Coppers with guns

[TeePee]

Theres no such thing as shooting to kill or shooting to mame.

If a poilce officer is at fault here it may not be the one who pulled the trigger. We don't know the situation, but if the officer with the gun was given the information that the person he was following WAS a suspect in the previousdays bombings, and he behaved like a suicide bomber, then the actions the officer took are irreproachable. Obviously this brings into question the quality of the information given, etc. The officer hasn't just shot some random person with a backpack.

The shoot-to-kill or shoot-to-maim arguement has been completed a long time ago.

[e-LAN-go]

phunky how did you know the police you met were racist, did they start calling people racist names, if so did you get there names, numbers and report them? if you didnt report them? If you didnt report them you are not in a position to complain.

You do realise not all racism is outward and obvious, after all some ignorant officers can do it in an indirect way.

Problems like this do concern me especially when my younger brother is in the police cadets and has ambitions to join the Met in the future. But personally I'm concerned he may face some institutional racism especially with this new ethnic recruitment drive which some white officers dislike because it fast tracks people from ethnic minorities over others. However to the Met's credit, my brother has been enjoying his experiences with them so far without any hassle.

[iranu]

I think the whole institutionalised racism claim for the Met police is overstated. Whilst I'm sure that there are some elements who think like that I'm sure that the vast majority of police officers are fair minded people after all they are recruited from the whole of society. With the paranoia about it these days there is an increased awareness and a policy to root out racist officers. The fear of racism shouldn't deter anyone from any background from joining the police whatsoever.

[e-LAN-go]

I agree the institutional racism issue isn't the same as it once was since the Met was under scrutiny around this issue for so many years now. I also agree that police recruitment should be based on merit rather than the need to fulfil the quota on equal opportunities.

In the end this system could just backfire on the Met and provoke animosity from those who tried to join up but were denied because of it. It's important for the Met to have a force that fairly represents society as a whole but it should be a natural progression to this not a forced one.

[Andy]

Yes to the original question.

A friend of mines Dad was a copper who was killed back in the 90's and it sucks that they cant defent themselves (and us!) properly.

I agree that we should not compare this situation to the USA, LOTS of countries have armed police and lower gun crime rates than the USA. In the last week or so, EVERY copper that i have seen has had some form of firearm on their person and i feel a hell of a lot safer for it.

When I first heard about the shooting incident I had a chat with my flatmate about it and we both said that there was no way the shooters were armed police, they had to be intellegence or the SAS, as mentioned previously in this thread, police officers never carry automatic handguns in this country.

[TeePee]

so19 have some full auto weapons, not sure about hand guns.

Airport police's mp5's are full auto rather than the normal armed police single shot variants.

Its not impossible for some cops to have auto guns, but I doubt full auto pistols, I think glock's can be full auto, I dont think we even use the semi ayto glocks though.

No and No.

SO19 don't have access to fully automatic weapons and nor do airport police. The MP-5s they carry are modified for semi-auto function only. There is a police unit which does have access to fully automatic weapons, but not one you are likely to encounter.

[iranu]

All those that think that it was the SAS, MI5 etc are wrong. Sorry.

My old man was an armed copper at Heathrow for years. He was there training police officers who joined S019 right from the start when it when SO19 was conceived to counter the IRA. He was involved in devising training methods, teaching, etc He is most adamant that plain clothed SO19 officers shot this bloke.

SAS, MI5 are not used in the role of following a potential suspect on mainland Britain given only one days notice. They are not police and do not have powers of arrest. The only difference between SO19 and the usual bobby is that SO19 are trained to carry firearms and therefore specialise in incidents where firearms are considered to be needed. They are otherwise coppers.

"As for the weapons, the gun used was a pistol, most likely semi-automatic. You still have to pull the trigger 8 times to make the gun fire 8 times. There's no hope in hell of an officer putting 8 bullets into someones skull with a weapon on automatic even if he had one." says the old fella.

My old man has given me so much info over the last few days about how they train for this it's not true. The pressure he's been under whilst carrying weapons is unbelievable - something I never knew about. He reads the absurd speculation in the news with derision. People who have never seen a gun commenting on what type of weapon was used and how.

He's mighty pissed off at the way alot of the public are mouthing off over what should/could have been done because they're all living in fantasy land. He says the only people who can be critical are people who have been through the training - i.e. him. They know what it's like. He will wait until the investigation is concluded before being critical. He certainly doesn't agree with some of the current S019 training methods but he certainly thinks the "shoot to kill to protect" policy is right.

[TeePee]

For the Met, it is normal procedure to have access to G3 assault rifles (5.56mm, same round as for the SA80, normally carted around in the boot of the ARVs) but again these are modified for semi-auto function only. The reason for having access to them is both a response to the North Hollywood shootout which had an impact on firearms officers throughout the world (Since that incident specifically, the LAPD have carried AR-15's in the boot of their cars), and due to the low power of the 9mm round used in the Glock and MP5. Due to the fact that these weapons are likely to be used around the public, and to limit the risk of over-penetration, the standard police issue round uses only 80 grains of powder. To put this low power into perspective, the minimum load reccomended by Glock for reliable function is 120 grains. The standard police 9mm round will not reliably penetrate a double glazed window.
The reasons for restricting the police to semi-auto weapons is based on the kind of situations they are likely to be involved in. Normally a small number of armed suspects and a risk collateral damage. The idea is to have each shot carefully aimed at the target. Under current legislation, issue of fully automatic weapons to police requires a specific order from the Home Secretary, so yes it is theoretically possible for SO19 to be issued fully automatic weapons, but it would only be in an extreme situation, something way beyond their usual remit.

[iranu]

My dad in the 70's carried a weapon that was not capable of full auto fire and neither do armed police these days (I thought wrongly in my first post that auto was never selected). You physically have to pull the trigger each time to shoot, otherwise it is pointless carrying the gun.

The whole point of having a gun is to shoot to kill. You can't do that with a fully automatic weapon even with a short burst unless highly trained. The gun recoils up and to the right (for a right hander) even on a 3 shot selector, so it is not used. The idea is to AIM each shot.

Unfortunately we are fed a diet of rubbish by the tv and media as regards the use of guns by police or others.

The only force (deployed in the UK) capable of carrying out operations in which automatic weapons are used is the SAS and they are extremely well trained. Most likely the best in the world. Think of the Iranian embassy seige. They killed all the terrorists with fully automatic weapons and not one hostage was killed by them - incredible.

The closest that police have been to being trained by the SAS was the Airport police in the 70's, but it was realised that the training methods were inappropriate. Police certainly worked with the SAS during this period. (and it wouldn't surprise me if this was still the case, thinking hijackings etc). My dad would observe them train and shoot with them at Hereford to see if the training was applicable for Airport police.

During firearms practice fully automatic weapons of a wide variety were used (in my dad's day, would expect the same now) because it is important for the marksman to understand what happens when an automatic weapon is fired. It's also important for armed police to be familiar with a variety of weapons that maybe used against them not only from the point of view of assessing the threat but also in making them safe.

To answer PrivatePyle's question of shoot outs involving automatic weapons my dad says he would rather face someone firing an AK47 on full auto than a bloke with a single barrelled, single shot, shotgun. The shotgun will hit you, it only has to be POINTED not aimed, the AK47 rounds will go into the sky.

It's now known that the Brazilian electrician was killed by 8 shots. It is most likely that 2 officers pulled the trigger. The public heard 5 shots but 8 were fired so that would suggest more than one shooter. Also the timing - it would take a long time to fire 8 shots. I would be surprised if one officer pulled the trigger 8 times even in the heat of the moment.

[iranu]

Yep - I see it a bit like learning MS office and only learning word. You might not ever have the need to learn excel but it can be seen to be important to know what it does and familiarise yourself with it.

[loki]

hmmm. not sure i like the idea of every police officer being given a gun. I have to admit i don't know how the system works but i think a small number of officers being allowed guns in response to a high risk situation is required but i don't want to pass some officers in the middle of the street and them both carrying firearms.

[oralpain]

Doesn't bother me, as long as it doesn't go off. As for the guns being im properly slung, I'd rather be hit in the leg than the head should one accidentally discharge while pointed at me.

[iranu]

Guns do not accidentally discharge, even with the safety off. You have to physically pull the trigger to fire. Anyone who says it went off accidentally is either a liar or the gun was so defective that it could have fired any time. If a gun is pointed at you and "accidentally" discharged then the carrier was aiming at you and pulled the trigger deliberately.

If you put a cocked pistol in a vice and hit the hammer hard (like with all your might) with a big hammer, the gun will not fire. YOU HAVE TO PULL THE TRIGGER TO DISCHARGE THE WEAPON. Again it's a Hollywood myth that guns go off accidentally. I think of Erica Elainak (easy!!) in Undersiege when she drops a machine pistol down a flight of stairs on a ship and kills a load of people - tis fantasy (like the cake bit )

Improperly slung weapons is unheard of in Britain as far as the police are concerned,

I certainly don't like the idea of all cops being armed as I stated earlier. In this country the cops who have them are far superior in their training and judgement than most of the rest of the world if not all. We are lucky in this country that there are checks and balances that allow procedure, tactics, training, policy etc to be reviewed/modified from time to time - and when events show inadequacies. A lot of the RotW are content (including Brazil) and do not change policy, given events. The brazilian gov are hippocrytyes.

For example I live 3 miles from the shooting(s) at Highmoor, where a gunman had fled yet the armed police did not move in for over an hour and one person bled to death. (By a quirk of circumstance my dad knows the lady who tended the dying woman and a friend of mine lived opposite the shooting).

Personally I think in this situatuion the police disregarded their duty even though the situation was dangerous. (imoh policemen are by their very nature supposed to protect the public even though they are at danger themselves -INCLUDES MY DAD IN THE 70'S). BUT they were following orders - so what are they supposed to do? This is the harsh bit, yet goes to the heart of what has happened in London

Police procedure has been reviewed and policy updated to reflect the fact that armed police did not move in quickly given teh information and secure the area and get paramedics into those that required medical attention ASAP even if that meant putting their own lives at risk given the information supplied by the public (meaning the lady who cradled the dying woman).

I think loki is right.

Police are police are police. They may well carry MP5's, truncheons or Two Handed Mace +7 spiritual damage (WoW is taking over my life) but underneath they are the same as ordinary bobbies with the same powers.

However, it is much more difficult for the public to approach a bobby armed with a gun and ask for directions to the British Museum than it is if the cop is unarmed. It's this approachability that is important. Information about crime does not come from coppers or the special super-duper task forces set up - it comes from the public.

A visable gun automatically separates the public from the police in this country, it's not the norm, because we do not ahve a gun culture. And that is extremely important. It can feel like control, confrontation, militarisation, if police are routinely armed and that's why we do not arm regular coppers and that's why they themselves do not want to be armed.

Anyone who has been in the army or has spoken to someone who's been involved in peacekeeping duties will understand that the army is trained in how they present themselves. It's early/late but iirc a friend of mine who served in Bosnia as an officer in the British Army told me (and I could be wrong about the # of levels) that there are 15 levels of "aggressiveness" dependent on how you present yourself and your weapon and your stance to those around you. This makes a significant impression on how people percieve you and therefore how they interact with you. So it's very important to adopt the appropriate "stance" to those around you in given a situation.

We can forget about what happens in other countries - that is not important.
Britain does not have armed gangs running about demanding money with pistols drawn in central London. We do not have gungho police officers champing at the bit to shoot anyone suspected of carrying a bomb/gun. We do not have lax procedures or laws giving an armed officer license to roam freee and kill indiscriminately.

Each death is investigated. This investigation does not seek to cheapen life or denigrate the decased - it seeks the truth. Our own justice system is not perfect (I wish it was) but it is laid down in law and as such the individuals accused shall face it.

[RVF500]

HAving used numerous automatic weapons during my army career I can confirm that the likelihood of hitting a target as small as someone's head eight times on an automatic setting would be something just short of a miracle. The natural tendancy for the weapon to climb would mean that the last 5 or 6 rounds would most likely miss totally. I can't speak for th epolice but my belief is that they do not have automatic capability on their weapons.

Automatic fire is indiscriminate and only used in the last stages of an assault, if being overrun or during house clearing. This doesn't include support weapons but to date I havn't seen the police using GPMGs and I seriously doubt they ever will. As I also seriously doubt they will ever be in the situations I have just described.

A much more effective method is to 'double tap' which is trained on both rifles and hand guns. That is firing 2 aimed shots in quick succession on a single shot setting. The process is repeated until your target is down. The head is used as a target as a body shot, though maybe fatal, may not prevent a terrorist from detonating a device as a last gasp effort.

I feel very sorry for both the family of the Brazilian man who was killed at Stockwell and also the copper. He was working on the information given and doubtless believed that his target was about to set of a bomb and kill a large number of innocent people. The 'human rights brigade' who are howling (Bianca Jagger for example) would be pointing the finger of blame at what would have no doubt been the deceased police officer if he hadn't fired and it turned out he was indeed chasing a bomber who had been allowed to detonate his device in a crowded train. No win situation for the cop. He made the right given the situation he found himself in but I doubt that is much comfort right now. The people responsible for the guys death were those that created the situation in which he was killed. Namely the mass murderers carrying bombs into the underground.

[iranu]

Well said.

[oralpain]

Guns do not accidentally discharge, even with the safety off.

Obviously you've never used a semi-auto AR15 illegally (or improperly) converted to full auto.

Police, as well as criminals, in some places do.