The death/murder of a police officer(s), always raises the question/debate of whether or note the British Police should be armed (In Northern Ireland all police officers carry a handgun, not surprisingly). You can guarantee that the same arguments against the routine arming of police will be aired, i.e. if the police have more guns the criminals will increase their firepower, our police cant be trusted with a firearm, the police will be less approachable, etc etc.
Up until a few years ago I was firmly against carrying a firearm, not on the basis of the usual arguments against it, but on the basis that I did not want the responsibility of carrying one and possibly having to make the decision to use it and potentially injure/kill somebody. I did not want that on my conscience, and when I joined 16 years ago the risks to officers were not nearly as prevalent as they are today. However, due to a number of recent events, including incidents myself and colleagues have been involved in have made me reconsider my stance and I find myself seriously questioning my views/beliefs on this subject. In the last few years the incidents I have attended involving weapons, have significantly increased. Having said that the major of weapons incidents in the UK currently involve non-lethal weapons, however the use of firearms by the criminal fraternity in on the increase.
For example, Roual MOAT and Derek BIRD. Both could have been possibly been bought to a much quicker resolution had officers on the ground had more than a can of spray and a metal bar with which to challenge the gun totting suspects and the loss of life prevented because officers would not had to have waited for the ARVs/TFTs to attend from 30-40 mins away.
The police are very good at dealing with preplanned incidents where firearms are required because the ARVs will be present in advance, all the risk assessments have been completed and authorities obtained. The bureaucracy and decision making processes involved in the authorisation of use of firearms is staggering. However we are not so capable of dealing with spontaneous events due to the lack of sufficient firearms cover. Recently I had an incident where myself and colleagues were looking for a male who had recently attended his exgirlfriends address, smashed the place up and assaulted her and others. This was at about 5 in the morning. He was quickly located, but he was carrying some broken glass and immediately put it too his neck and threatened to cut himself and us if we approached. What followed was a 40 minute stand off, with officers trying to negotiate with him, whilst we waited for the nearest ARV to attend as the officers on the ground were only armed with a metal stick and a can of spray, both ineffective from about 6 feet. As soon as the ARV attended, they challenged the male with Tazer, he gave up with incident or injury and the matter was resolved in about 2 minutes. Had the officers attending had the correct equipment it could have been resolved far far quicker. I can give many more examples of this type of incident involving a long stand off, waiting for the ARVs to attend, when they could have been resolved if officers had been suitably equipped.
The argument that criminals were carry bigger firearms if the police are armed is somewhat weak in my opinion. They already carry powerful firearms, including semi automatic weapons and as evidenced by recent events, grenades. Police officers carry firearms in most other countries, and funnily enough I dont recall hearing about RPG/rocket launcher totting criminals in those countries.
The issue of the routine arming of police officers needs to be seriously debated, not swept under the carpet by MPs and senior police officers who are not the ones being placed at risk.
In my opinion the solution would be to give all officers a tazer, as this is a non-lethal and effective tool against the greatest threat to officers, i.e. non-leathal weapons and to increase significantly and not reduce as is currently happening the number of authorised firearms officers, including having a couple of frontline officers who conduct the routine patrols authorised in the use of firearms.
I have attached a link to a blog, as the author puts across his viewpoints far more eloquently and effectively that I do. Please take time to read it. The poignant bit in his post is where he states that many have said that if Nicola and Fiona had been armed, they probably still would have died in that ambush. For me, the ‘probably’ word is the key one. All I am going to say is this; if you face an ambush and you are both armed, you might die. If you face an ambush and neither of you are armed, you will die.
http://inspectorgadget.wordpress.com/
Originally Posted by Swanny