Sucks to be an incompetent burgler

[Seth]

Getting ready to use deadly force, and threatening to use deadly force in appropriate self-defense situations is a lesser application of physical force than actually shooting someone or even engaging in fisticuffs, which is why the police do it all the time. And if they get to do it, so do I.

American police do, not everyone else does.

If other police want to be slack-jawed victims who get shot without a prayer of defending themselves, that's up to them I suppose. I'll stick with American police policy and practice thanks. It maximizes MY chances for survival, which is all that counts.

If a British policeman sees someone carrying away a tv set from someone house and hits him with a baton its assault simple as that, you cannot use anything other than the very minimal amount of force to protect property ie grabbing someone unless they start fighting back

Which works just fine until the perp pulls out an illegal machine gun (one of the classes of arms being found ever more frequently in the UK) and plugs him full of holes, at which point he collapses on the ground with a surprised and pained look on his face as the blood leaks out and he starts thinking about his wife and kids, who he will never see again...all because some fuckwits in the UK are too fucking stupid and uncaring to give their police officers a fighting chance at surviving an armed encounter because they are in denial about the risks faced by police, and everybody else, who ends up facing an armed criminal with no ballistic vest and no firearm.

Dumb fucks.

[MrJonno]

all because some fuckwits in the UK are too fucking stupid and uncaring to give their police officers a fighting chance at surviving an armed encounter because they are in denial about the risks faced by police, and everybody else, who ends up facing an armed criminal with no ballistic vest and no firearm.

Actually a high % of the police has said they would resign rather than carry a gun as they are sane about what it would do to their chances of survival.

While there is a extremely limited requirement for deadly force when dealing with criminals I personally don't see what it needs to be the police. We have a minority of armed police and there sole job is either to shoot people or threaten to (they don't bother with all that fluffy arresting police stuff). Might as well just have the army doing it (which they do from time to time)

[Seth]

all because some fuckwits in the UK are too fucking stupid and uncaring to give their police officers a fighting chance at surviving an armed encounter because they are in denial about the risks faced by police, and everybody else, who ends up facing an armed criminal with no ballistic vest and no firearm.

Actually a high % of the police has said they would resign rather than carry a gun as they are sane about what it would do to their chances of survival.

All that means is that they are idiots.

While there is a extremely limited requirement for deadly force when dealing with criminals I personally don't see what it needs to be the police. We have a minority of armed police and there sole job is either to shoot people or threaten to (they don't bother with all that fluffy arresting police stuff). Might as well just have the army doing it (which they do from time to time)

Yeah....that works....as some crook is shooting unarmed cops dead someone is calling for an armed "flying squad" which should be there in, oh, 20 minutes or so. Try not to bleed to death before then, okay?

[MrJonno]

And how many British police get killed each year?

If you thought comparing civilian murders was warped you should see what it is for police

Typically we had less than one policeman murdered each year in the UK each year US its over 150. I know where I would rather be a policeman (idiot or otherwise)

[Seth]

And how many British police get killed each year?

If you thought comparing civilian murders was warped you should see what it is for police

Typically we had less than one policeman murdered each year in the UK each year US its over 150. I know where I would rather be a policeman (idiot or otherwise)

And you think that statistic gives comfort to his widow and children, who might not be fatherless and widowed if he'd had a gun?

Derp1

[MrJonno]

And how many British police get killed each year?

If you thought comparing civilian murders was warped you should see what it is for police

Typically we had less than one policeman murdered each year in the UK each year US its over 150. I know where I would rather be a policeman (idiot or otherwise)

And you think that statistic gives comfort to his widow and children, who might not be fatherless and widowed if he'd had a gun?

Derp1

No interest in individual cases, we are all statistics and anything that maximises our general chances is good thing. If the police had more guns there would be more dead police

[Svartalf]

Extreme view.

Meh.

I've met enough of those scrotes socially and professionally to think differently.

Professionally? I thought you did not practice as a solicitor? And wouldn't these types be more in need of a barrister anyway?

[pErvinalia]

And how many British police get killed each year?

If you thought comparing civilian murders was warped you should see what it is for police

Typically we had less than one policeman murdered each year in the UK each year US its over 150. I know where I would rather be a policeman (idiot or otherwise)

And you think that statistic gives comfort to his widow and children, who might not be fatherless and widowed if he'd had a gun?

Derp1

No interest in individual cases, we are all statistics and anything that maximises our general chances is good thing. If the police had more guns there would be more dead police

Dunno about that logic, Jonno. What's the line of reasoning? More guns in cops hands means crims will want to have more guns too (therefore more cops getting shot)?

[MrJonno]

Dunno about that logic, Jonno. What's the line of reasoning? More guns in cops hands means crims will want to have more guns too (therefore more cops getting shot)?

I was thinking about in the UK where the police force don't want an arms race with criminals, in the US where the general population 'law abiding' or otherwise carry weapons its a different matter

They also don't want the responsibility of carrying deadly force, if they did they would join the army or specialist units.

I'm not against in principle the arming of the police if that is what they feel they need to do the job but it would be a very sad day that happened. At the moment they are just an ordinary people on the beat and can to some extent just been seen as part of the public as large. Once you start giving them lethal force that relationship is going to fundamental change

[pErvinalia]

Dunno about that logic, Jonno. What's the line of reasoning? More guns in cops hands means crims will want to have more guns too (therefore more cops getting shot)?

I was thinking about in the UK where the police force don't want an arms race with criminals, in the US where the general population 'law abiding' or otherwise carry weapons its a different matter

What's the evidence that an arms race would even occur?

At the moment they are just an ordinary people on the beat and can to some extent just been seen as part of the public as large. Once you start giving them lethal force that relationship is going to fundamental change

I think that's a very good point. Police are more effective, IMO, when they are considered part of the community, as opposed to the angry aggressive boogey man.

[Cormac]

Extreme view.

Meh.

I've met enough of those scrotes socially and professionally to think differently.

Professionally? I thought you did not practice as a solicitor? And wouldn't these types be more in need of a barrister anyway?

Years ago I did some work with the prison service looking at practices and procedures. I visited the main prisons here in Ireland. (Met a secondary school classmate who was a prisoner - but that is another story).

[MrJonno]

What's the evidence that an arms race would even occur?

That's the police fear, at the moment the police rely on local numbers to subdue the police basically by grappling them. Criminals know this and if they want to get away they run very fast which generally won't help them due to decent CCTV coverage. They don't normally get into gun fights (the last policeman to get murdered was via a hand grenade).

The occasion where armed police are needed immediately is statistically tiny, there was a clear case with the Cumbria massacre (legal firearms)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings where a policeman did withdraw but that needs to be balanced against criminals starting to routinely use firearms which they don't

As a sensible society we do make the decision that 1 person may die due to a decision so that a 1000 don't , tough if you are that 1 person but as Mr Spock said sensibly the needs of the many are more important than the few

[Seth]

And how many British police get killed each year?

If you thought comparing civilian murders was warped you should see what it is for police

Typically we had less than one policeman murdered each year in the UK each year US its over 150. I know where I would rather be a policeman (idiot or otherwise)

And you think that statistic gives comfort to his widow and children, who might not be fatherless and widowed if he'd had a gun?

Derp1

No interest in individual cases,

Yes, we know you don't give a fuck about anyone. Not to worry, we feel the same about you.

we are all statistics and anything that maximises our general chances is good thing.

So you won't bitch next time you're victimized by a criminal because the police aren't there and couldn't do anything about it if they were? Yeah, right...

If the police had more guns there would be more dead police

Unsupported assertion.

[Robert_S]

So, if things stay the way they are 1 person gets killed and the blood is on MrJonno's hands. If Seth convinces MrJonno to arm the police and 100 people die, then there is 100 people dead and the blood is on both your hands.

But then, a single death is a tragedy, but 100 is a statistic.

[Seth]

So, if things stay the way they are 1 person gets killed and the blood is on MrJonno's hands.

Yup, because Jonno did not give the 1 person the opportunity to decide for himself whether or not he needed to be armed.

If Seth convinces MrJonno to arm the police and 100 people die, then there is 100 people dead and the blood is on both your hands.

Nope. First you pose a false dilemma because there are other possibilities. Second, you fail to classify those who die and indicate whether they are innocent victims or whether they are violent criminals who engaged in activities that made it both reasonable, necessary and justifiable to kill them.

If 100 violent felons threatening the lives of others are killed, who cares? They needed to be dead because they did things that justified killing them and thereby forfeited their right remain alive.

But then, a single death is a tragedy, but 100 is a statistic.

The issue is choice. One person who dies because he was denied the right to arm himself for self-defense by his government is more important than 100 people who had the choice to either arm themselves or not arm themselves for self-defense.

It is moral and ethical to respect the decision of the individual who chooses to be or not to be armed and support their decision by accepting the consequences of their actions, for better or for worse and refusing to interfere with their free choice in that regard.

It is utterly immoral and unethical for one individual, or a group of individuals to deny the right to make that decision to even one person, and if any person denied their right to choose to be armed or unarmed, then those who support, advocate or enact laws that interfere with that free and sovereign individual decision are completely morally and ethically responsible for that individual's death and should be required to suffer the consequences of THEIR actions with appropriate retributive punishment.

To make it short and sweet, you can do whatever the hell you want regarding your personal safety, I could care less, but when you presume to support laws that dictate what I may and may not do by way of preparation or actual self-defense, you are endangering my life and the lives of my loved ones and I'll resist that despotism to the very end.