Gents, please dont go offline

 

Edited May 23, 20169 yr by festivalmatt

45 minutes ago, LCSO Sheriff Jester said:

but UK Police budgets... Are they all together or something? How does it work? Are the police departments mostly all together? We have all sorts of different things, and different ways budgets are done. Small towns = Small tax = Small budgets for police. We also have local police, county sheriffs, and state wide police. Not counting FBI, DEA, ATF and all the other kind of feds. And like I said, alot of some of the budgets go to the actual politic leaders, and for their campaigns to have them re-elected. 

They are partially funded by the national government and partly by council tax.

45 minutes ago, LCSO Sheriff Jester said:

lol wait wut? I'm wanting to become an officer, and I do some basic training with my department. (Felony traffic stops, hand cuffing and all sorts of other basic things, taser training included, along with a police "challenge" week which allows us to go to a shooting range and test our ability under pressure or something. (Mainly cause it's just fun) plus we meet with SWAT, and K9 and other stuff) 

I don't really understand the point. "Training officer", "basic training with your department", or As You Will, as Shakespeare would say - my point was entirely different.

Seeing as no further substantive (counter)arguments have been given to the original topic, I'll be removing myself from this debate. It was a good one, thanks a lot!

39 minutes ago, festivalmatt said:

Gents, please dont go offline

Sorry mate, you'll have to enjoy what's here already 

Edited May 23, 20169 yr by Albo1125

Damn, some of the logic in this thread....

 

2 hours ago, Albo1125 said:

Seeing as no further substantive (counter)arguments have been given to the original topic, I'll be removing myself from this debate. It was a good one, thanks a lot!

Yup! Talk to you later man, great arguments! lol

4 hours ago, Albo1125 said:

British officers are routinely not equipped with a firearm. Only goes to illustrate another great benefit of this. 

I'm aware of all of this, I'm merely interested in the legal aspect of firearms usage since the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and such do not provide an explicit answer and, based on your replies, I believe you're familiar with the law. 

5 hours ago, Ben said:

It's quite sad to see how budgets dictate the safety of Officers when they are patrolling. However I must say that officers here only have Assault Rifles out when given permission by a high-ranking Supervisor, usually at the rank of Inspector or a specialized Armed Response Supervisor. They mainly have Pistols on hand, and here they also don't wait until the person is under control, well unless the know the person is armed. 

Armed Police here regularly assist in normal policing which includes restraining violent offenders, even when they are carrying. If you haven't seen it, you should watch the latest season of Police Interceptors, that's primarily following Armed Police now, and it gives and insight to how they actually join in pursuits, and domestics even when armed. Armed Police here can be in situations such as the one in the video.  

Some departments in the United States don't even have tasers, which presents another obstacle. How can they pull a taser and go non-lethal when they don't have one?

5 hours ago, Ben said:

I'm going to have to completely disagree against using a firearm as your main weapon of choice, you should value everyone's lives, you shouldn't be using your gun, because not everyone is going to be a person who wants to kill you. If someone uses a firearm in a situation where a taser should be used, they shouldn't be a cop.

I really think it depends on the circumstances, and it varies from country to country. In the UK, police don't have to worry about someone pulling a gun and shooting them point blank like police in the US do. The chances of a police officer being shot in the UK when compared to the US is a drastic gap. According to census, 97% of gun crimes in the United States are committed with handguns. What does this mean? Criminals use handguns. Handguns can easily be concealed from the general public. A police officer doesn't know how mentally stable the person they're dealing with is, and they don't know their intentions. Something American police refuse to do when compared to the police of other countries, is American police refuse to make assumptions. Just because this guy doesn't currently have a gun in his hand doesn't mean that he isn't armed, and won't kill me as soon as I approach. Like I've said, American police can be shot and killed at any time for any or no reason. This threat isn't entirely present when comparing the United States to European nations. This is why I disagree with the setting of any one generic procedure for dealing with an individual. It varies from place to place because every country and every city is different. Also, I know that Baltimore Police have some sort of thing where officers can only use their taser if another officer is there to provide lethal reinforcements. As in, if an officer is dealing with someone by himself, he's told he needs to keep his lethal on him. When other officers arrive to help, then he can switch to his non-lethal and the assisting officer will use his lethal. I feel like this system has some nooks and crannies that definitely need to be straightened out, but yeah. Overall, I think it really depends on the circumstances though I understand what you're saying. You've also got to consider the fact that if an officer is put to the point where he pulls his gun on you, you've most certainly done something over the top. The police don't just walk up and aim a gun at you, at least not in America.

2 hours ago, AlconH said:

Damn, some of the logic in this thread....

 

If I were to post a GIF like this I'd be sanctioned.

5 hours ago, Albo1125 said:

If this is the case (I wouldn't be statistically sure) there can be a variety of reasons. Obviously, distrust is one of the more important ones, which you of all people would know about as you claim to be a training officer.

Welcome to the world ^.^ This is the case everywhere, even in the UK!

Did you read my post? I suggested US officers should not go unarmed due to the outrageous gun laws.

In my post above, I believe I already mentioned that the UK police budgets have been dramatically cut since 2010, leading to the #ThinBlueLine as we know it today. Hell, it was on the verge of becoming an emergency only service only a few months ago 

However, I'm not discussing US vs UK police here. I'm discussing US police mentality towards (lethal) force, and we seem to be straying off the subject.

In defense of LCSO, American law enforcement as a whole do have a terrible general public approval rating.

Edited May 23, 20169 yr by TheDivineHustle
Small changes

The US mentality towards firearms in general is itself an endless topic for discussion. I don't know why but I approve it. Probably because Russians and Americans have similar wild violent mentalities, unlike you gentle European people :D Guns are cool.

But on the other side I do like the way UK cops work. My ideal of patrolmen is an unarmed but highly trained dud who knows everyone on his beat and everyone knows him, who old ladies invite for a cup of tea and mothers ask to talk some sense into stupid young children. But that's XIX century, I'm afraid. Damn.

4 hours ago, Hastings said:

The US mentality towards firearms in general is itself an endless topic for discussion. I don't know why but I approve it. Probably because Russians and Americans have similar wild violent mentalities, unlike you gentle European people :D Guns are cool.

But on the other side I do like the way UK cops work. My ideal of patrolmen is an unarmed but highly trained dud who knows everyone on his beat and everyone knows him, who old ladies invite for a cup of tea and mothers ask to talk some sense into stupid young children. But that's XIX century, I'm afraid. Damn.

If only that's how it actually were. If American police didn't have guns, they'd be slaughtered in the streets. 

I don't think the cops being armed is the problem, it's the way they are trained, or it may even be the lack of training. In most situations, the majority of cops instantly go for their weapons, even if it's not called for, even in a simple fight, they go for their weapons, that's just making the situation more dangerous as you are adding a loaded firearm into a situation.

I feel like if the Cops where trained to reason with people, and interact with people like they aren't guilty of a crime, then the opinions of people may change on cops. Here in the UK they train cops to go into a situation... respectfully I guess you could say, not being too authoritative, thus' meaning if the situation escalates the suspect generally starts cooperating, where as on the US they go for their guns, or just being generally authoritative, and ordering people around, you can't go down from that situation, it's peaked at it's level.

2 hours ago, Ben said:

I don't think the cops being armed is the problem, it's the way they are trained, or it may even be the lack of training. In most situations, the majority of cops instantly go for their weapons, even if it's not called for, even in a simple fight, they go for their weapons, that's just making the situation more dangerous as you are adding a loaded firearm into a situation.

I feel like if the Cops where trained to reason with people, and interact with people like they aren't guilty of a crime, then the opinions of people may change on cops. Here in the UK they train cops to go into a situation... respectfully I guess you could say, not being too authoritative, thus' meaning if the situation escalates the suspect generally starts cooperating, where as on the US they go for their guns, or just being generally authoritative, and ordering people around, you can't go down from that situation, it's peaked at it's level.

I can agree that immediately going for your lethal firearm isn't always the right option, but here again: A police officer in America can be shot at any time. A simple confrontation between a civilian and a police officer can easily escalate into a shootout; depending on where you are and the circumstances of the situation. I think that the danger of being shot and killed at any time mixed with a general lack of training contribute to an officer pulling his weapon, or using it when it could have been avoided. This is easily proven when you look at that video of the LVMPD officer dealing with someone, and controlling the situation until backup arrived on scene, because he's trained in Jiu Jitsu . Versus some of the amateur YouTube videos where the officer has no idea what he's doing and shoots as a first resort. 

It's not always training either. Sometimes it's a lack of resources. Not every department in America has tasers. So if an officer is dealing with someone with a knife, for example, he can't go for a taser that he doesn't have. He's going to go for his gun, especially since pepper spray only blinds, not disabled. If it's an unarmed person, no gun should be involved at all. I can guarantee you, the police won't just pull a gun on a civilian if it's a normal everyday policing interaction. An officer will only pull his gun, or should only pull his gun, when he feels that he or others are in immediate danger. An officer still has the right to protect himself. 

As far as an officer going into a situation respectfully, that's a bit vague of a procedure. I'm not entirely sure if certain American police departments require their officers to "be nice and respectful", but I personally don't really see that as being important. An officer could have just come from dealing with a dead body. He's not going to be happy and joyful when conducting a traffic stop on an old woman for speeding. He's going to want her to hurry up so that he can get home to his family. The police are people too, and just as people aren't always nice and respectful, police officers aren't always nice and respectful. You can make it a required procedure as much as you like, but they're still human beings. You can't force someone to be a certain way. 

What's my point? A comparison of two different law enforcement agencies from two different countries to me just isn't a reasonable comparison. There are literally thousands of different variables and circumstances that officers from the UK face versus officers from the US. Setting one generic procedure on dealing with an individual and using your lethal handgun just won't work. There are too many variables and it really depends on the situation. 

Edited May 24, 20169 yr by TheDivineHustle

Cops in the states are killed eating lunch in their cars. It's hard to me to name another (civilized) country on Earth there cops die that often. Even considering our Northern Caucasus. So yeah, I see why US cops laugh hearing about being calm and non-lethal.

At the same time I can't recall a single cop being rude or authoritative with me... Even when I was held at gunpoint on North Ave and Druid Hill at 2 a.m. He was like 'Please, sir, hands in the air', and I was like 'as you wish my dear sir' and we parted ways fully satisfied with each other :D

9 hours ago, TheDivineHustle said:

It's not always training either. Sometimes it's a lack of resources. Not every department in America has tasers.

That's actually quite curious. Some departments have an AR15, but some others don't even have a simple taser. I question the distribution of the budget there.

And it actually baffles me that this happens in a country that is known to spend billions in armed forces.

It's not a budget thing... It's just how some departments are. Tasers aren't always non-lethal. I think it was a nearby town (Might not have been, it's probably been 7 years since the incident) but a officer used a taser on a drunk & disorderly and ended up killing the person because he either wasn't trained the best on it (Mind you, small town...) or just didn't know what he was doing at all. 

LAPD is in the testing of some officers having tasers last I heard, They used to never have officers have tasers... And the ones that did, theirs was in the actual patrol car. So if they needed it they had to run back to their car and grab it hoping it'll work and turn out for the best. Reality is reality. Shit doesn't work 100% of the time. Shit sometimes does work pretty often. Situations change and can have multiple different outcomes. Don't second guess a situation if you weren't there.

19 minutes ago, Hystery said:

That's actually quite curious. Some departments have an AR15, but some others don't even have a simple taser. I question the distribution of the budget there.

And it actually baffles me that this happens in a country that is known to spend billions in armed forces.

I'm not entirely sure how the budgeting works, but I've heard a few times that it varies. It's not just the federal government that distributes money. You have to remember there are state governments as well, then down to city/county governments, then to each individual department, and each officer.The federal government is spending most of our money on unemployment benefits. Such as welfare and social security.

8 hours ago, LCSO Sheriff Jester said:

Tasers aren't always non-lethal. I think it was a nearby town (Might not have been, it's probably been 7 years since the incident) but a officer used a taser on a drunk & disorderly and ended up killing the person because he either wasn't trained the best on it (Mind you, small town...) or just didn't know what he was doing at all.

I like that logic :D Tasers might not always be lethal so we'd rather shoot'em up.

Same goes with legs/arms shot, can't recall how many times I heard "oh man, if you hit a leg the person might die due to the artery damage, so we take headshots".

2 hours ago, Hastings said:

Same goes with legs/arms shot, can't recall how many times I heard "oh man, if you hit a leg the person might die due to the artery damage, so we take headshots".

 

 

7 hours ago, Hastings said:

I like that logic :D Tasers might not always be lethal so we'd rather shoot'em up.

Same goes with legs/arms shot, can't recall how many times I heard "oh man, if you hit a leg the person might die due to the artery damage, so we take headshots".

That's not at all what I was trying to say, I was just trying to say that Tasers aren't always non-lethal. 

 

And for your second thing you said, I assumed that's sarcasm?

22 minutes ago, LCSO Sheriff Jester said:

And for your second thing you said, I assumed that's sarcasm?

Not completely. It's an echo of a long lasting argument regarding less lethal firearms usage. I'm being told shooting arms or legs is impossible and/or extremely dangerous therefore police is trained to shoot to the center of mass. Amongst other arguments I hear "easy to miss, so bystanders are at threat" - true to an extent, but there's always a chance of a miss, in fact if you read police shootings reports there are often only 2-3 hits out of 10 shots; "you can't be that accurate with a handgun"; and finally "a shot in the leg can damage the artery and the person will die quickly". That's the one that amazes me.

Ultimately it all goes down to the less lethal usage of force.

1 minute ago, Hastings said:

Not completely. It's an echo of a long lasting argument regarding less lethal firearms usage. I'm being told shooting arms or legs is impossible and/or extremely dangerous therefore police is trained to shoot to the center of mass. Amongst other arguments I hear "easy to miss, so bystanders are at threat" - true to an extent, but there's always a chance of a miss, in fact if you read police shootings reports there are often only 2-3 hits out of 10 shots; "you can't be that accurate with a handgun"; and finally "a shot in the leg can damage the artery and the person will die quickly". That's the one that amazes me.

Ultimately it all goes down to the less lethal usage of force.

Not really... It goes down to whatever the officer thinks should be used. Not what policies (I.E. Use of force) should be since a policy can't dictate what's going on at the moment.

Yeah. No officer is going to shoot for the legs if it's a threat at all. You ever try to fire a gun? Especially at a moving target (Most people would be running around or doing something) And you're adrenaline is pumping, and you're in fight or flight mode. And you're trying to stop a threat by "shooting them in the leg"... Yeah okay buddy-boy you do that.

12 minutes ago, LCSO Sheriff Jester said:

Yeah. No officer is going to shoot for the legs if it's a threat at all. You ever try to fire a gun? Especially at a moving target (Most people would be running around or doing something) And you're adrenaline is pumping, and you're in fight or flight mode. And you're trying to stop a threat by "shooting them in the leg"... Yeah okay buddy-boy you do that.

Yep, that's exactly what I hear.

Well, as a standard procedure Russian police is trained to shoot tires of a moving vehicle from a moving vehicle. They also are trained to shoot limbs to minimize the damage to suspects, and they do it quite often, facing subjects armed with axes and/or multiple unarmed suspects. Part of my training during army firearms course also involved less lethal firearms usage. Standard Russian army and police firearms are 9mm Makarov pistol and AK74SU. My point is that if in your country that isn't done it doesn't mean it's impossible. You're free to draw conclusions. Boy.