Brit Constable Murdered, Debate Opens on Arming Police

[TIZReporter]

Debate over Arming UK Police

The image of the London Bobby could be changing even more. The shooting death of a police constable by a gang of armed thieves has opened a debate on whether British police officers should be armed.

The BBC reports. "The murder of a policewoman by a gang of robbers in Bradford has reignited debate over whether all police should carry guns and wear body armour."

"Home Office minister Hazel Blears has rejected calls for officers to be routinely armed."

"That could endanger the police's relationship with the public, she said."

"But film director Michael Winner, founder of the Police Memorial Trust, said if officers were armed they would have "a better chance of retaliation"."

"Ms Blears said what happened in Bradford highlighted "the fact that police officers right across the country put their lives on the line in many cases in order to protect the rest of us".

http://www.theinfozone.net/salw1.html

While the idea of unarmed law enforcement officers would seem simply foolish in North American cities, it is common in the UK.

The Canadian Border is protected by unarmed guards as well.

TIZ

 

[waterhouse]

"That could endanger the police's relationship with the public, she said."

not if you let the public have the same guns as police it wouldn't.

 

[KriegHund]

The shooting death of a police constable by a gang of armed thieves has opened a debate on whether British police officers should be armed.

Gee....

And WTH is a 'Shooting Death' ??

 

[enfield303]

I have never understood why the Brits insist on unarmed cops. They are in the business of taking care of CRIMINALS. Criminals usually don't go quietly, they tend to put up a bit of a fuss. I'm thinkin' Y'all might want to give your police officers the means to DEFEND themselves!!!

 

[P95Carry]

"Home Office minister Hazel Blears has rejected calls for officers to be routinely armed."

"That could endanger the police's relationship with the public, she said."

That crock has been spouted so many times, it's gotten old, real old. When will they face up to reality - seeing as they have no good guys armed like we do - they are on their own, with a disarmed populace unable to help them out.

The bad guys out there will always be armed. When will they stop worrying about public relations. Sheesh.

 

[carebear]

"But film director Michael Winner, founder of the Police Memorial Trust, said if officers were armed they would have "a better chance of retaliation"."

I would hope they'd have a better chance to deter and or interdict being shot, rather than take one and retaliate.

 

[wally]

If I can't own a gun, why should the police be abble to either.

--wally.

 

[Cortland]

Yeah ... I don't know. Those British police that ARE armed have a reputation of being notoriously trigger-happy.

 

[enfield303]

As little use as I have for LEOs who abuse their position/power, I DO see the need for an ARMED police presense in urban environs. I realize that that the police are really a group of armed historians, but, as I stated before they tend to perform a rather high risk job, and need to have the ability to do more than say "Stop! Or I'll Say stop again!". I will ALWAYS say that an armed populace is a MUCH better solution. But, give law enforcement the tools to ENFORCE.

 

[SomeKid]

I am with wally. The brits have this set right, no guns for average citizen, no guns for average cop. Only problem, is that the government still keeps its own little special cadre, don't know if they call them a SWAT team, but they have armed cops somewhere.

 

[wally]

The tools to "enforce" are the tools to oppress when only one side has them!

--wally.

 

[Old Dog]

Michael Winner, founder of the Police Memorial Trust, said if officers were armed they would have "a better chance of retaliation"."

Perhaps he should have said that if officers were armed, they would have "a better chance of defending themselves and the citizens."

If I can't own a gun, why should the police be abble to either.

Well, clearly the criminal element in the U.K. doesn't feel this way.

The tools to "enforce" are the tools to oppress when only one side has them!

So the British police shouldn't be armed if you can't be, and you are saying that only the criminals in the U.K. should possess firearms?

 

[TIZReporter]

Well, the British seem to keep changing, it was only 140 to 200 years ago that the British were the imperial rulers of much of the world. As they once said, the sun never set on the British empire.

Many of the laws in America are based on the Magna Carta and the Westminister Parliamentary system. We can thank the British for the system of 'innocent until proven guilty' rather than the French Napoleonic Code.

I suggest that the last Brit of that mindset and charactor was Sir Winston S. Churchill, who lead Britain through the darkest days of World War 2.

No sooner had that war ended when the war weary British people tossed him out of office.

For the past sixty years, overall, the British have almost constantly been dismantling their once proud empire, and nation.

Today, the results are starting to be evident in ever increasing confrontational violence, and a loss of their traditions and pride.

Those losses of history are a result of the political decisions and changes to the British justice system.

The British saying used to be 'a man's home is his castle', only to now have been virtually eliminated by a new system of social engineering that is speeding this once proud country ever further downward.

There is a lesson there for all Americans.

TIZ


http://www.theinfozone.net

 

[TallPine]

I don't understand ... I thought guns were banned in the UK ...?

So how come they still have "armed thieves" ....?

 

[TIZReporter]

Tallpine,

Handguns are banned in Britain, although there are moves afoot to reverse that ban as the government is realizing that it makes it impossible for their international competitors to compete.

Rifles and shotguns are are still permitted, however the licencing is very stringent.

The British are, however not content with just implementing gun control, they have groups working to equally ban knives and in the Throne Speech this past spring, the government has outlined measures to further regulate the personal lives of the British people.

It is leading to the speedy decline of that once free country.

TIZ


http://www.theinfozone.net/salw1.html

 

[ceetee]

"Stop! Or I'll..... I'll... I'll blow my whistle and shout 'Stop!' again!"






-- British Comedian Eddie Izzard

What goes around comes around. And around, and around...

 

[Standing Wolf]

That could endanger the police's relationship with the public...

I think the English would have been happier under Nazi rule.

 

[ArmedBear]

My deepest condolences to his family.

As to Britain, it's what they bloody well deserve.

No, it's not. What they deserve is for the police to strike until they are armed, trained regularly with their weapons, and given the authority they need to do their jobs, within the bounds of civil liberties.

The British do not DESERVE police protection.

 

[M-Rex]

My deepest condolences to his family.

As to Britain, it's what they bloody well deserve.

No, it's not. What they deserve is for the police to strike until they are armed, trained regularly with their weapons, and given the authority they need to do their jobs, within the bounds of civil liberties.

The British do not DESERVE police protection.

+1 ArmedBear.

It'd be nice if they would repeal all of their inane firearms bans to boot, and gave the British populous the tools to defend themselves with.

Police without arms are just guards...or targets for the fringe.

 

[CAnnoneer]

That's just great. Another person sacrificed at the bloody altar of Political Correctness. I wonder how many dead bobbies would no longer be acceptable.

 

[ZeroX]

Wouldn't want all the cops to be American shoot-em-up cowboys.

 

[Cosmoline]

The only ones I still respect in the UK are the criminals. They're the last Brits with anything like a backbone. If I were over there with my little tools I'd be considered an enormous public menace and hunted down like a dog. I'd be a criminal, in other words. We would ALL be criminals.

 

[Iain]

Interesting thread.

This particular non-Churchillian wannabe-Nazi subject seems to remember that every time this debate comes up it is the police that say they don't want to be routinely armed.

After all, despite this recent shooting, not too many British police officers get shot you know. Also, I'm not sure if this is still carried out, but in some extremely rough areas the police are routinely armed.

 

[c_yeager]

This particular non-Churchillian wannabe-Nazi subject seems to remember that every time this debate comes up it is the police that say they don't want to be routinely armed.

The only source I have seen for this survey is ten years old (1995). Think things might have changed in that time? For one thing it seems that within a year of that famous survey English police start being issued OC spray and a lot more police have become armed in the intervening time. Clearly *someone* has decided that the need for armed police has increased. I wonder how the rank and file feels today.

 

[Stand_Watie]

Interesting thread...every time this debate comes up it is the police that say they don't want to be routinely armed...

Indeed, you'd expect British police sentiment to reflect the rest of the population on social issues to a large degree.

"Gun owner = criminal" seems to have been a very effective public campaign.

I'm with those that think guns shouldn't be allowed for the police either, in a society that is so infatuated with disarming it's citizens. They ought to disallow armed/military guards for the politicians etc, either.