Valdore

If anyone does this, make sure to add copious officer banter :D
On a more serious note, ideas for complications in detained person transport (arrested person as opposed to convicted) that we come across:
They've managed to get out of their cuffs/get themselves from rear cuff to front cuff position. Get out, get them out and re-cuff them.
Medical emergency, get them out and into recovery position, call for ambo.
They've got their phone out and started using it, seize the phone. Seriously, the number of times this ends up happening . . .
Could also look at implementing things like searching the van before putting someone in the back and searching after in case they dropped / discarded any evidence.

I'll tell you this, on my shift we have three taser trained officers, this is response mind, not sure about local units. In total, there will be between 10 and 20 of us on duty total, and although we can expect armed backup should it be needed, it won't be quick, even on blues and twos, though in more densely populated areas, backup is far closer. We can potentially be waiting up to 20 minutes for the nearest standard unit to respond on blues!
Taser itself would never be deployed on someone with a firearm due to the risk of the trigger finger tightening and shots being fired, though for knives and other weapons it is useful, and even then, it is only discharged very rarely, red-dotting them is usually enough.
The rest of us however, have a hitty stick and a spray (which doesn't last long). Then again, we fall back on those and the other skill sets we're taught so rarely that people can never find the forms to fill out when we do have to use force! The voice is a far more powerful tool in our arsenal! Though maybe I should start a topic about the UK police rather than piggy-backing this one, I just thought the above information might be useful to someone in relation to the topic :p

If anyone does this, make sure to add copious officer banter :D
On a more serious note, ideas for complications in detained person transport (arrested person as opposed to convicted) that we come across:
They've managed to get out of their cuffs/get themselves from rear cuff to front cuff position. Get out, get them out and re-cuff them.
Medical emergency, get them out and into recovery position, call for ambo.
They've got their phone out and started using it, seize the phone. Seriously, the number of times this ends up happening . . .
Could also look at implementing things like searching the van before putting someone in the back and searching after in case they dropped / discarded any evidence.

May be worth waiting for the winter steam sale around Christmas time, no guarantees, but it may well go on sale during that period :)

May be worth waiting for the winter steam sale around Christmas time, no guarantees, but it may well go on sale during that period :)

Playing a UK based devil's advocate, we used to have the right to keep and bear arms, enshrined in common law which, whilst not a constitution, is essentially similar. It was decided however that due to the use of weapons for reasons other than what the right was intended for (self-defence, defence of land and property etc.) was a sufficient enough issue that better control was needed, and so gun control started happening, the earliest example being in 1903, the Pistols Act to be precise.
Now I'd ask you guys, what was the initial reasoning behind the second amendment? As far as I understand, it was put in place for the same reason as above, and also to ensure the country had a well armed militia. Now I ask you these questions as well, why does one of the most powerful nations in the world still need an armed militia? Why is it not enough for the law enforcement agencies, who are now far more able to respond to incidents, to be armed for the protection of the nations citizens? Why is the answer to gun crime to increase the quantity of guns that can be legally brought?
I know that the mentality in the US is that you should be able to defend yourself from a gun-wielding maniac, but if that gun-wielding maniac wasn't able to legally purchase a weapon in the first place, would they even known where to go to buy an illegal one? And if they did, what is so wrong with leaving it for the authorities to deal with?

Playing a UK based devil's advocate, we used to have the right to keep and bear arms, enshrined in common law which, whilst not a constitution, is essentially similar. It was decided however that due to the use of weapons for reasons other than what the right was intended for (self-defence, defence of land and property etc.) was a sufficient enough issue that better control was needed, and so gun control started happening, the earliest example being in 1903, the Pistols Act to be precise.
Now I'd ask you guys, what was the initial reasoning behind the second amendment? As far as I understand, it was put in place for the same reason as above, and also to ensure the country had a well armed militia. Now I ask you these questions as well, why does one of the most powerful nations in the world still need an armed militia? Why is it not enough for the law enforcement agencies, who are now far more able to respond to incidents, to be armed for the protection of the nations citizens? Why is the answer to gun crime to increase the quantity of guns that can be legally brought?
I know that the mentality in the US is that you should be able to defend yourself from a gun-wielding maniac, but if that gun-wielding maniac wasn't able to legally purchase a weapon in the first place, would they even known where to go to buy an illegal one? And if they did, what is so wrong with leaving it for the authorities to deal with?