

[Dishevelled Den]

Also if I understand correctly we're only talking about the 'MET' here, not the regular police in the other 99.9% of the country, right? The MET have always been a bit of a special case I think..

Insofar as the Met is concerned any enhancement of the tools available to them to combat violent/terrorist/politically motivated crime will eventually become available to other forces.

I would imagine that the entire concept of armed response units will be looked at on a national level as there has to be some cohesive basis on which to formulate standard operating procedures given the debacle of the Derrick Bird shootings in Cumbria.

** Or indeed the Moat affair.

[Banjax]

imo there is a more important point we mustnt forget..

police is also a human .. and works under stressing conditions..

personally I wouldnt prefer the situation where a police had fight in home with swmbo carries dum dum bullets in public.. here , in my country there are many cases where police shoots the wife, or public or friends in depression moments..

so my vote is definitely NO..

if the Met can go 10 years without accidently killing someone then they can have a weapons upgrade 

[cem_devecioglu]

imo there is a more important point we mustnt forget..

police is also a human .. and works under stressing conditions..

personally I wouldnt prefer the situation where a police had fight in home with swmbo carries dum dum bullets in public.. here , in my country there are many cases where police shoots the wife, or public or friends in depression moments..

so my vote is definitely NO..

if the Met can go 10 years without accidently killing someone then they can have a weapons upgrade 

what happens if they mistakenly shoot an innocent after.. can anyone guarantee for future..  imo human life is not an area for trial-error procedures.. if you shot someone with a normal bullet he/she may have a chance ..