Unarmed police officer shot by gunman in Gateshead

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Stooriefit, Jul 4, 2010.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/10500315.stm

    An unarmed police officer has been shot in Gateshead by the man suspected of murdering a male and attempting to murder his ex the previous day.

    Another step towards the arming of the police? Or an acceptable casualty in maintaining the illusion that we're still living in the 1950's?
  2. Or neither and an over reaction on your part?

    The Police do a decent job but I barely trust half of them behind the wheel of a car let alone carrying a firearm.

    It is possible to have a balance somewhere between total anarchy and a militarised police force. It's a shame this fella was hurt and hopefully he'll be ok, but coppers know the risks of their job and fortunately these incidents are few and far between.

    Arming all police officers is no more of a solution than arming the general public.
  3. Though I feel a well trained Bobby with a Glock may well have taken care of the Cumbria Window Licker before so many people were murdered.
  4. Well he was spotted quite early on by a patrol, who were unable to do anything. However had they been armed he would probably added them to the list of legitimate targets, and who knows how many more would have been killed/injured.

    There is nothing that can be done about people who suddenly flip. Just look at some of the mass shootings that take place in the USA where the LEA and just about everyone else is armed.
  5. Or perhaps he'd have been stopped. Moot point. We'll never know.
    Still think a well trained Firearms weilding officer would easily get the better of a mad man with a bolt action .22 and a 12 bore.
    But then that's just me.
    As for many members of the public armed in the States, how many have concealed carry permission?
  6. Unarmed officers police an unarmed population. A minority of specially trained officers are armed to deal with a minority of criminals who use firearms. This is the principle of proportionality and long may it continue for while it does, there will be a great deal of public sympathy for that officer who now lies in hospital in a critical condition as well as his friends, colleagues and family. It is a very British trait. We instinctively defend the underdog regardless of who he is and despite what some may think, the British do have a profound sense of 'fair play'. As long as that public sympathy exists members of the public, and yes, even criminals are prepared to come forward and give witness statements. If you have a fully armed force policing an unarmed population, an officer sustaining a gunshot wound is less likely to engender that degree of sympathy, it makes it statisticly more probably that officers will be more ready to use firearms when threatened, and their job becomes even more difficult than it might be in the face of a less sympathetic public. Thirty years of Northern Ireland teaches us just how fragile public trust in the Police can be. It showed us what happened when public trust in the Police broke down to those of us who had to physically drag terrified police officers out of their stations and throw them into the back of landrovers to force them to patrol the streets under military protection it showed us just how long it takes for them to regain public trust to allow them to do their job - in Northern Ireland's case, more than thirty years and the deaths of many good police men and women. So no, I do not want the Police to be armed any more than I want any more of our young police officers to be shot while doing their duty.
  7. Oh well - let's just keep in perspective what Sven was blabbering on about the other day. Most criminals are just dis-advantaged because they have been poorly educated. Prison isn't the answer and there is no point keeping most offenders in because their re-offending rate is very low.

    This should not be a question about why police aren't armed it should be about why dangerous people are let back out onto our streets. Mouat has convictions for assault and threatened someone with a shotgun as recently as last year. Within 3 days of a rediculously light sentence he has tried to kill 3 people. What shall we do with him next - reading and writing lessons or shall we move straight onto a tax-payer funded degree in law.

    Personally I think 20 years of turning big rocks into gravel is needed. Performance Indicators in simple terms of Tonnes/day reducing slightly as he grows old. Output linked to quantity of food served to him and/or TV minutes.
  8. What's is they always trot out at this point?

    Oh yes… 'If the Police were armed, the criminals would carry guns'. :x

    Funny thing, you don't hear the Politie, Gendarmerie, Guardia Civil, Polizei, Carabinieri and a dozen other European police forces spout that line in bollox.
  9. Didin't the coppers vote a few years back to stay unarmed (for the most part)?
  10. While not disagreeing with your views SF, in all the countries you quote there are no mass handgun or rifle bans, and time is given to all those forces to train in the correct usage of their sidearms.

    The only people who are armed in this country, apart from HMF and the forces of Law and some farmers, appear to be the criminal fraternity.
  11. Actually if you check you will find the number of police officers murdered between 1950 and 1960 in the UK was very little different than for the last decade
  12. Methinks thou doth talk testicles. Certainly the GCP don't get much training, apart from the special units.
  13. Sorry guys, I'm dropping out of this one. My mind (rightly or wrongly) is made up:

    That should never have been allowed to happen. For fifty or so reasons, including "If the PCs had been armed!"
  14. Doesn't say a lot about gun control though does it. Out of the nick and very soon after a murderer

  15. If MOD plod can find the time to train all their Officers to a reasonable standard of competency with firearms, so can CivPlod.

    Major difference? ModPol are a grown up force doing Police stuff, CivPol are a politicized force of run by enthusiastic amatuers and hijacked into doing uniformed social work.

    We all come in an out the gate and see ModPol all the time and it doesn't give us the wibbly wobblies that they are armed and they don't go around offing us. The resistance from CivPol to being armed is IMO, muchly down to the fact that too many of them don't want to actually enforce the law.