Should British police be routinely armed?

[usxhe190]

They do patrol armed when required, I use to work on a nuclear site, that had armed police everywhere, they patrol armed at the airport. Do we want routine arming of all officers? I do not. Is there scope of more special case officers with firearms? Perhaps Yes. For me we need to look at armed officer response time, could we have flown them in by Helicoper etc? Could we have use the army? etc ... I hope this is the route any investigation will include.

I believed the armed officers came to the area within 2 minutes of the first officers providing communications to central station.

edit - however, 2 mins might be quite a long time in these type of situations - I don't really know.

[Terbinator]

Snip

Whether or not the Police's ammo is meant to perforate or penetrate doesn't make any difference, at least not to Di Menezes.

[jim]

Whether or not the Police's ammo is meant to perforate or penetrate doesn't make any difference, at least not to Di Menezes.

That's a bit different though.

In that case, the officers were explicity sent out on a shoot-to-kill policy.

And quite rightly so.

[aidanjt]

Whether or not the Police's ammo is meant to perforate or penetrate doesn't make any difference, at least not to Di Menezes.

It makes all the difference. Perforating ammo flattens on impact, transferring kinetic energy to the body with the intent of incapacitating. Penetrating ammo penetrates the body with the intent of killing, which can also kill or wound anyone standing behind the target.

That doesn't mean perforating ammo *can't* kill, just that it isn't designed to do so.

It's just one of the many differences between military defence and civilian enforcement.

[Terbinator]

So you think that if the proverbial armed police were following our man Derek, they would be thinking - "Oh, our ammo perforates, lets just shoot him once and see what happens". Can't see it, more like they would pull out the above and riddle him.

Snooty, surely you can't think Di Menzes death was right - or justified. If anything its a fine example of what moral panic does to those with weapons.

[Flibb]

It makes all the difference. Perforating ammo flattens on impact, transferring kinetic energy to the body with the intent of incapacitating. Penetrating ammo penetrates the body with the intent of killing, which can also kill or wound anyone standing behind the target.

That doesn't mean perforating ammo *can't* kill, just that it isn't designed to do so.

It's just one of the many differences between military defence and civilian enforcement.

Actually thats totally wrong, expanding ammo is far more likely to be deadly than full metal jacket, and is banned from military use by the Hague Convention. Hollow points are used by the plod because they are less likely to over penetrate. In the UK FMJ is banned from use on deer because expanding ammo is more likely to result in a clean and quick kill. Having used FMJ, hollow point, and ballistic tipped for pest control, ballistic tipped and hollow point kill things quicker than FMJ.

heres a bad youtube example
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaXcXVvRuJ8

The problem with expecting the Police with handguns to go up against a bloke with a shotgun and .22 rifle, is that the .22 has around twice the range of a 9mm handgun, and shotgun firing slug can be effective and suprisingly long range, its the tool of choice for US park rangers that have to deal with bears.

[aidanjt]

Actually thats totally wrong, expanding ammo is far more likely to be deadly than full metal jacket, and is banned from military use by the Hague Convention. Hollow points are used by the plod because they are less likely to over penetrate. In the UK FMJ is banned from use on deer because expanding ammo is more likely to result in a clean and quick kill. Having used FMJ, hollow point, and ballistic tipped for pest control, ballistic tipped and hollow point kill things quicker than FMJ.

heres a bad youtube example
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaXcXVvRuJ8

5.56 rifle rounds are subject to yaw during penetration and far more likely to shatter then ricochet off bone before leaving an exit wound the size of a golf ball. 7.62 rifle rounds are liable to just shatter straight through bone before leaving an exit wound the size of your fist. Getting hit with a .50 basically means you, and anyone behind you, is dead before you hit the ground unless you only get hit in the extremities, which you'll lose. Getting hit with a 30mm round just means you explode into a red chunky mist leaving your arms and legs behind.

Rifling ammo tends not to bleed away energy like round points or hollow points, it bores right through you ripping up everything it passes near. While hollow points damage more tissue on entry, the lack of penetration, and exit damage makes it less lethal. And you can't really give a hollow point a larger charge or it'd pretty much destroy itself leaving the barrel of the pistol, and even if it didn't, it'd probably just explode off the skin instead of achieving as little penetration as it already does.

[jim]

Snooty, surely you can't think Di Menzes death was right - or justified. If anything its a fine example of what moral panic does to those with weapons.

No, I don't think it was right, or justified. But the armed policemen did exactly what they should have done, and did their jobs very well.

The controller of the armed team told them what to do, and they successfully completed their mission.

The only people panicking were the people higher up. If it wasn't as simple as a perfectly executed mission, then he wouldn't have received 9 bullets to the head, or whatever it was.

[Saracen]

..... Police have to demonstrate more restraint, and only shoot to incapacitate as a measure of last resort. Soldiers are issued weapons and ammo which penetrates the target. Police are issued with weapons and ammo which flattens when it hits the target. Police are duty and legally bound to follow the law. Soldiers are duty bound to follow orders.

Erm, police training isn't that they shoot to incapacitate, it's that5 they shoot to end the imminent threat to live that was the reason for them firing in the first place.

It's somewhat a matter of semantics, as it depends on what you mean by "shoot to incapacitate". Their objective isn't usually explicitly to kill, though that's open to interpretation where they are (or believe they are) dealing with suicide bombers. But generally, the objective is to end the threat. That generally means a torso shot(s). It certainly means they don't explicitly aim for arms or legs, in the general case, because there's no guarantee that doing so will end the threat, even if they hit precisely what they were aiming at. So, standard training is the central body mass, that being where the central nervous system is most likely to be accessible, and that is the target because it is the most effective way of ending the threat.

And, of course, if you get shot in the torso, the odds that it ends up being fatal are pretty good. It is therefore not generally explicitly the objective to kill, but it's a fair chance that it'll be the end result.

The standard policy objective, though, is neither to incapacitate nor to kill. It's to end the threat to life.

Bear in mind that UK police training is that they only only fire in the last resort, that it must be legal, reasonable and proportional, and necessary.

[aidanjt]

I mean the dictionary/tactical definition, to render disabled; make unable to perform a certain action. Trained military shooters wont take a seconds thought to putting a bullet through the skull or spinal cord of a target. Such an obviously lethal shot made by a cop would be found to be 'excessive'.

[Saracen]

Actually thats totally wrong, expanding ammo is far more likely to be deadly than full metal jacket, and is banned from military use by the Hague Convention. Hollow points are used by the plod because they are less likely to over penetrate. In the UK FMJ is banned from use on deer because expanding ammo is more likely to result in a clean and quick kill. Having used FMJ, hollow point, and ballistic tipped for pest control, ballistic tipped and hollow point kill things quicker than FMJ.
....

Hollow points aren't generally used by UK police, but the choice of available ammunition, including specialist ammunition, is one for chief police officers. The use of hollow points by operation Kratos was .... erm ... a bit controversial.

It also need to be born in mind that the choice isn't a binary one between FMJ and hollow point. In fact, the conventional non-hollow lead bullet (no hollow point, no jacket) is commonplace. As for the damage they do, I'm holding a .357 hollow point and a conventional .45 bullet as I write this, and I can say with some confidence I sure as hell don't want to get hit by either, because if the person aiming knows what they're doing and are aiming at my "central body mass", my chances aren't that good with either.

[Andy3536]

5.56 rifle rounds are subject to yaw during penetration and far more likely to shatter then ricochet off bone before leaving an exit wound the size of a golf ball. 7.62 rifle rounds are liable to just shatter straight through bone before leaving an exit wound the size of your fist. Getting hit with a .50 basically means you, and anyone behind you, is dead before you hit the ground unless you only get hit in the extremities, which you'll lose. Getting hit with a 30mm round just means you explode into a red chunky mist leaving your arms and legs behind.

Rifling ammo tends not to bleed away energy like round points or hollow points, it bores right through you ripping up everything it passes near. While hollow points damage more tissue on entry, the lack of penetration, and exit damage makes it less lethal. And you can't really give a hollow point a larger charge or it'd pretty much destroy itself leaving the barrel of the pistol, and even if it didn't, it'd probably just explode off the skin instead of achieving as little penetration as it already does.

Most of that information is just plain wrong, hollow points are much more dangerous than fmj rounds.
If you look at the firearms certificate, you'll see that expanding amunition isn't aloud for target shooting anymore, they are basically taking away the more dangerous ammo types for as many people as possible. It's only available for hunting, where it's preferable as it's more leathal.
Hollow points again only break up on contact, but still will force an exit wound much larger than that of any fmj round.

Back to the original point though, i think there's certainly an argument to say that more police should be armed and that's more so in the citys. But i don't believe that the police should be routinely armed.
It's certainly a nice feature in the UK that they are not.
It's also the case that there really can't be any shoot to incapacitate, can people not return fire when they have a leg wound or arm wound?
On the very few occasions that police are required to shoot someone that's a threat to the public, they must shoot to kill. There's no other way to be sure that the threats removed.

One thing that would be usefull to remember is that this is getting so much coverage as it is just so rare in the UK. so making blanket changes in anyform will not necessarily bring any real changes to policing and the safety of the public.
My 2p anyway.

[Saracen]

.... And you can't really give a hollow point a larger charge or it'd pretty much destroy itself leaving the barrel of the pistol, and even if it didn't, it'd probably just explode off the skin instead of achieving as little penetration as it already does.

Actually, you can. You certainly can up to a point. I've done it, many times.

Set up a suitable target, say a gallon milk container filled with water. Try a standard shop-bought load, like a hollow-point .357 round and it'll punch right through that container, and probably knock it off whatever it's standing on.

But make your own ammunition, and increase the load a bit ... and it doesn't need to be that much either, and a solid hit on that same container is capable of damn near cutting it in half, and of jumping the container several feet into the air.

I've made such "hot loads" in, for example, .357 ammunition, and done exactly that with a long-barrelled .357 Magnum. Bear in mind that the whole principle of the Magnum round was to operate at higher pressure than standard .38, and to achieve a level of hydrostatic shock the .38 can't achieve.

And, believe me, you fire a "hot" .357 round and you will both feel it in the kick, and hear it in the bark.

I've made hundreds of such rounds, with a manual 4-stage ammunition machine, which locates the shell casing, inserts firing cap, loads powder and "crimps". Making hot loads is just a case of adjusting the amount of powder the machine inserts. Obviously, there's a limit, but with the appropriate casing, there's no problem increasing a standard 125gr load up to about 175gr, because I've done it, and even to 200gr is possible. It's nowhere near as simple as giving a hollow point extra charge will disintegrate the bullet because, believe me, it won't.

[CrazyMonkey]

I believe the police station that he casually 'drove past' slinging his gun at passers by should have been equipped with at least 2-4 side arms, a few shotguns and one or two SMG's. I believe every police station should carry such an armament for cases such as these.

I personally know that more densely populated areas have a higher contingency of armed officers, my uncle is an armed officer that operates in a suburb of Bristol when he is not patrolling the local airport.

It simply and unquestionably is unsettling that those who 'protect' the general public were forced to become merely spectators as the gunman shot innocent civilians. There is no doubt that if he was killed earlier more lives would have been spared.

However this in my mind begs the question that if all or a majority of officers were routinely armed and this gunman went off as he did, his perception of local resistance may well have been different and as a result caused him to operate differently to what he did. Perhaps making him even more likely to pull the trigger, as he would have known he would have met armed resistance quicker and as a result would may have been even more reckless.

[ipwiz]

Maybe police helicopters should have snipers ?

[chuckskull]

Late last night an unarmed officer on static patrol was approached and shot in the face by a man described as “a steroid-obsessed freak. He was built like a brick s***house and he not the sort of man you crossed. He was constantly taking drugs to beef himself up”. Who had been released from prison 36 hours earlier. He also had multiple previous weapons charges his last sentence was just 6 months. He also shot a man(fatally) and his ex, before looking for a copper.

The offender is described as having a grudge against and is actively targeting police.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/10500315.stm
http://inspectorgadget.wordpress.com...n-northumbria/

The officer is in serious condition and very lucky to be alive.

I'm you're thinking that if an officer gets shot in the face, guys in balaclava's with big guns come out of nowhere, they don't, the officers sent after the report of the shooting were a normal panda with no weaponry beyond a hollow stick, and told to evaluate the scene from a 'safe' distance.

Think about that guys position for a second if you really think police shouldn't at least have easy access to firearms. Approaching a steroid freak with a gun who wants to shoot you in the face, you have only a stick and something to make his eyes sting. Oh and your take home for doing it, will probably be less than £25K this year and a 2 year pay freeze, which is of course in reality is a pay cut, for a job which is going to get even harder because recruitment is being frozen and the purse strings tightened on training and equipment(don't worry though the £500k champagne ball's for the ACPO, are fine). :sigh: We don't deserve the police force we have.

Rather than the argument about whether police need guns, how about because it's just plain immoral to ask someone to work in this dangerous of an environment without the tools to properly defend themselves?

EDIT: It's also come to light that Northumbria police ordered all officers to return to their station to prevent further casualties and had to call in Armed response from neighbouring counties(leaving them critically short of armed response). How much more evidence do we need the current system isn't working?