Do we really want our police to be armed?

The police are already armed – in that specialist squads and other officers who are firearms trained are deployed every day and can be called upon if armed violence threatened.

The two police officers were ambushed, so it is unlikely that arming them would have made any difference as they had no apparent reason to draw their weapons before they were actually shot. Armed police still get killed with appalling frequency both here and abroad.

An ostensibly unarmed police is one of the few British characteristics left in existence, let’s not surrender it to bogus ‘me-too’ paranoia.

Nope… I don’t agree with the police being armed…… but I agree fast response armed police… yes…. and we have that now… so for me that’s enough.

@anc wrote:

I’m not sure about this, but a m8 of mine has two brothers in the army in Afghanistan – they are not allowed to shoot first ffs! So, does anyone know if that is the same for the police?! If so, not so much of a deterrent is it? Answer is yes they should be armed, as long as they are trained, and manage to get a shot back!

Online reports show confused official statements about this. It seems that while UK defence chiefs say the rules of engagement haven’t changed, US chiefs have instructed the international force not to shoot first to stop civilian woundings – looks like a cautious step too far if it’s applied to armed Taliban. Maybe it’s more difficult to tell out there, but it shows how having your policing done by force of arms doesn’t necessarily clarify your security issues.

Training doesn’t undo instinctive reactions in high-stress situations. Highly trained armed police the world over shoot innocent people, convinced that they are a danger, but finding out afterwards that they were not, their true status obscured by a highly deceptive ‘red mist’.

The consequences of a fatal knee-jerk error in Afghanistan could be catastrophic long term. Starting from an over-cautious base might compensate for the high pressure conditions.

Guns make the police stronger by making them more dangerous. Rather than a mere ‘yes’ or ‘no’, A clearer consent to arming the police would be a signed indemnity in the event a loved one is accidentally shot.

Of course the other factor would be whether police officers themselves want to be routinely armed. Up until now most UK officers, who didn’t join an armed force, don’t want to belong to one.

The last person to whom you should give (fire)power is the person who wants it.

@kent f OBE wrote:

. . . . . . there must be instances where criminals don’t shoot at armed officers for fear of being shot and killed themselves…shooting unarmed officers has no fear of that

Unfortunately Kenty it’s far less clear. There are cases of armed criminals shooting first for fear of being shot and killed themselves. Also cases labelled ‘suicide by cop’ where desperate people make themselves appear armed and/or dangerous in order to goad the police into shooting them.

In policing, rather than battlefield situations, a standard tactic for diffusing a situation is to reduce the appearance of threat. Our police operate on a presumption they are unarmed. Unfortunately in countries with armed police, officers still get shot.

@anc wrote:

@wordsworth60 wrote:

What have you been led to believe anc? The armed forces in Afghanistan are under different rules from UK armed police units who are not forbidden from shooting first.

That is precisely what I wanted to know, whether or not the same rule applied to the british police or not – ta! Bloody stupid ruling for the armed forces though, in my opinion anyway – and my m8’s brothers’!!

It does depend on the circumstances, and on the individual or standing orders under which they are operating, however, as the cases of Harry Stanley and Colin Farmer show, being able to shoot first doesn’t always leave a satisfactory result.

As for the armed forces, unfortunately we have put them in a police action situation in Afghanistan, fighting the Taliban while trying to keep the peace so their role is simultaneously military and civil. Impossible.