Carl Benjamin at a " Anti-Facist "rally , where counter protesters are protesting countless thousands of British Citizens protesting for the release of Tommy Robinson. While there, Carl Benjamin is instantly harrassed and insulted for his conservative views, and is told he cannot even be in public with the rest of the protesters. He has to leave. The Police of the UK follow up with said instructions, forcing him to leave. His Republican narrative was not welcome, so the Police took it into their own hands to help the ANTIFA and extreme left protesters remove an enemy of theirs. Pathetic if you ask me. Filming people in a public place, protesting is " antagonizing " and worth removal from the area. Man, and i thought living in NY State was a Police State. Wheeeew'. I do honestly hope the UK Government moving Tommy from segregation to general population does not get him killed. Although that is clearly their intention. Fit a counter Islamic Ideology leader in a prodominately Muslim prison facility, move him to gen pop' and wait for the boiling water and savage beatings. Cheers to Channel 4 for the repeted bias, and to the cucked UK Police. Unarmed, aiding the enemy's of the state and tracking, arresting and suppressing the working British Man's rights to do anything. As there is a war in the west against White Christian Men, it appears the same is the case with you guys. So sad, the Trump Balloon, pussy hats, parasailing over Trump golfing in Scotland with delusional banners. Pathetic. Lmao 

 

Carl : "How am I antagonizing people?"

UK Cop : "I've seen it."

 

Good work there Sherlock. Scotland Yard must be proud of your deductive skills and legal expertise.

Edited July 17, 20187 yr by GTALawEnforcer

If you can't respectfully debate something, don't post.  Attacks will not be tolerated.

The reason we have less protestors kicking the shit out of each other is because our police are good at seperating protests.

In the above video, it's a bit like going into a lions cage and crying that the zookeepers are telling you to leave. Of course there is going to be trouble. There was an arranged pro-Tommy Robinson protest that day, but Sargon deliberately went to the opposite side to stir up tensions.

The UK certainly isn't perfect -- and I especially don't like the path we are going down (and have been going down) in regards to free speech, but your example is ridculous. There are many examples of the UK police and protestors being stupid, but that video certainly isn't one.

Oh come on. I'm not going to get into whether or not the police where right to act the way they did towards sargon (I'm not a police officer, and I'm certainly not public order trained, although it's been shown time and time again counter-protests are responsible for demonstrations turning into riots), but regarding your thinking that Tommy Robinson shouldn't be moved into gen-pop, why not? He's been convicted and sentenced and he doesn't deserve any more special treatment than any of the other inmates just because he's got views a minority of racists like. I don't know why you believe he should be allowed to remain separate from the rest of the prison based on no hard evidence at all of him being at risk if he's moved.

 

Also, the fact you think white christian men are under attack is more than a little stupid. That's not an attack on you by any means, just one on such an unfounded and childish belief.

Edited July 18, 20187 yr by EscapePodTester

That first post was... a segway of an opinion.

Whether you agree with it or not, the Police are in place to prevent disorder and violence, this guy has clearly gone out of his way, to mix in with protesters that have differeing opinions, in order to keep everyone safe the police chose to move him along. Having watched the video, the police where respectful to him whilst trying to resolve the issue and pointed out where he could be when he was protesting.

Disorder was prevented, protests where held, and as such there is no issue here, unless you are trying to an agenda.

  How did he break the peace?  Is asking questions that someone might not like a violent act?

30 minutes ago, ToeBius said:

  How did he break the peace?  Is asking questions that someone might not like a violent act?

Protests between those on the right and left are often violent, they simply relocated him from the middle of opposing protestors in order to ensure that there is no violence, he was still able to protest, and show his opinion. This is so not an issue, so the fact the poster of this thread is trying to insinuate he was banned from protesting is unbelievable.

 

 

Meanwhile in the US, that dude would have been handled within 60 seconds of first units arrival. Tased and detained, or dead and carted off by the coroner. These people determining who is and who is not a antagonist at a protest is laughable, even the most mundane calls and arrests are complicated for you blokes. And how about how Sadiq Khan approves a Trump Baby baloon and various thousands of people holding Anti-Trump Protests, but disallows permits for any conservative groups, such as Patriot Prayer and various other groups. Not only is there bias enforcement once the protests start, but they do not even allow those they have differing political opinions with to even hold/organize a rally in the first place. The real lads are the ones below, who know what's going on.

 

 

 

A mere few days ago, but i guess like me they are all nutjobs right?. Interesting how the Tommy Rally's and speakers meetings get shut down and labelled a " riot ", but the Anti-Trump ones go just dandy.

Edited July 19, 20187 yr by GTALawEnforcer

4 hours ago, GTALawEnforcer said:

 

 

Meanwhile in the US, that dude would have been handled within 60 seconds of first units arrival. Tased and detained, or dead and carted off by the coroner. These people determining who is and who is not a antagonist at a protest is laughable, even the most mundane calls and arrests are complicated for you blokes. And how about how Sadiq Khan approves a Trump Baby baloon and various thousands of people holding Anti-Trump Protests, but disallows permits for any conservative groups, such as Patriot Prayer and various other groups. Not only is there bias enforcement once the protests start, but they do not even allow those they have differing political opinions with to even hold/organize a rally in the first place. The real lads are the ones below, who know what's going on.

A mere few days ago, but i guess like me they are all nutjobs right?. Interesting how the Tommy Rally's and speakers meetings get shut down and labelled a " riot ", but the Anti-Trump ones go just dandy.

Well luckily our police don't shoot people when they don't need to. Perhaps you think that a suspect being shot and their family losing a loved one is something to be proud of, but that's generally not the attitude of the police over here.  But obviously you know more about how to safely tackle a knife man than our warranted police officers...

41 minutes ago, EscapePodTester said:

Well luckily our police don't shoot people when they don't need to. Perhaps you think that a suspect being shot and their family losing a loved one is something to be proud of, but that's generally not the attitude of the police over here.  But obviously you know more about how to safely tackle a knife man than our warranted police officers...

 

As an American, i have probably witnessed more violence and crime that your local police will ever encounter in their entire career. Unlike the UK, here in the United States our criminals are dangerous, competent, and we handle them as such. Should we start " shooting them in the leg " more?. I'm open to advice on how to handle a suspect armed with a deadly weapon. But if that advice required more than 2-3 units ..-..it's a waste of time and resources. What?, to save the life of a person who wants to see you and the police dead?. Here in the United States, we like to save our citizens tax dollars ( such as my own ) and always use deadly force when authorized. Want to see what happens when our cops take passive ideals and get pressure from the media not to use their firearms?. Here you go, enjoy. This is what passive and less lethal police forces get you, wounded and or possibly dead cops. But it's worth a cops life to potentially save an armed suspects?, right?. 🤣

 

 

Edited July 19, 20187 yr by GTALawEnforcer

4 minutes ago, GTALawEnforcer said:

 

As an American, i have probably witnessed more violence and crime that your local police will ever encounter in their entire career. Unlike the UK, here in the United States our criminals are dangerous, competent, and we handle them as such. Should we start " shooting them in the leg " more?. I'm open to advice on how to handle a suspect armed with a deadly weapon. But if that advice required more than 2-3 units ..-..it's a waste of time and resources. What?, to save the life of a person who wants to see you and the police dead?. Here in the United States, we like to save our citizens tax dollars ( such as my own ) and always use deadly force when authorized. Want to see what happens when our cops take passive ideals and get pressure from the media not to use their firearms?. Here you go, enjoy. This is what passive and less lethal police forces get you, wounded and or possibly dead cops.

 

 

That's horrifying, but the thing is, very few criminals in the UK have guns, and even fewer have something they can conceal under a jacket.  We do have armed police in the UK, and the way it works is that officers do a firearms certification, shooting hundreds if not thousands of rounds during the initial training alone.  They then either work from an ARV, similar in capability to a US swat team, or go out on patrol carrying a sidearm, but the principles on which they would actually deploy their firearm are different to US police. In the US, lethal force being justified is a free pass for lethal force being used, whereas in the UK, it's only used if it's the only feasible option. The guy in that video would likely have been tasered immediately if there was evidence to suggest he would be carrying, and then cuffed and searched. If it was a preplanned operation then firearms officers (and we're talking a lot of officers, the equivalent of an entire SWAT team) would have pulled up in marked cars, and pointed a lot of rather intimidating looking longarms at him. Apparently current strategy is that there's a taser officer with a shield meaning that within a certain range a suspect can be tasered rather than shot even if they go for a gun.

 

And speaking about the above scenario, I'm skeptical as to whether anyone would've been able to draw their sidearm or even sight an already deployed gun before that suspect started shooting. If there was the slightest evidence to suggest he was going to have a firearm I guarantee in the UK he wouldn't have been given time to realize he was being arrested, let alone start shooting. The fact that a single officer was deployed, armed or not, to this guy is the cause of his death, and not him not being better equipped.

 

Believe me, I'm pro police carrying guns. There are plenty of forces in mainland europe who arm all of their officers with sidearms and SMG's and still have a breathtakingly low amount of shootings, but the situation in the states where firearms are routinely unholestered and pointed at suspects who aren't armed or anywhere near dangerous enough to need a gun pointed at them is not at all compatible with policing by consent. 

9 hours ago, GTALawEnforcer said:

 

 

Meanwhile in the US, that dude would have been handled within 60 seconds of first units arrival. Tased and detained, or dead and carted off by the coroner. These people determining who is and who is not a antagonist at a protest is laughable, even the most mundane calls and arrests are complicated for you blokes. And how about how Sadiq Khan approves a Trump Baby baloon and various thousands of people holding Anti-Trump Protests, but disallows permits for any conservative groups, such as Patriot Prayer and various other groups. Not only is there bias enforcement once the protests start, but they do not even allow those they have differing political opinions with to even hold/organize a rally in the first place. The real lads are the ones below, who know what's going on.

 

 

 

A mere few days ago, but i guess like me they are all nutjobs right?. Interesting how the Tommy Rally's and speakers meetings get shut down and labelled a " riot ", but the Anti-Trump ones go just dandy.

Let's go to the first video - perfect police work, nobody is dead, suspect is arrested and the job is done. I don't see how anyone could argue that the situation was handled incorrectly.

In order to fly the baloon the protestors had to have 2 months of discussions with the Mayor in order to get it approved. I don't see any news articles at all stating that any group was denied the right to protest, so if you could post in an article regarding this I would appreciate it, as it currently seems you are just making it up.

 

On to your last point, the release Tommy Robinson rally was not shut-down, police simply made sure that opposing protestors did not clash with each other, both sides where able to protest, both sides made their point heard and there was no violence, in the eyes of normal people this is perfect policing. That is unless of course you are trying to push some sort of agenda.

3 hours ago, GTALawEnforcer said:

 

As an American, i have probably witnessed more violence and crime that your local police will ever encounter in their entire career. Unlike the UK, here in the United States our criminals are dangerous, competent, and we handle them as such. Should we start " shooting them in the leg " more?. I'm open to advice on how to handle a suspect armed with a deadly weapon. But if that advice required more than 2-3 units ..-..it's a waste of time and resources. What?, to save the life of a person who wants to see you and the police dead?. Here in the United States, we like to save our citizens tax dollars ( such as my own ) and always use deadly force when authorized. Want to see what happens when our cops take passive ideals and get pressure from the media not to use their firearms?. Here you go, enjoy. This is what passive and less lethal police forces get you, wounded and or possibly dead cops. But it's worth a cops life to potentially save an armed suspects?, right?. 🤣

 

 

As someone who lives in in a city of 552, 267 with a police force that covers a population of 1.38 million people, I can assure you that my 'local police' have seen more shootings, more stabbings and pretty much any other form of crime in a year than you will personally see in your entire life.

You may consider 2-3 units a waste of resources, however we don't. This country has more than enough experience in dealing with agressive and hostile people and the police have shown themselves more than capable of dealing with an incident without the need to kill people. You may think that because someone broke the law that it is okay to kill them, but thankfully we don't allow that to happen here.

I don't get how your criticism of the UK police can be a video where nobody got hurt and the suspect arrested. Oh god, yeah, sorry our police didn't shoot him to death lmfao...

10 hours ago, EscapePodTester said:

Well luckily our police don't shoot people when they don't need to. Perhaps you think that a suspect being shot and their family losing a loved one is something to be proud of, but that's generally not the attitude of the police over here.  But obviously you know more about how to safely tackle a knife man than our warranted police officers...

You do realize Law Enforcement get firearms to not only protect themselves but others? have you heard of that UK Officer that was stabbed trying to stop the restaurant stabbing? God Bless that officer but no one here could possibly disagree with me when I say that If he had a gun it would of been over right away. Its not the stupid point of "Police here dont shoot when they dont need too" its not that but for public safety. why does the queen or government officials able to get armed police/military but the citizens have to wait for an armed response. what if a lone officer is getting surrounded by several people with knives or machetes? its not trying to say "Oh my Police is better because we dont believe in shooting people" Get that selfish attitude out of here and put yourself in their goddamn shoes.

3 minutes ago, looke46 said:

You do realize Law Enforcement get firearms to not only protect themselves but others? have you heard of that UK Officer that was stabbed trying to stop the restaurant stabbing? God Bless that officer but no one here could possibly disagree with me when I say that If he had a gun it would of been over right away. Its not the stupid point of "Police here dont shoot when they dont need too" its not that but for public safety. why does the queen or government officials able to get armed police/military but the citizens have to wait for an armed response. what if a lone officer is getting surrounded by several people with knives or machetes? its not trying to say "Oh my Police is better because we dont believe in shooting people" Get that selfish attitude out of here and put yourself in their goddamn shoes.

The queen and government officials get armed police because they are targets, they are in everyway more likely to be attacked by terrorists or pretty much anyone who disagrees with them, the same cannot be said for an average citizen.

One Police Officer got stabbed, sad situation I must admit but he survived. However one stabbing does not justify the need to equip all 126 thousand cops with firearms, there was a call for more highly trained Armed Officers since the past terrorist attacks and they are currently working on that. Also, stop calling people selfish, most police here don't want to be armed, and those who do can easily begin the application process to become an armed officer, you can't just call people selfish because the policing is done differently to your country.

4 minutes ago, Ben said:

The queen and government officials get armed police because they are targets, they are in everyway more likely to be attacked by terrorists or pretty much anyone who disagrees with them, the same cannot be said for an average citizen.

One Police Officer got stabbed, sad situation I must admit but he survived. However one stabbing does not justify the need to equip all 126 thousand cops with firearms, there was a call for more highly trained Armed Officers since the past terrorist attacks and they are currently working on that. Also, stop calling people selfish, most police here don't want to be armed, and those who do can easily begin the application process to become an armed officer, you can't just call people selfish because the policing is done differently to your country.

Well then if recent terrorist attacks show that civilians seem to be the big targets since they are the only ones being affected these attacks. "One Police Officer got stabbed, sad situation I must admit but he survived. However one stabbing does not justify the need to equip all 126 thousand cops with firearms" It wasn't just him though but several others, and more, and more people are being kille. Less people would of been stabbed if (Law abiding citizen was armed) or if the Police Officer that almost lost his life and HIS FAMILY would of lost a Father and Son because he wasn't armed.  "The queen and government officials get armed police because they are targets, they are in everyway more likely to be attacked by terrorists or pretty much anyone who disagrees with them, the same cannot be said for an average citizen." Tell me how many "Average Citizens" were killed vs Government Officials? honestly idc about them having armed guards but give me the answer to my question and ask yourself who are the targets of these attacks or better yet who is affected by it most. 

9 minutes ago, looke46 said:

You do realize Law Enforcement get firearms to not only protect themselves but others? have you heard of that UK Officer that was stabbed trying to stop the restaurant stabbing? God Bless that officer but no one here could possibly disagree with me when I say that If he had a gun it would of been over right away. Its not the stupid point of "Police here dont shoot when they dont need too" its not that but for public safety. why does the queen or government officials able to get armed police/military but the citizens have to wait for an armed response. what if a lone officer is getting surrounded by several people with knives or machetes? its not trying to say "Oh my Police is better because we dont believe in shooting people" Get that selfish attitude out of here and put yourself in their goddamn shoes.

I do try and put myself in their shoes for a lot of reasons I make no secret of, in fact (as I said in the reply you quoted), I agree with you that police officers who need guns, whether they're beat duty officers or anti terrorist detectives, should have the choice to carry a gun once they've gone through training. For that. Exact. Reason. As has been said, the queen or 10 downing street get CTSFO's standing around them looking menacing is because most jihadists or nutcases or far right loonies etc want to kill her mag or the PM more than they want to kill me or you.

 

What I was objecting to is the fact that a lot of US officers treat their guns as if they're super soakers, routinely drawing and pointing them at people who pose no threat, just for the intimidation. You never point a gun at someone you wouldn't be willing to shoot at that very moment and the fact that police officers across the pond seem to flaunt this makes us as a public very, very scared that if we arm our police and we turn out like the states, rather than germany, or sweden, or norway, we're well and truly screwed. 

1 minute ago, looke46 said:

Well then if recent terrorist attacks show that civilians seem to be the big targets since they are the only ones being affected these attacks. "One Police Officer got stabbed, sad situation I must admit but he survived. However one stabbing does not justify the need to equip all 126 thousand cops with firearms" It wasn't just him though but several others, and more, and more people are being kille. Less people would of been stabbed if (Law abiding citizen was armed) or if the Police Officer that almost lost his life and HIS FAMILY would of lost a Father and Son because he wasn't armed.  "The queen and government officials get armed police because they are targets, they are in everyway more likely to be attacked by terrorists or pretty much anyone who disagrees with them, the same cannot be said for an average citizen." Tell me how many "Average Citizens" were killed vs Government Officials? honestly idc about them having armed guards but give me the answer to my question and ask yourself who are the targets of these attacks or better yet who is affected by it most. 

 Of all the plots stopped, most of them relate to government officials or government locations (Downing Street, Buckingham Palace and Parliament). I never said that it isn't bad that people are being stabbed, but there have been three attacks where armed officers where needed and only one where they had to respond to a location they was not already at (the same one you mentioned where the cop was stabbed), I again go back to the point of, most cops do not want to be armed and you cannot force them to be, you can not also take one incident and use it as a reason that all 126k police officers across the country should be armed.

It's also confusing that you thing having armed police would resolve this issue, either terrorists would feel the need to gain access to firearms or they would just go to alternative places where there are no cops. So to solve a problem where on rare occassions somebody commits a terrorist attack in this country, your solution is to place 126k firearms trained officers onto the street, it really doesn't make sense to me.

1 minute ago, EscapePodTester said:

I do try and put myself in their shoes for a lot of reasons I make no secret of, in fact (as I said in the reply you quoted), I agree with you that police officers who need guns, whether they're beat duty officers or anti terrorist detectives, should have the choice to carry a gun once they've gone through training. For that. Exact. Reason. As has been said, the queen or 10 downing street get CTSFO's standing around them looking menacing is because most jihadists or nutcases or far right loonies etc want to kill her mag or the PM more than they want to kill me or you.

 

What I was objecting to is the fact that a lot of US officers treat their guns as if they're super soakers, routinely drawing and pointing them at people who pose no threat, just for the intimidation. You never point a gun at someone you wouldn't be willing to shoot at that very moment and the fact that police officers across the pond seem to flaunt this makes us as a public very, very scared that if we arm our police and we turn out like the states, rather than germany, or sweden, or norway, we're well and truly screwed. 

Ok well put yourself in an American LEOs shoes, and know that these people who put their lives on the line for complete strangers are massive targets to alot of people. Also I can agree with your top point but think about this. They cant hurt them because of their armed security right? well then who is the easiest targets now and can cause the most damage? CIVILIANS. they are always the intended target to start unrest and FEAR. These fuckheads know this and they know that normal response is quick but if they have weapons they cant do shit! another 10 min MAX armed response shows up. You know how many innocent civilians can die in 10 minutes? Not against the government having armed guards but show the civilian populace you care about their safety and have armed officers that can respond immediately or are on a beat patrol and STOP THE THREAT. Because you are an average citizen and if you are in danger you have to wait longer than normal, but government officials get quicker response. Seems like they care. 

1 minute ago, Ben said:

 Of all the plots stopped, most of them relate to government officials or government locations (Downing Street, Buckingham Palace and Parliament). I never said that it isn't bad that people are being stabbed, but there have been three attacks where armed officers where needed and only one where they had to respond to a location they was not already at (the same one you mentioned where the cop was stabbed), I again go back to the point of, most cops do not want to be armed and you cannot force them to be, you can not also take one incident and use it as a reason that all 126k police officers across the country should be armed.

It's also confusing that you thing having armed police would resolve this issue, either terrorists would feel the need to gain access to firearms or they would just go to alternative places where there are no cops. So to solve a problem where on rare occassions somebody commits a terrorist attack in this country, your solution is to place 126k firearms trained officers onto the street, it really doesn't make sense to me.

Ok let me relate to you. in the late 90s in Los Angeles, California the LAPD only had 38. Revolvers, 9mm Beretta handguns, and 12 Gauge Shotguns. A bank robbery occurred with two men armed with fully automatic AK47s with massive Illegal modifications on them and full body armor. an LAPD Patrol unit spotted them and called in additional units. these guys came out and sprayed into the officers, injuring most of them and had enough ammo to start a small war. LAPD SWAT was called but they were across the city doing training, these officers got torn apart by these guys that when the two were leaving the bank and tried to go a suburban area they had DETECTIVES and off duty officers not in uniform trying to stop them. one guy shot himself because he ran out of ammo. 60 minutes later LAPD SWAT shows up and get into a dangerously close firefight and take him down alive. Thankfully every officer survived but after that day they began to arm LAPD Officers with AR-15 rifles and that situation began the trend of Law Enforcement having AR-15 Patrol Rifles with them. Trust me no matter what you think if you were in that situation when people are coming at you with knives you will be begging that you had a Service Pistol. ALso you seem to be missing the point. the terror plots are against the government yes but they target the easiest people to kill or harm which is the civilian populace. "So to solve a problem where on rare occassions somebody commits a terrorist attack in this country, your solution is to place 126k firearms trained officers onto the street, it really doesn't make sense to me." Well guess what buttercup more people will get to live because they were saved by an armed police officer. sure I will take your word that it might be rare but if an armed officer was there when peoples lives were in danger more people would be with their families and not watching as their loved one is lowered into a grave, why you dont see that as logical is beyond me.

14 minutes ago, looke46 said:

Ok well put yourself in an American LEOs shoes, and know that these people who put their lives on the line for complete strangers are massive targets to alot of people. Also I can agree with your top point but think about this. They cant hurt them because of their armed security right? well then who is the easiest targets now and can cause the most damage? CIVILIANS. they are always the intended target to start unrest and FEAR. These fuckheads know this and they know that normal response is quick but if they have weapons they cant do shit! another 10 min MAX armed response shows up. You know how many innocent civilians can die in 10 minutes? Not against the government having armed guards but show the civilian populace you care about their safety and have armed officers that can respond immediately or are on a beat patrol and STOP THE THREAT. Because you are an average citizen and if you are in danger you have to wait longer than normal, but government officials get quicker response. Seems like they care. 

Ok let me relate to you. in the late 90s in Los Angeles, California the LAPD only had 38. Revolvers, 9mm Beretta handguns, and 12 Gauge Shotguns. A bank robbery occurred with two men armed with fully automatic AK47s with massive Illegal modifications on them and full body armor. an LAPD Patrol unit spotted them and called in additional units. these guys came out and sprayed into the officers, injuring most of them and had enough ammo to start a small war. LAPD SWAT was called but they were across the city doing training, these officers got torn apart by these guys that when the two were leaving the bank and tried to go a suburban area they had DETECTIVES and off duty officers not in uniform trying to stop them. one guy shot himself because he ran out of ammo. 60 minutes later LAPD SWAT shows up and get into a dangerously close firefight and take him down alive. Thankfully every officer survived but after that day they began to arm LAPD Officers with AR-15 rifles and that situation began the trend of Law Enforcement having AR-15 Patrol Rifles with them. Trust me no matter what you think if you were in that situation when people are coming at you with knives you will be begging that you had a Service Pistol. ALso you seem to be missing the point. the terror plots are against the government yes but they target the easiest people to kill or harm which is the civilian populace. "So to solve a problem where on rare occassions somebody commits a terrorist attack in this country, your solution is to place 126k firearms trained officers onto the street, it really doesn't make sense to me." Well guess what buttercup more people will get to live because they were saved by an armed police officer. sure I will take your word that it might be rare but if an armed officer was there when peoples lives were in danger more people would be with their families and not watching as their loved one is lowered into a grave, why you dont see that as logical is beyond me.

I am fully aware of the thing you mention, there is a difference however. In America you can get access to long-ranged and deadily weaponary like that, here in the United Kingdom you can't, we use tasers on people wielding knives all the time in this country, I personally am hoping that the government expand the usage of tasers so that all police officers in the United Kingdom are trained and carry tasers, that would begin to address an issue within the United Kingdom.

That being said, it still doesn't mean that all cops need to be armed. It would be a vast overreaction and in an attempt to limit rare terrorist attacks, you'd end up making more problems.