EscapePodTester

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.

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.

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...

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.

Agreed 100%, would be a little unexpected twist to keep you on your toes. Real life policing is about going down every avenue and not just the ones that are more likely to be true, so it would be nice if 0.4 gave us little surprises like this. And obviously it would help challenge the stereotype which would also be fantastic.

For some reason I can't go up and down using the menu, everything else works fine, just numpad 8 and 2 don't work.