Why do you need to bring a taser or a gun to a recent crime scene? Do you need a gun/taser for a whole day of not bothering to retrieve stolen goods? Do you need gun/taser to not investigate grooming gangs? Or to celebrate pride?
Tartan_Samurai on
*Sir Mark Rowley said a third of officers were giving up their Taser accreditation, and more than a quarter were surrendering their firearm tickets.*
*Sir Mark told the event, organised by the Police Foundation, that the online abuse faced by officers was “shameful” and that violence against officers was increasing.*
*”We should be very clear: when people, be they politicians or the public, throw accusations and slurs at the police, they put them in danger by emboldening thugs,” he said.*
LogTheDogFucksFrogs on
I don’t really care whether police are armed. But I do think if they’re going to carry around bristling firearms then the general public should be allowed to too. There should be controls. There should be licenses. But if you’re an adult, law-abiding citizen with no previous then you ought to be able to own and operate lethal weaponry. It’s a dangerous world out there: I’ve more faith in a firearm protecting me than a police officer.
BigSargeEnergy on
Unsurprising. You’d be mental to want to be an AFO.
If you have to use your weapon, you’ll be dragged through the courts, automatically treated as a murderer, subjected to a media and public witch hunt, and have your decision endlessly analysed with the luxury of hindsight and all for no extra pay!
Justacynt on
On the face of it… great! We do not need a routinely armed police force. Let the armed police rock up in drop pods for all I care. We are not safer with weapons on the streets.
RedditIsADataMine on
>Â “Officers should know that when they follow their training and act in good faith, that from their sergeant to their commissioner they will be supported,” Sir Mark said.
> “This is the approach in the health service.
> “It cannot be right that one part of the public sector, which also makes life and death decisions, should be held to a different standard to others.”
…what?
A lot to unpack here.
The life and death decisions in the health service are trying to save a life. Yes mistakes are made, and this is also investigated.Â
The life and death decisions police make are whether or not to risk taking a life. Not really the same.Â
Yes Police who have the power to kill people should be held to the highest standard. I can’t believe he publicly suggests otherwise.
He mentions that police should be supported from their sergeant to their commissioner… is he actually trying to criticise other police with this statement?Â
“We’re the biggest gang in the country. It’s time we start acting like it. Close ranks!”
Â
DukeAsriel on
So officers that fear accountability are turning in their accreditation for firearms and tasers. Sounds like a problem that is solving itself.
2point4children on
That’s the UK for you….gone too soft. Look at the Manchester airport incident. The Police were more interested in who leaked the footage than the actual incident. Police are still under full investigation, while the others have been let off.
[deleted] on
[deleted]
Unfair-Link-3366 on
Police officer rightfully stops gangster with lethal force (as last resort)
Legal system relentlessly pursues him
His name gets released, now he needs to fear for his safety every day
Not surprised firearms officers had enough
High-Tom-Titty on
Not saying it’s a good or bad thing, it may just be the lesser. However isn’t this how qualified immunity talks start to happen?
Ok-Raspberry2185 on
As someone working within law enforcement, you can be dragged through an inquest for using anything
The_All_Seeing_Pi on
Who knew more accountability and getting caught out with people filming them would cause this? They wear bodycams (which for some strange reason are never turned on or the footage is lost) so what’s the problem? If you are acting within the law and you have a bodycam (multiple bodycams as well from whoever is with you at the time or even CCTV) as evidence then as a police officer you have absolutely nothing to fear.
What is the suggestion here? That Police should be above the law they are supposed to uphold. Do they want to remove that accountability?
Spare_Dig_7959 on
If they do not wish to be held accountable for their use of force then they should not have a firearm,or a truncheon or handcuffs,and should reconsider the career choice.
AldrichOfAlbion on
The idea that British police are unarmed and only ‘police by consent’ is complete nonsense and a myth created by lefties. The Metropolitan police were regularly armed with revolvers in the Victorian times at night when it was more dangerous. All British police had firearms during WWI and WWII, The most notable contradiction is that essentially ALL police in Northern Ireland are armed.
Despite the contradiction in claiming Northern Ireland is British but Northern Irish police aren’t actually in Britain, another point is them claiming, ‘Well Northern Ireland is too dangerous with the IRA for them not to be armed!’ Ok fine, but England is getting just as dangerous for police not to be routinely armed.
Armed police work. Europe works. If you don’t want to be gung ho like America fine, but firearms are a deterrent. Having 5 foot imps chasing 6ft 4 men does not work.
Pro1apsed on
The police have a very hard job, they are massively understaffed, there should be 100,000 more officers than there is, so they are constantly putting out fires, running from one disaster to another, crimes don’t get solved, the public feel unsafe because they are unsafe.
But the glee with which many of them go after members of the general public they feel they can get an easy arrest out of, while ignoring serious crime like drug dealing and other gang activities, destroy the publics trust in them. They appear to be bullies, picking on the weak while ignoring the strong.
And that’s before you get into the blatant two-tier treatment of certain groups. What are the public supposed to do, just take it, and keep supporting the bullies?
True-Horse353 on
Maybe if the heads of the police didn’t force many officers to spend their limited time acting as Stasi visiting people over admittedly nasty facebook posts instead of actually helping the public with investigating real crimes like the thousands of burglaries they do nothing about, people would be more inclined be pro Police or at least neutral.
As it stands any action that could be perceived as negative, no matter if unavoidable or correct, will receive hate from many purely because that’s the general sentiment people have towards the police now.
Who can blame these officers handing in their firearms, I certainly wouldn’t want the weight of responsibility for that kind of role and public sentiment on my shoulders with the combined knowledge that simply carrying out my duty correctly might resolve in a public lambasting which will be followed by higher ups washing their hands of me to save face.
17 Comments
Why do you need to bring a taser or a gun to a recent crime scene? Do you need a gun/taser for a whole day of not bothering to retrieve stolen goods? Do you need gun/taser to not investigate grooming gangs? Or to celebrate pride?
*Sir Mark Rowley said a third of officers were giving up their Taser accreditation, and more than a quarter were surrendering their firearm tickets.*
*Sir Mark told the event, organised by the Police Foundation, that the online abuse faced by officers was “shameful” and that violence against officers was increasing.*
*”We should be very clear: when people, be they politicians or the public, throw accusations and slurs at the police, they put them in danger by emboldening thugs,” he said.*
I don’t really care whether police are armed. But I do think if they’re going to carry around bristling firearms then the general public should be allowed to too. There should be controls. There should be licenses. But if you’re an adult, law-abiding citizen with no previous then you ought to be able to own and operate lethal weaponry. It’s a dangerous world out there: I’ve more faith in a firearm protecting me than a police officer.
Unsurprising. You’d be mental to want to be an AFO.
If you have to use your weapon, you’ll be dragged through the courts, automatically treated as a murderer, subjected to a media and public witch hunt, and have your decision endlessly analysed with the luxury of hindsight and all for no extra pay!
On the face of it… great! We do not need a routinely armed police force. Let the armed police rock up in drop pods for all I care. We are not safer with weapons on the streets.
>Â “Officers should know that when they follow their training and act in good faith, that from their sergeant to their commissioner they will be supported,” Sir Mark said.
> “This is the approach in the health service.
> “It cannot be right that one part of the public sector, which also makes life and death decisions, should be held to a different standard to others.”
…what?
A lot to unpack here.
The life and death decisions in the health service are trying to save a life. Yes mistakes are made, and this is also investigated.Â
The life and death decisions police make are whether or not to risk taking a life. Not really the same.Â
Yes Police who have the power to kill people should be held to the highest standard. I can’t believe he publicly suggests otherwise.
He mentions that police should be supported from their sergeant to their commissioner… is he actually trying to criticise other police with this statement?Â
“We’re the biggest gang in the country. It’s time we start acting like it. Close ranks!”
Â
So officers that fear accountability are turning in their accreditation for firearms and tasers. Sounds like a problem that is solving itself.
That’s the UK for you….gone too soft. Look at the Manchester airport incident. The Police were more interested in who leaked the footage than the actual incident. Police are still under full investigation, while the others have been let off.
[deleted]
Police officer rightfully stops gangster with lethal force (as last resort)
Legal system relentlessly pursues him
His name gets released, now he needs to fear for his safety every day
Not surprised firearms officers had enough
Not saying it’s a good or bad thing, it may just be the lesser. However isn’t this how qualified immunity talks start to happen?
As someone working within law enforcement, you can be dragged through an inquest for using anything
Who knew more accountability and getting caught out with people filming them would cause this? They wear bodycams (which for some strange reason are never turned on or the footage is lost) so what’s the problem? If you are acting within the law and you have a bodycam (multiple bodycams as well from whoever is with you at the time or even CCTV) as evidence then as a police officer you have absolutely nothing to fear.
What is the suggestion here? That Police should be above the law they are supposed to uphold. Do they want to remove that accountability?
If they do not wish to be held accountable for their use of force then they should not have a firearm,or a truncheon or handcuffs,and should reconsider the career choice.
The idea that British police are unarmed and only ‘police by consent’ is complete nonsense and a myth created by lefties. The Metropolitan police were regularly armed with revolvers in the Victorian times at night when it was more dangerous. All British police had firearms during WWI and WWII, The most notable contradiction is that essentially ALL police in Northern Ireland are armed.
Despite the contradiction in claiming Northern Ireland is British but Northern Irish police aren’t actually in Britain, another point is them claiming, ‘Well Northern Ireland is too dangerous with the IRA for them not to be armed!’ Ok fine, but England is getting just as dangerous for police not to be routinely armed.
Armed police work. Europe works. If you don’t want to be gung ho like America fine, but firearms are a deterrent. Having 5 foot imps chasing 6ft 4 men does not work.
The police have a very hard job, they are massively understaffed, there should be 100,000 more officers than there is, so they are constantly putting out fires, running from one disaster to another, crimes don’t get solved, the public feel unsafe because they are unsafe.
But the glee with which many of them go after members of the general public they feel they can get an easy arrest out of, while ignoring serious crime like drug dealing and other gang activities, destroy the publics trust in them. They appear to be bullies, picking on the weak while ignoring the strong.
And that’s before you get into the blatant two-tier treatment of certain groups. What are the public supposed to do, just take it, and keep supporting the bullies?
Maybe if the heads of the police didn’t force many officers to spend their limited time acting as Stasi visiting people over admittedly nasty facebook posts instead of actually helping the public with investigating real crimes like the thousands of burglaries they do nothing about, people would be more inclined be pro Police or at least neutral.
As it stands any action that could be perceived as negative, no matter if unavoidable or correct, will receive hate from many purely because that’s the general sentiment people have towards the police now.
Who can blame these officers handing in their firearms, I certainly wouldn’t want the weight of responsibility for that kind of role and public sentiment on my shoulders with the combined knowledge that simply carrying out my duty correctly might resolve in a public lambasting which will be followed by higher ups washing their hands of me to save face.