My question is was the man still alive when the first police showed up on scene?

Because to be honest, any civilian is just as good as the initial responders. Saying the response time was rather fast is accurate but at the same time not considering due to the circumstances the first responders were basically bystanders.

I think that incidents like this that does not impact anyone outside of the country should remain as internal news, there's absolutely no reason for why this is global news other than it preaches fear and hatred.

 

Considering it's a worldwide organization that these people belong to, one that has shown numerous times that it can pose a threat to the entire civilized world, I think it needs to be know. Fear and hatred is only bad if it is based on falsehoods and superstition, like the beliefs of these monsters. If someone is a possible lethal threat to you and everyone around you, a little fear and hatred is absolutely justified, and it's naive to think otherwise.

First of all, my heart goes out to the vicitm's family and friends. To be slaughtered like an animal at home is just horrendous. In my humble opinion though, this incident proves yet again that, in this day and age, a police officer on the beat requires a firearm of some sort. Be it open carry or locked away in the trunk of his cruiser. I am in no way a rightwing gun nut and the UK has indeed got a very low gun crime rate but the fact is that British officers stand powerless during such incidents untill an ARV arrives. Imagine being an unarmed officer and witnessing such a horrible attack but knowing you can't do anything about it, other than wait for an ARV to come. I'm certainly relieved I'll get to carry a firearm once I hit the streets. You never know what you'll potentially run into when responding to a call.

Awful, just awful, my father's a soldier and for this to happen in our country and not out on tour is just barbaric.

BBC News topic: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22634468

The men got out of the Vauxhall Tigra and began to strike him several times with the meat cleavers, one witness described it as "two black men who were giving CPR until I noticed that they had meat cleavers in their hands".

 

From the BBC:

 

The Metropolitan Police says police officers arrived within nine minutes of the first 999 call and armed officers were there within 14 minutes

 

 

God damnit.

a british Soldier gets killed on british Turf. In the streets of London

Not in Afgahnistan or some other shithole. Right in the damn streets of London.

This is something i really was shocked about.

 

If you can't be save in your own Citys anymore...things are gone way to far.

Yesterday i was in Pure Rage Mode hearing that. Sure i don't live in the UK but this proves it can happen anywhere - to anyone. Could be your Brother, my Sister. This is just.....arrg thinking about it again fills me with pure rage again.

 

According to local news here police received the first 999 call at 14:20, the first officers arrived nine minutes later at 14:29.

 

At 14:24 Armed Response Vehicles were despatched to the scene, they arrived ten minutes later at 14:34

 

The only thing here that remotely interests me is why it took four minutes until ARV's were despatched, however it could just as well be a lack of usable information from the callers as it could be a breakdown in communication within the police. Response time once officers were alerted was good.

First of all, my heart goes out to the vicitm's family and friends. To be slaughtered like an animal at home is just horrendous. In my humble opinion though, this incident proves yet again that, in this day and age, a police officer on the beat requires a firearm of some sort. Be it open carry or locked away in the trunk of his cruiser. I am in no way a rightwing gun nut and the UK has indeed got a very low gun crime rate but the fact is that British officers stand powerless during such incidents untill an ARV arrives. Imagine being an unarmed officer and witnessing such a horrible attack but knowing you can't do anything about it, other than wait for an ARV to come. I'm certainly relieved I'll get to carry a firearm once I hit the streets. You never know what you'll potentially run into when responding to a call.

 

As a British Citizen who's looking to join his local police force next year, I have to disagree. We do not need to arm our officers like in the US.

 

Gun crime, whilst relatively low, only is a problem in the large cities, mainly focusing on London which is why they have CO19 as most gangs in the UK reside in Brixton and Southern London.

 

If we were to arm all officers, the criminals would be more inclined to arm themselves which would then results in us having hundreds mores of LODD's like America does. Our officers do exceptionally well with the tools they are provided and will result to the less-lethal tazers, tazer shotguns and beanbag guns to take down a suspect. We hardly get firearms calls and when we do, we allow the armed units to take them.

 

There was actually footage on traffic cops a few months ago where a regular patrol car in a small town just outside London found that the vehicle infront of them had no insurance, as they were about to pull him over they noticed the driver had previous firearms offences, so they called for backup from the ARV's (who got there within two minutes) from London.

 

The ARV's surrounded the vehicle in one swift motion as it waited at some traffic lights and pulled the driver out. A gun was found in the vehicle.

 

As for other horrible attacks, we have tazers. If someone has a blunt object we'll use our CS spray or indeed the tazer to subdue them, we don't need to threaten them with a gun. You have to remember that not every suspect is a hardened criminal, it could be some innocent husband who's just found his wife cheating and gone into a blind rage with a crowbar. Our officers are very good at calming people down in these situations and if not, they'll tackle him to the ground to knock the weapon away.

TL;DR: Our officers do not need to be armed. Gun crime is low. You don't need a firearm to deal with crime, there are many other ways of calming a situation down. The US needs armed officers because it is legal to own a weapon, therefore anybody could have one.

TL;DR: Our officers do not need to be armed. Gun crime is low. You don't need a firearm to deal with crime, there are many other ways of calming a situation down. The US needs armed officers because it is legal to own a weapon, therefore anybody could have one.

 

Even so, the task of an officer is to protect the people. They should be ready for any situation, just like has happened. It's true that is not necessarily to use always the firearms since can be used other non-lethal ways to solve a situation but, what about when it turns into a more complicated situation or that threats the officers or civils lives? Is it better to wait 20 minutes until a special team is deployed?

Personally I think officers should always carry a reglamentary weapon. You never know what will you deal with, even in the most safe countries or with weapon restrictive laws.

As a British Citizen who's looking to join his local police force next year, I have to disagree. We do not need to arm our officers like in the US.

 

Gun crime, whilst relatively low, only is a problem in the large cities, mainly focusing on London which is why they have CO19 as most gangs in the UK reside in Brixton and Southern London.

 

If we were to arm all officers, the criminals would be more inclined to arm themselves which would then results in us having hundreds mores of LODD's like America does. Our officers do exceptionally well with the tools they are provided and will result to the less-lethal tazers, tazer shotguns and beanbag guns to take down a suspect. We hardly get firearms calls and when we do, we allow the armed units to take them.

 

There was actually footage on traffic cops a few months ago where a regular patrol car in a small town just outside London found that the vehicle infront of them had no insurance, as they were about to pull him over they noticed the driver had previous firearms offences, so they called for backup from the ARV's (who got there within two minutes) from London.

 

The ARV's surrounded the vehicle in one swift motion as it waited at some traffic lights and pulled the driver out. A gun was found in the vehicle.

 

As for other horrible attacks, we have tazers. If someone has a blunt object we'll use our CS spray or indeed the tazer to subdue them, we don't need to threaten them with a gun. You have to remember that not every suspect is a hardened criminal, it could be some innocent husband who's just found his wife cheating and gone into a blind rage with a crowbar. Our officers are very good at calming people down in these situations and if not, they'll tackle him to the ground to knock the weapon away.

TL;DR: Our officers do not need to be armed. Gun crime is low. You don't need a firearm to deal with crime, there are many other ways of calming a situation down. The US needs armed officers because it is legal to own a weapon, therefore anybody could have one.

 

Completely disagree.  British police are powerless to deal with these situations until armed officers arrive.  Just about every other country in Europe, let alone the world, arms their police, even places like Sweden, Norway (all officers firearms trained but guns in cars only) and Denmark where many officers will go through their entire careers without ever even drawing their gun.  The fact of the matter is that if you get called to an incident where a guy is using a machete to decapitate a young girl and you get there in enough time to have 10 seconds or less to make a difference, what do you do?  Pull out some pepper spray and watch the girl get chopped into pieces?  Run towards them and try to take on the guy with the machete with your bare hands?

 

Criminals definitely don't use guns because the police don't use guns, that's like saying they don't commit crime because the police don't commit crime.  It's entirely false.  Criminals in the UK don't use guns because they are very hard to get and even once you have them, they're hard to keep under the radar and hard to maintain (ammo, etc.).  Heck, if I wanted to pull of a big crime, I'd want a gun so that I'd get an extra 5-20 minutes to escape while they waited for an armed unit (and yes, it could probably even take longer up in some rural parts of Scotland).

 

And no, our police don't have Tasers in routine deployment either.  Only certain forces issue Tasers to officers other than those in their firearms units and even then the percentage of officers armed with Tasers is relatively small.  If you lunge at someone with a crowbar, you're probably going to get knocked into next week.

 

While I doubt that the police in Britain will ever be armed in the near future, I think it's only a matter of time before Tasers start to see more routine deployment.  

The last time Denmark suffered the loss of an officer as a result of the actions of a suspect was in 1995, a motorcycle officer from my hometown was shot dead by a bank robber in Århus.

 

Saying that giving cops guns will increase gun crime is outright wrong. Our cops were armed in the sixties, however we have not seen any kind of "explosion" in gun crime after that.

Only recently have we seen an increase in gang activity (and thus gun crime), however this isn't the result of the police, but due to our social policies failing, those who are carrying firearms are involved in gangs, they carry firearms because the other gangs carry firearms and not because the police carry weapons.

 

Last month officers had to shoot a suspect following a bank robbery, the suspect pulled a weapon on the officers and their only cause of action was to use their weapons to subdue the suspect.

 

Two officers did come under fire two years ago in a vehicle pursuit, however the suspects were Romanian criminals on tour, they were not Danes or anyone who is a part of our society.

 

 

Police officers run towards danger and they should be properly equipped to deal with what they may encounter. You may arrive at a burglary call only to find that the suspects are armed. There's no time for ARV's to arrive if this happens, you are at the  mercy of the suspects at this point, you have no way of defending yourself.

 

 

The UK saw the loss of two officers in Manchester last year, they responded to a burglary call, but were confronted with a armed suspect who threw one or more grenades at the officers, they had no way to defend themselves.

 

Last year the Met also saw several officers sustain serious injures as they were mauled by a attack dog, the attack only stopped several minutes later when armed officers could shoot the dog.

 

 

 

Most Danish officers won't have to draw their firearm in their time and even fewer will have to fire their weapon.

 

In fact, some of our shootings are to put down injured animals, it was shown last year on a police show where officers from the Færø islands had to put down a wounded sheep after it was struck by a vehicle.

 

It is completely true that firearms cause death for police officers in Denmark by suicide, it seems to be an ever increasing issue that cops take their own lives with their service weapon, however this only underlines the issue of not having a proper support structure of officers who need it.

20 minute response time....Wow just wow. That is crazy long...

 

100% agreement here. Unfortunately here in the UK we do not have 'SWAT' Classified calls. The unarmed officers have to arrive, assess the scene and request the necessary backup etc.

 

According to local news here police received the first 999 call at 14:20, the first officers arrived nine minutes later at 14:29.

 

At 14:24 Armed Response Vehicles were despatched to the scene, they arrived ten minutes later at 14:34

 

The only thing here that remotely interests me is why it took four minutes until ARV's were despatched, however it could just as well be a lack of usable information from the callers as it could be a breakdown in communication within the police. Response time once officers were alerted was good.

This was purely down to the officer's judgement. But I agree, the officers should have been quicker to call our the ARUs. Also, protocol here in the UK is to attempt to arrest the suspect first before calling for ARU.

 

 

Completely disagree.  British police are powerless to deal with these situations until armed officers arrive.  Just about every other country in Europe, let alone the world, arms their police, even places like Sweden, Norway (all officers firearms trained but guns in cars only) and Denmark where many officers will go through their entire careers without ever even drawing their gun.  The fact of the matter is that if you get called to an incident where a guy is using a machete to decapitate a young girl and you get there in enough time to have 10 seconds or less to make a difference, what do you do?  Pull out some pepper spray and watch the girl get chopped into pieces?  Run towards them and try to take on the guy with the machete with your bare hands?

 

Criminals definitely don't use guns because the police don't use guns, that's like saying they don't commit crime because the police don't commit crime.  It's entirely false.  Criminals in the UK don't use guns because they are very hard to get and even once you have them, they're hard to keep under the radar and hard to maintain (ammo, etc.).  Heck, if I wanted to pull of a big crime, I'd want a gun so that I'd get an extra 5-20 minutes to escape while they waited for an armed unit (and yes, it could probably even take longer up in some rural parts of Scotland).

 

And no, our police don't have Tasers in routine deployment either.  Only certain forces issue Tasers to officers other than those in their firearms units and even then the percentage of officers armed with Tasers is relatively small.  If you lunge at someone with a crowbar, you're probably going to get knocked into next week.

 

While I doubt that the police in Britain will ever be armed in the near future, I think it's only a matter of time before Tasers start to see more routine deployment.  

Agreed.

ARV's are despatched to any calls where there's a weapon (bladed articles and firearms) involved, that's why I'm confused as to why it took them four minutes to despatch armed units to this call.

Completely disagree.  British police are powerless to deal with these situations until armed officers arrive.  Just about every other country in Europe, let alone the world, arms their police, even places like Sweden, Norway (all officers firearms trained but guns in cars only) and Denmark where many officers will go through their entire careers without ever even drawing their gun.  The fact of the matter is that if you get called to an incident where a guy is using a machete to decapitate a young girl and you get there in enough time to have 10 seconds or less to make a difference, what do you do?  Pull out some pepper spray and watch the girl get chopped into pieces?  Run towards them and try to take on the guy with the machete with your bare hands?

 

Criminals definitely don't use guns because the police don't use guns, that's like saying they don't commit crime because the police don't commit crime.  It's entirely false.  Criminals in the UK don't use guns because they are very hard to get and even once you have them, they're hard to keep under the radar and hard to maintain (ammo, etc.).  Heck, if I wanted to pull of a big crime, I'd want a gun so that I'd get an extra 5-20 minutes to escape while they waited for an armed unit (and yes, it could probably even take longer up in some rural parts of Scotland).

 

And no, our police don't have Tasers in routine deployment either.  Only certain forces issue Tasers to officers other than those in their firearms units and even then the percentage of officers armed with Tasers is relatively small.  If you lunge at someone with a crowbar, you're probably going to get knocked into next week.

 

While I doubt that the police in Britain will ever be armed in the near future, I think it's only a matter of time before Tasers start to see more routine deployment.  

I completely agree. I certainly wouldn't run towards a guy swinging a machete or a crowbar with just my pepper spray. Keep in mind that emotionally unstable people form a real threat to both themselves and officers. Besides, some people are immune to both pepper spray and tasers, certainly when under the influence of certain substances like amphetamines.

Also, in Belgium, police officers only draw their weapon if it's absolutely necessary. They know that, each time they draw their weapon, a thorough investigation is launched by internal affairs. Even when the weapon wasn't fired. During that time, the officer is temporarily inactive until the investigation has been concluded. That prevents officers from drawing their weapon when it's not necesarry. To my knowledge, we almost never have any unjustified shootings by police since officers receive the proper training.

In my opinion, firearms are a necessary evil for police officers. The advantages of having armed police outweigh the disadvantages that sometimes come with it.

ARV's are despatched to any calls where there's a weapon (bladed articles and firearms) involved, that's why I'm confused as to why it took them four minutes to despatch armed units to this call.

 

Answer:

 Unfortunately here in the UK we do not have 'SWAT' Classified calls. The unarmed officers have to arrive, assess the scene and request the necessary backup etc.

No, ARV's are despatched to any calls involving weapons immediately, they do not have to wait until beat cops are on scene if the call taker is informed of the presence of a weapon.

 

The first 999 call came in at 14:20, ARV's were despatched at 14:24, the first cops arrived on scene at 12:29, according to you the order of that should be reversed.

 

There's only two reasons for why ARV's were despatched four minutes after the initial 999 call, either they mention anything about the cleaver or there was a failure of communication somewhere within the Metropolitan Police.

No, ARV's are despatched to any calls involving weapons immediately, they do not have to wait until beat cops are on scene if the call taker is informed of the presence of a weapon.

 

The first 999 call came in at 14:20, ARV's were despatched at 14:24, the first cops arrived on scene at 12:29, according to you the order of that should be reversed.

 

There's only two reasons for why ARV's were despatched four minutes after the initial 999 call, either they mention anything about the cleaver or there was a failure of communication somewhere within the Metropolitan Police.

Firstly, the timings make no sense. And to be perfectly honest, the Metropolitan Police handled this extremely poorly.

Going by the witness accounts:

 

The suspects first hit the guy with the car, that could easily have prompted the first 999 calls, it's a busy street so expect anywhere from 5-30 calls at this point.

 

Then, as far as I know, it is unknown how long after this the suspects exited the vehicle and approached the victim, it could have been seconds or it could have been minutes. All while more people are calling 999.

 

999 calltakers are busy with the influx of calls, they need a bunch of details before they can hang up and go onto the next call. Keep in mind that there's other 999 calls coming in regarding other incidents at the same time. It is not always easy to get information from people who are or have just witnessed a serious incident.

 

At one point they begin to further assault the male with bladed articles, one of which looks like a meat cleaver. This is unknown to the police control room unless someone calls 999 again.

 

Their response changes completely once they are informed of weapons being involved, they have to communicate to the regular officers that are en route that they must not approach the scene as well as notify SCO19 along with all the red tape that comes along with this.

 

We don't know where the nearest available ARV was at the time, however it mustn't have been more than a few miles away if it arrived within ten minutes of being despatched.

 

 

We haven't got a clue what information the control room received so we don't know how they made their decisions, however looking at the thing isolated, I.E an ARV taking ten minutes to arrive seems well within the force guidelines, you cannot expect a specialist unit to be there within two or three minutes of an incident like this.

I can't help but get the feeling that if it had been legal for British citizens to carry firearms, this whole ordeal might have ended minutes before the initial (unarmed) officers arrived at the scene. Or, perhaps the entire event might have never happened, as the suspects might have thought twice about attempting to commit a brutal crime before an armed populace. There is much talk about arming unarmed officers. But in a world where the police is always several minutes away, when seconds count, it is the responsibility of the individual citizen to ensure his own survival and the well-being of those around him. If someone darted toward a loved one of yours with a knife, a machete, or even a firearm, which would you rather have at your disposal: a phone or a gun?

I can't help but get the feeling that if it had been legal for British citizens to carry firearms, this whole ordeal might have ended minutes before the initial (unarmed) officers arrived at the scene. Or, perhaps the entire event might have never happened, as the suspects might have thought twice about attempting to commit a brutal crime before an armed populace. There is much talk about arming unarmed officers. But in a world where the police is always several minutes away, when seconds count, it is the responsibility of the individual citizen to ensure his own survival and the well-being of those around him. If someone darted toward a loved one of yours with a knife, a machete, or even a firearm, which would you rather have at your disposal: a phone or a gun?

 

Obviously you would rather have a gun, but this opens up whole new possibilities and dangers.  If, say, this British serviceman was armed, it most likely would make no difference so long as the man with the meat clever decapitates you before you can fire your weapon at him.  The thing with carrying a gun is that it isn't an automatic protection, you actually have to draw it and fire it.  If the guy with the meat clever is behind you, with the weapon hidden in his coat, then as he quickly catches up to you he pulls it out and starts hacking at your head with it, what can you actually do?  Sure, there's a chance you might notice it coming and have time to react, but most likely it all happens to fast and you get decapitated either way.

 

Of course, bystanders or persons nearby may also be armed, and this is where the next problem is introduced, do they all pull out their guns and start shooting at the attacker?  If they do, are they proficiently trained marksmen?  What if the bullets hit the victim?  What if the bullets go through windows and kill small children playing their Xbox?  And yes, this does happen, just look at the LAPD during the Dorner manhunt where supposedly trained police officers managed to miss the truck of the innocent victims in the mistaken identity incident and lodge bullets in houses and garages (http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/08/local/la-me-torrance-shooting-20130209).