Meanwhile, in other news (armed police.)

[Shootist]

Goodness me, I never thought of that. Let's work it through.

Situation. Two terrorists run into a crowded public place where you are the armed police officer on duty. They are well prepared and heavily armed. They start shooting people. What would you do? [...]

Nicely sidestepped.

Firstly, if that's a quote from Orwell at the bottom of your post, then Orwell was wrong.

Pacifists cannot accept the statement "Those who 'abjure' violence can do so only because others are committing violence on their behalf.", despite it being "grossly obvious."

Unless you know the pacifist's thinking, you cannot make that assumption. There have been many pacifists who abjure violence irrespective of the consequences. They are not depending on others to carry out violence on their behalf. There's a long history of it, of which Orwell must have been aware. Perhaps he was angry that day.

Such is your opinion. However, you have just proved the quote completely (assuming you are a pacifist). Either that or you do not understand it. Pacifists can be pacifists because other people ensure do violence on their behalf, not because they depend upon it.

In answer: Armed police are trained to be suspicious. Many times the two terrorists turn out to be nothing of the kind. More armed police = more mistakes. How many of those mistakes are a price worth paying? How many of these incidents (of two terrorist gunmen) have there been in the UK? Is arming more officers efficient, or is the manpower better used on intelligence? After all, most terrorists are known to the authorities, who haven't had the resources to keep track of them. I think things are more complicated than you suggest.

The psychologist is a good idea though.

That things are complicated is certain. I made the point about choosing between two bad options. One such is working out how, with limited resources, you can monitor every suspected terrorist without infringing their human rights, and just deciding to imprison them just in case.

How many 'terrorist gunmen' incidents have there been in the UK? Perhaps none because not every solution is publicised. For instance, I nairports we have officers with sub machine guns on parade. How many armed plain clothes officers are there mingling with the crowd?

[bovlomov]

Goodness me, I never thought of that. Let's work it through.

Situation. Two terrorists run into a crowded public place where you are the armed police officer on duty. They are well prepared and heavily armed. They start shooting people. What would you do? [...]

Nicely sidestepped.

Not sidestepped. I'm just not sure you are asking a good question. To summarise - meic supposes that there have been no such incidents in the UK. I can't remember any. So perhaps it better to spend money elsewhere. If, as the police claim, they have prevented many terrorist actions, then intelligence seems to be the way to go, rather than waste resources on a situation that happens rarely, in an unpredictable place - or may never happen at all.

Firstly, if that's a quote from Orwell at the bottom of your post, then Orwell was wrong [...]

Unless you know the pacifist's thinking, you cannot make that assumption. There have been many pacifists who abjure violence irrespective of the consequences. They are not depending on others to carry out violence on their behalf. There's a long history of it, of which Orwell must have been aware. Perhaps he was angry that day.

Such is your opinion. However, you have just proved the quote completely (assuming you are a pacifist). Either that or you do not understand it. Pacifists can be pacifists because other people ensure do violence on their behalf, not because they depend upon it.

I don't understand your reasoning. Can you explain it again? People can only exist because others are violent? I'm not a pacifist, by the way, but my threshold seems to be higher than yours.

How many 'terrorist gunmen' incidents have there been in the UK? Perhaps none because not every solution is publicised. For instance, I nairports we have officers with sub machine guns on parade. How many armed plain clothes officers are there mingling with the crowd?

Answered above. Not much use for people with homemade bombs. But anyway, I thought this was about more armed police in the street. They're already in airports.

[reohn2]

I see Shootist's point and agree with him that there should be armed police on the streets but which streets and how many armed officers is the question.
I also agree there's a good chance there's more armed officers(in plain clothes)in potential 'hotspot' areas,the problems begin when/if we start arming all officers and particular with handguns which if my understanding is correct aren't accurate at anything but at close range.Semi automatic machine guns(that need a shoulder stock)are a cumbersome and heavy weapon to carry all day on duty and can only be of any value in the same 'hotspot' areas.
FWIW IMO the police are undermanned and under equipped for everyday policing with no emphasis on prevention of crime and more a response to it after the event,hence my remark of more people being killed by mobile phone using drivers than terrorists in recent years,and that when a terrorist attack happens people feel threatened because it's deliberate and usually more than a few individuals are killed and or seriously injured,and it's usually in a densely populated area.
Those appalled individuals don't have the same feeling of threat when four people are killed at a stroke by a 'terrorist' using a mobile phone whilst driving:- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-37607400
One is headline stuff,the other goes almost unnoticed by the general public.

There is something seriously wrong with the policing in the UK today IMHOs and that if there were more 'ordinary' officer one the street more terrorists would be caught before they got near to planting bombs or similar.The lesson of 'an ounce of prevention beats a pound of cure' seems to have been forgotten where policing across the board is concerned.

[bovlomov]

More about these two gunmen. It's a common question. Last time it was put to me, it was a man with a nuclear bomb in a suitcase, ready to push the button.

The obvious answer is to shoot him as quickly as possible.

The problem is, we are rarely sure that it is a terrorist/gunman/bomber, but the decision to shoot is necessarily pre-emptive. Of course, when the man was thought to have a nuclear bomb, it's easy to justify. Looking around the world, however, we see the threshold is rarely so high.

In the UK there have been many incidents of the police killing or injuring people (I won't say 'innocent people') without due cause. In those cases the officer is rarely convicted of murder or actual bodily harm, because it is always considered that he believed the situation was so serious that he had no alternative. So far, so good. We could argue about individual cases - but it seems to me that in several of those the officer acted way out of line and concocted lies to escape prosecution, and in others the officers had good grounds to suspect that they had to act first.

Then look across the pond. In the US the bar is set so low that seeing a stranger on the lawn is enough of a reason for a private individual to shoot someone. The police have a similarly low threshold - seemingly free to shoot people at will, as long as they can say afterwards that they felt threatened.

Globally, the same thinking is responsible for the Iraq War, bombing of wedding parties, imprisoning of innocent people, mass surveillance and wholesale removal of civil liberties. It's all OK, because what if that bloke has a nuclear bomb up his sleeve. And the consequences are that, unless you kill all the family and friends as well, you make a lot of people so angry that the longterm threat increases.

My belief is that the threshold for violence is set too low, that a certain amount increased security is 'security theatre' or part of a concerted effort to control dissent, and that the police would be wise to resist politically motivated initiatives - something senior officers have often been unable to do.

As for topic: perhaps this is a sensible development.

[Edited to partially ungarble]

[AlaninWales]

To summarise - meic supposes that there have been no such incidents in the UK. I can't remember any. So perhaps it better to spend money elsewhere. If, as the police claim, they have prevented many terrorist actions, then intelligence seems to be the way to go, rather than waste resources on a situation that happens rarely, in an unpredictable place - or may never happen at all.

Yet there have been a large number of such incidents around the world (so many that they are too common to be routinely reported in mainstream media) and several in nearby countries. I suppose there are two possible reasons that there have been none in the UK:

1. Police have got the balance of 'intelligence vs deterrent" (where deterrent is the presence of armed officers in places where a threat is deemed likely and in other places where - if they didn't and the unlikely happened, the public outcry would be intense) about right.

2. No-one wants to attack anyone in good old UK because like, we've never done anything which might offend any group whose modus operandi consists of such attacks.

Can anyone else come up with a third possible reason why UK hasn't seen such attacks?

[meic]

We dont have as many guns knocking around as the other countries. As the Police generally dont (or didnt) carry guns, the criminal fraternity also had an incentive not to carry guns.
Gun use can spiral upwards (USA model) or spiral downwards (UK's old model).

[bovlomov]

We dont have as many guns knocking around as the other countries. As the Police generally dont (or didnt) carry guns, the criminal fraternity also had an incentive not to carry guns.
Gun use can spiral upwards (USA model) or spiral downwards (UK's old model).

Are the police a source of guns for criminals in some countries?

Anyway, It's interesting that countries where the police are routinely armed seem to have had more gun attacks. A different attitude to guns? Something in the water?

[thirdcrank]

Here's a different view on firearms control. I had assumed the author to be an American but he seems to be from a bit nearer home (as in Yorkshire.)

http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2010/tle558-20100221-07.html

What do you say to a Yorkshireman with a gun?

Sorry for stereotyping you as an American. Sir.

[bovlomov]

Here's a different view on firearms control. I had assumed the author to be an American but he seems to be from a bit nearer home (as in Yorkshire.)

http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2010/tle558-20100221-07.html

What do you say to a Yorkshireman with a gun?

Sorry for stereotyping you as an American. Sir.

Do you think we'll be in trouble for clicking on that?

[Barks]

I am in the Military and have undertaken numerous tours of duty in Places like Bosnia, Afghanistan and Iraq. We are trained to a very specific set of criteria entitled 'Rules of Engagement' which basically means that we can only fire weapons to prevent a potential loss of life threat. While I do not know specifically, I'm pretty sure UK Police Forces operate under the same direction - yes mistakes can be made but training, experience and supervision are fundamental to the process. Where individuals use their weapons outside of the ROE they are subject to potential prosecution, and absolutely correctly. And prosecutions have taken place where individuals stray away from the directed policy.

Please do not link the legitatmate use of lethal force in the UK with the very much looser criteria that might exist in other countries. I have no desire to have UK Police Forces routinely armed but, where they are, they must be, and make no doubt, they are, well trained and undergo regular refresher training, No-one in the UK Police Forces and the Military takes this subject lightly and it is important that the general public, including those that might have an anti-establisment philosophical view, recognise that.

[landsurfer]

Armed officers are on the streets, among us, every day.
In Medowhall, Bluewater, Luton, everywhere.
But we don't see them.
Which is good.
I am comfortable with that.
Police officers should be encouraged to volunteer for firearms duties ....... and immediately excluded from being any where near a weapon if they do ....
I hope that the system invites officers to apply after extensive covert assessment.
Not because they like guns !!!
That would worry me.
28 years armed forces makes me more worried about "us" with guns than "them".

[Flinders]

I am in the Military and have undertaken numerous tours of duty in Places like Bosnia, Afghanistan and Iraq. We are trained to a very specific set of criteria entitled 'Rules of Engagement' which basically means that we can only fire weapons to prevent a potential loss of life threat. While I do not know specifically, I'm pretty sure UK Police Forces operate under the same direction - yes mistakes can be made but training, experience and supervision are fundamental to the process. Where individuals use their weapons outside of the ROE they are subject to potential prosecution, and absolutely correctly. And prosecutions have taken place where individuals stray away from the directed policy.

Please do not link the legitatmate use of lethal force in the UK with the very much looser criteria that might exist in other countries. I have no desire to have UK Police Forces routinely armed but, where they are, they must be, and make no doubt, they are, well trained and undergo regular refresher training, No-one in the UK Police Forces and the Military takes this subject lightly and it is important that the general public, including those that might have an anti-establisment philosophical view, recognise that.

I'd far rather trust the military than the police when it comes to situations with firearms. It seems to me that's more in their line of work, and I'm all for specialisation.................we have had police firearms units in my town a few times of late, in a couple of cases it was, AFAI can see, completely unnecessary and likely to make a bad (though not dangerous) situation worse, and in the remaining case, at best very doubtful.
My impression (possibly wrong) from watching military training/operations on 'real' TV is that it is about calmness and clarity- one clear voice in control, keeping very even in tone, and giving clear and unequivocal instructions. Police it seems to be about running around screaming playing with guns and ramming in doors without warning.

OH saw police in a real event here, several with firearms, surrounding a man (unarmed as it turned out, but they were perhaps not to know that so that's not the issue). However, all the officers were yelling and screaming at their target, and all were giving different instructions. No doubt if they had felt like shooting, he would have been bound to have been disobeying one of them, so that would make it alright.
It also is not very reassuring that the OH came across the situation innocently and without any warning- the police had not cordoned off the area before starting their fun and games.

[Barks]

I very much appreciate the accolade to the military but I am absolutely sure that UK Police Forces do not approach armed intervention as 'fun and games'. Yes situations can be confusing, and probably very much so to any member of the general public who happens to come across an incident. Command and Control is everything in these situations but they are rarely entered into without some form of planning and prior briefing - that said they are very stressful for all involved. Having armed police, be that as part of a routine patrol for a deterrence function at vulnerable locations or as part of a response process, are what the public expect in this day and age and are only sanctioned by the legal process put in place by elected politicians.

[thirdcrank]

The fact that police in England and Wales normally patrol unarmed means there are few incidents where an armed officer confronts an armed suspect unexpectedly. Memory probably failing but off the top of my head I can only think of one which was probably early 1970's when a member of the Metropolitan Police's unit which guards Embassies etc., was walking to his place of duty and came across the armed robbery of a bank. IIRC, he entered the bank and challenged the armed suspect from behind the partial cover of a marble pillar. Eventually, he shot the suspect, hitting him the buttock. I wrote "eventually" because time passes slowly in a case like this and I think there was some criticism from other's in the bank about the delay between the challenge and the bang. There was also criticism of his decision to shoot the suspect.

At the conclusion of the trial the judge commended the officer along these lines. I particularly remember the bit I've underlined

... in accordance with our fairness you gave this man a warning he did not take...

(I can't find a link because I've no idea what to search on.)

A few years later PC Trevor Lock on similar duty at the Iranian Embassy is reported to have concealed his handgun during the time he was held hostage.

It's generally the case, therefore, that when armed police are deployed either to an incident in progress or as part of a planned operation they already have the information that they may be dealing with somebody carrying firearms. A large part of the "reasonable suspicion" comes with their being deployed.

The desperate situation of an unarmed officer confronted by somebody with a firearm seems sometimes to attract less public concern than was once the case.
========================================================================
PS
I've a bit of experience of this, the greater part of it as the control room duty officer deciding whether an incident needed the immediate deployment of an armed unit. As I explained some years ago to a Home Office researcher, it's a matter of deciding what's appropriate on limited information.

[irc]

The fact that police in England and Wales normally patrol unarmed means there are few incidents where an armed officer confronts an armed suspect unexpectedly. Memory probably failing but off the top of my head I can only think of one

Pretty rare. There was also the attempted kidnap of Princess Anne in 1974. her bodyguard was armed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Beaton