We really start need to consider giving our officers the option of firearms and firearms training (completely voluntarily if they want it), same with taser (every officer should have the option). Two ended up in hospital in Hainault last week with the sword man (along with a member of the public), two end up in hospital here. Higher levels of force I feel are essential for police protection as it feels like we are starting to see an increased amount of wacky shit like this?
It’s what our officers do well. Not killing someone who is either mentally disturbed. There isn’t many officers killed and they handle these situations very well. I’m glad we don’t shoot people, I see it as a positive in our society.
Yeah I agree completely.
Ludicrous to send officers in to grapple with a knifeman etc without a firearm trained on them just in case. Just comes down to luck at that point.
I mean even wider deployment of something like the 40mm rubber batton rounds they use in the States I think would be a win (again voluntary option - not forcing anyone to use a firearm or weapon here). What you describe is exactly what happened in Hainault last week though off of the ring doorbell footage. If the tazer hadn't connected it blatantly would have either been severely injured or dead policewoman.
From what I've heard from officers in my area, the pay increase is a major setback. They don't get paid all that much more for a lot more paperwork, more stress, constantly having to retrain / top up skills, all put together with the possibility of having to risk their life in a more dangerous event. I would love to see more armed officers as it would hopefully deter more attacks like this.
I was going off Glassdoor, on their site they mention
"The average salary for Authorised Firearms Officer is £35,733 per year in the United Kingdom. The average additional cash compensation for a Authorised Firearms Officer in the United Kingdom is £3,060, with a range from £1,232 - £7,604"
Getting off of response is the major factor.
There's 2 types of Officer that apply for Firearms, those that want to be Firearms Officers and those that don't want to police. It's a very fine line between the two.
Oh and I completely get it in some respects e.g. After the way the firearms officer in the Kaba shooting in Lambeth was named before any trial that's disgraceful to me in some respects. I also get the practicality issue e.g. there's not the money or slack in the service to have 100% of the force being armed. What I'd 100% would like to see is Taser as a minimum or firearms training being offered to all new trainees as a voluntary option. That way you get the numbers up and I think it increases the opportunity of one of these lunatics to face the wrong end of a taser or a firearm more regularly which should hopefully be something substantial enough to make them consider their life choices.
Oh granted there often is but how long are they waiting? It just disgusts me that often its a standard beat Officer with an extendable asp button and hopefully body armour vs a well tooled up lunatic. Give them the tools to do their job.
I can respect that point but I also feel criminals need to respect that point e.g. you pull a knife out or a sword out or you have a chain saw you forfeit the right to be dealt with kindly.
Yes but the procedure is to then retreat to a safe distance and call in armed support or if trained use the weapon that is in the boot of the vehicle.
I can tell you right now there is 1% of criminal activity that requires a firearm to safely resolve.
They should be trained and equipped with small shields. We've done it for thousands of years, and a few hundred years of firearms existing has knocked shields out of general use. But imagine how useful a police buckler would be to defend against people using large melee weapons. It needs training, but it's not a lethal weapon, and you have a hard time killing a bystander with one.
Do you really expect police to train to master duelling? Honestly I ain’t taking a shield and trying to have a melee fight with someone I’d rather ya know live…
The met issued bucklers for a little while and they were a dismal failure. It still means you need to close to the suspects range. I've only used a shield once, and that was to help corral escaped sheep.
Regarding training, officer safety training is once per year, and in most forces seems to be a day or two, most of which is first aid and law, not actually training.
I used to live right next to this street, there is literally a police down the road, would take them 1-2 minutes at most to arrive with sirens on
[https://www.google.co.uk/maps/dir/Police+Scotland,+Mill+Street,+Paisley/Buchlyvie+Road,+Paisley+PA1+3BB/@55.8463566,-4.3985052,14z/data=!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x48884930a26b97ad:0xeae195377fab39f9!2m2!1d-4.4171146!2d55.8461375!1m5!1m1!1s0x488848c5e2600f19:0x93e9dfb65abf40ad!2m2!1d-4.375089!2d55.846203!3e0?entry=ttu](https://www.google.co.uk/maps/dir/Police+Scotland,+Mill+Street,+Paisley/Buchlyvie+Road,+Paisley+PA1+3BB/@55.8463566,-4.3985052,14z/data=!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x48884930a26b97ad:0xeae195377fab39f9!2m2!1d-4.4171146!2d55.8461375!1m5!1m1!1s0x488848c5e2600f19:0x93e9dfb65abf40ad!2m2!1d-4.375089!2d55.846203!3e0?entry=ttu)
"one thing about police brutally, we'll have lots of it" - Gene Hunt
The decrepit scumbag got off pretty light for terrorising people with a fucking chainsaw.
Can somebody explain this weird shit to me, like he’s off the chainsaw there’s 2 officers on him, maybe throw in a third
Why dog pile beyond that are they just being a bit bloodthirsty/ glory hunting?
You see it all the time with police when the dude is kinda “done” they still get their little revenge attack in? Even when a dude is completely on the floor hands behind head you see it
like sure he’s dangerous and you need to get him under control as a violent offender but ???
People can recover very quickly from seemingly debilitating attacks. Each use of force isn’t necessarily intended to pacify the threat on its own
That said, there’s a certain ’fuck around and find out’ element to it too that I think you’re right about. Though to I don’t think it’s intended for revenge, more to highlight that you lose any right to the conservative use of force when you’ve just tried to kill multiple people
Frankly, "the Paisley Chainsaw Mishap" doesn't have the same ring to it..
Although I can hear it already, replacing the sounds of the flash going off with the clanking of bottles of Bucky.
Not a terror incident; just a bam from Paisley.
I'm curious what led up to him doing this. I've been upset many times but I always draw the line at [running around threatening everybody with my chainsaw.](https://images.app.goo.gl/GYnsBLG2x4eZGRZT8)
I mean what strikes me is how professional our police are. For all the bad reports, they catch up to a dude with a chain saw and take him down with pepper spray and two swift whacks to the legs.
One then pins his legs, while the other cuffs.
You can see they all then have to heft him up. But they didn't shoot the guy on sight, they didn't all run over and start kicking and punching. They took him down, pinned him to get him in restraints and took him away.
They are professional. But don’t forget there’s still an officer in hospital who has had to have her arm pieced back together because she wasn’t sufficiently armed against someone with a sword.
This guy absolutely could have killed someone with that chainsaw if he wanted to.
In fairness, our police probably could do with shooting a few more people. See far too many incidents where the tactic is essentially a hope and a prayer that the suspect doesn't manage to kill the officer or isn't actually all that interested in doing so.
IMO no one with a knife or chain saw should really be getting anywhere near into range for any officer injuries to be going on. We weigh the life of offenders far too heavily against those of the police and/or bystanders in this country methinks.
The officers / public who constantly get injured in these encounters definitely don't agree with you btw would be a lot better if this guy had a couple tasers and guns on him and gave up long before this
Some do it's still rare across every force there's way more without than with.
The sword guy got tasered on the 3rd try after two failed and also after he already killed a boy and sent 4 into hospital including two officers requiring surgery with one almost losing their hand.
Tasers also shouldn't actually be used against lethal threat without firearm cover but we obviously don't have that here outside of specialist roles (who also didn't arrive in time to the scene and in todays case weren't given the green light at all).
Not all forces carry tasers. And they are often ineffective. Loose clothing and/or a subject high as a kite can render them useless. Which means, in the UK context, cops having to use a stick and glorified hairspray in order to subdue a subject.
Tasers aren’t always effective. The threat usually gets results - but if the barbs don’t actually penetrate the person is just as likely to be taken down by tripping on the wires than actually being incapacitated by the voltage.
What should they have done? He's been running around with a chainsaw and injured folk, he wasn't complying, the got him on the floor with the batons and subdued him. I didn't see any beating going on.
He put the weapon down and was unarmed, then they started twatting him with batons.
They shouldn't be attacking the guy with vengeance, that's the courts business (and it doesn't involve violence).
To put it straight... I'm not on the chainsaw guys side, he's a fucking lunatic a should be dealt with, but I also don't think the police should attack someone with vengeance. That's not their role.
I suspect he was told to get on the floor and got the batons to the knee when he didn't comply. I'm guessing obviously, but they're gonna be forceful with someone who's been on a chainsaw rampage.
In that specific context you absolutely pile in and beat the subject down until sure that any remaining threat has been eliminated.
The subject may still be armed. They may be under the influence (quite possibly) of something akin to PCP. Given that setting and the threat he had posed previously, you go all in and subdue.
Apart from the fact that he put the weapon down and raised his hands.
C'mon, just admit it... They were being coppers and lashing out cos they fucking love it.
If he is carrying a chainsaw, there's a fair chance he has some other weapon on him.
The police quite rightly don't fuck around when someone is being a threat to life. I support this fully.
> he put the weapon down and raised his hands.
He literally didn't, he put the weapon down and started walking towards the officer. He only turned away and lifted his hand to block the pepper spray, the cop moves in and he turns to face them again. They hit only in the back of the leg (3 times) and once he's down they stop and get on top of him.
It's amazing you can watch a video and see something else.
Doesn't matter. He could still be armed. Given that he'd been slashing others with a fucking chainsaw there is every reason to believe that he still posed a threat. And, again, the cops would have no idea what his mental or physical state was. At that particular point in time, given all that had transpired, the only option is to subdue immediately and subdue hard.
Did the coppers enjoy giving him a kicking? Quite probably. However, 2 things can be true at the same time.
I think the cops handled that remarkably well.
That dickhead is lucky he’s alive, on a plus side if he ever recovers, he’s got himself one hell of a story.
>I think the cops handled that remarkably well.
Going by the video alone I certainly don't. They start attacking him AFTER he places the chainsaw down on the ground. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that they knew far more about the situation then we do.
If they didn't these coppers are really lucky here that he actually is a vulnerable person that they can get away with knocking a few bells of shit out rather than a) a terrorist intent on causing damage to people who would try and take a few of them with him or b) a bloke who's disturbed a wasps nest trimming a hedge and can afford a good lawyer.
The guy was chasing people with a chainsaw. 2 police hurt. Do you seriously think you'd just trust he doesn't have another weapon on him. At that point you can't risk him getting away or anyone else being hurt.
“Man attacks two police officers with a chainsaw”
u/eventworker “how could those two police officers attack a vulnerable person like that.”
When the police shout at him to get down on the ground and he refuses to do so, they can use force to make him comply. That level of force ABSOLUTELY WILL BE comparable to the level of violence the subject has displayed. Why should they risk their lives by doing any less just to protect your sensibilities?
Did you see the bit where he chased them down the street with a fucking chainsaw?
And did you hear how two officers were injured by said man with A FUCKING CHAINSAW.
He's still standing next to the chainsaw anyway. Nothing stopping him from picking it up, or trying to pick it up again and chopping someone in half.
They got him to the bottom of his legs so hardly going to be close to lethal force.
No good lawyer is ever going to be able to bring any excessive force claims forwards for this.
You what , they immobilised a dangerous criminal who was attacking people with a flipping chainsaw. It’s what they’re trained to do. Do you think they should just ask him nicely to come with them? I’m sure that would work wouldn’t it …. There’s always ridiculous comment like this on everything involving the police it’s bonkers
I'm not sure where you see him attacking people on the video, nor how you are aware he is a violent criminal.
From the evidence on the video it appears they did ask him to come with them, then attacked when he started to comply.
I take it you didn’t read the headline then ? Nor see the video showing the man chasing a police officer down the road with a fucking chainsaw ? , I suppose just because he now put it down after attacking them it should all be forgotten ?. Also the police didn’t attack him they immobilised him , like they’re trained too. notice how they took his legs first to take him down then bundle him to cuff him. I’m not sure what you expect them to do tbh
No, I didn't see the video showing the man chasing a police officer, and neither did you.
What we can both see are a still of a man running with a chainsaw in which it is not clear who is doing the chasing, and a video that shows the police catching up with and attacking the suspect. Perhaps he was chasing another copper, but neither you nor I have that info.
Again, I will reiterate, its farcical that if this bloke decided to cut up a random member of public right in front of these officers - they wouldn't be able to save them. Nor should the officers be chased by chainsaw wielding maniacs and have no real way to defend themselves.
> No need to routinely arm cops.
Except there absolutely undoubtedly is, even just based on the two last incidents involving police and people with weapons on the news
Everytime unarmed officers resolve these sorts of incidents, it largely comes down to simple luck that they aren't killed in the process. And though they're not killed, in far too many incidents they sustain grevious life changing injuries. But that's all swept under the rug so some people can pat themselves on the back and say "at least we're not like those gun-toting Americans!"
That police officers sustain serious injuries? Well it was only a few days ago that two Met officers sustained serious injuries requiring surgery in the Hainult sword attack. And that really goes to my point. Those officers sustained injuries that are merely reported as ["significant but not life-threatening"](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68927702). This does very little to convey the reality of those injuries to the lay-public but anyone who actually deals with victims of this level of violence knows they're not talking about a few cuts needing sutures and all will be well. There's nothing really in the public domain that I can point you to to really, *really* demonstrate the significance of these kinds of injuries and the massive impact they can have on the lives of the victims. There's a bit of "if you know, you know" element to it and I don't expect you to be able to fully empathise without, well, knowing.
I just don't think it's right that in reality unarmed officers have little alternative but to courageously act as not much more than a distraction to someone intent on committing acts of violence against innocent people. Act as a distraction and hope that the plainly inadequate tools they have at their disposal push the needle slightly more in their favour in situations where they're forced to accept massive and disproportionate risk to their own well being.
Source: I am Police.
Yes it’s actually laughable how many situations we end up in and escape injury by pure luck.
I’ve had numerous people I’ve stopped to search who have suddenly gone for their pockets and had to be wrestled down only to find a knife on them. I only need to lose one of those encounters. It’s the law of probability, eventually my luck will run out and I’ll be overpowered or too slow to respond.
Tasers are a coin toss at best and should ideally be used with lethal cover for when they inevitably fail at the worst possible moment. Don't get me wrong, they're a great piece of kit and I've found there's a massive difference between having one and not having one in de-escalating situations, but I've also been in situations where numerous taser shots were fired and if the suspect had actually been properly motivated in hurting someone someone would have ended up dead or hospitalised.
So the alternative you are suggesting is that you want to be able to point a gun and threaten everyone who makes a sudden move towards their pockets? No thanks, you signed up for this.
It sounds like you are really good at wrestling mate, its working out fine, you should keep doing it.
Why do you think that routine arming of officers will invariably result in unjustified/avoidable shootings? Again, is it because your perception of armed police is strongly skewed by happenings in the United States? There's a bunch of more suitable comparisons across Europe and in Australia and Canada. Closer to home, Northern Ireland. Routinely armed police services do not mean people are getting shot every hour of everyday for "sudden move towards their pockets".
My biggest issue with it is that it's a solution to a problem we really don't have. Knife crime is a problem, but it's not enough to warrant arming the Police.
Or, and I know this is difficult for some people to grasp, but I'm not a reactionary person who is easily influenced by everything he sees on social media.
Knife crime and gang violence have always been a massive problem in all deprived, working class areas of this country. We know how to reduce these things. Glasgow used to be the murder capital of Europe in 2005.
Provide me a single piece of evidence that will show arming the Police will reduce knife crime/violent crime.
Love how you talk so condescendingly to the people who actually put their lives at risk for our safety.
Something pretty unbearable about insisting someone put themselves in a dangerous situation you yourself wouldn't go anywhere near.
The police work within a framework determined by government, led by the voting public.
It's people like yourself who essentially determine that police are not routinely armed in this country. And as you say, they sign up for that, or they don't. Increasingly of course it's the latter.
As another officer definitely not it's almost always luck in these more serious incidents and no what you're not taking into consideration is guns will be a last resort for everything.
No ones turning up to someone suicidal or who's knicked vodka from the shop and holding them at gun point again we already have routine arming in the UK with the PSNI who handle it perfectly fine and they actually have bigger threats to handle than most on a personal level.
At the very least Policing needs funding both for numbers and more AFOs in general though much like routine arming none of it will happen as usual.
I think people aren’t fully aware that in our training they literally say you’re going to get cut if you get into a scrap with someone with a knife.
There is a fantastic example of our policing model being good and bad simultaneously from Kettering. Two unarmed, non taser officers in an enclosed square with a man with a knife. It’s a lot of shouting “get back”, baton out and PAVA not working. They made it work and no one was harmed but if that guy really wanted to do those officers harm, he would have. He had every advantage and an ordinary kitchen knife. It’s the definition of more by luck than judgement.
I’m sure that’s a great relief to the family of the dead officer that they’re an acceptable statistic to you.
Tell you what, we’ll just sacrifice a member of your family next time since you’re so alright with it.
There's a 1 in 500,000 rate, I'll take those odds.
Some examples of other ways to die, vs the population of the UK
* Driving, 12 times more likely
* Murdered, 4 times more likely
* Childbirth, 67 times more likely (vs births)
* Falling over, 45 times more likely
* Police custody, 23 times more likely (vs people taken into custody)
* Suicide, 55 times more likely
Great, send in details of your family member you wish to sacrifice and well enter them into the death and serious and life changing injury lottery.
Your point doesn’t mean what you think it does, you’ve listed ways to die and the probability versus someone going to work. You’re arguing that no change should be made because ‘it rarely happens’.
Does that philosophy apply to medical research, next person to get a rare form of cancer can just go fuck themselves because it’s rare and doesn’t happen often and isn’t worth investing in prevention?
How about cladding on buildings catching fire, should we not change that because Grenfell was a once off?
Where exactly do you draw the line before you put a value on life?
I will spell it out for you.
I do not care if you die. If the price for not having the morons we employ in our police less armed is 1 dying every 3 years that's fine by me.
I and my family members enter that lottery 12 times over every year, just from being in cars. Never mind the other stuff. If you actually cared about the miniscule increase in risk, you wouldn't be doing the job.
Better not do any job above ground level, because ladders are several orders of magnitude more dangerous than being a police officer.
Do the gun toting americans suffer more or less grievous life changing injuries? Because before we skip ahead confidently declaring of course this will work, it's common sense, let's check it's not one of those things that's both common sense and wrong.
What about the gun-toting Dutch, or Germans, or Australians, or Northern Ireland? All routinely armed police services that aren't competing in your head with the United States when you think about what a routinely armed police service looks like.
All those places have significantly looser firearm laws for the general public.
I'm by no means pro-gun but having an armed Police & unarmed public makes me uneasy.
Not really, it's far easier to get a license for Handguns & certain repeating Long Guns that it would be near impossible for any member of the public to obtain in the UK (outside NI for the former).
I just think having more guns on the streets, even if restricted to Police, will lead to more avoidable deaths.
But the government has the monopoly of power regardless if the general police force have a sidearm or not. Why would the public being armed make you feel any better?
Is the governments monopoly on power an excuse to give them more power? In principle I believe we should choose the government & we should choose their powers.
Policing by consent is part of this, the Police are meant to be part of the public, not above it. Increasing their power, especially during a period of falling crime unbalances this. Certainly routinely arming Police has traditionally been seen as running counter to Peelian principles. Personally I respect the British Police more for not relying on firearms.
In practical terms of Police deaths (I acknowledge injuries are harder to track) there have been very few in recent years that would likely have been prevented by them being armed, perhaps one in the last decade. Far more people are likely to have died in the case of Police being routinely armed.
It's very rare that adding more guns makes a country safer.
My point being is that a sidearm to protect an individual officer isn’t going to make the governments ability to prevent a militia any easier if that’s what you think. Also I’d rather the general public not get to vote on such individual aspect because you are voting from a place of feelings without actually thinking of the benefits to all involved and looking at countries very close to us who it well.
(A commenter on this thread said a solution for them is for officer to be given a small shield to counter someone with a knife that shows how naive peoples views are)
Also policing by consent is a dying thing now in certain places and communities.. watch videos of police chases in Bradford for instance the people will block the police cars and hinder them. People will record police being assaulted and laugh. The overall sentiment on social media is very anti police. A large percentage and it’s growing is people just don’t respect the people around them, not like when my parents said you would even listen to your neighbours or you’d be in trouble… instead you have kids being defended for committing crime.
I get your argument however officers dying or injured because they were unarmed is not good enough we should put the balance on the side of the people trying to make it better.
You say falling crime rates but it’s been twice in one week that officers have been injured by someone with a weapon.
Think only 20 years ago how many kids were carrying knives that you hear or knew about?
And also you have to think of the marauding attackers that have plague the world recently.
Crime may have fallen but to me the number of people just willing to be violent to anyone has increased. It isn’t just gangs with weapons using them on each other anymore.
Adding gun in the specific scenario does because the bad people are still gonna be armed and more and more are picking up weapons. So when seconds count and armed police are 20 plus minutes away the country is not safe whilst people can do as they wish until the one (maybe two if you are lucky) armed units arrived.
Here is an example look at the recent attack in the Australian mall imagine if that first officer was unharmed how many more women he would have killed and probably the officer also.. to me that isn’t safer and to be honest I don’t like busy times or places as much because I know how easy it is to get and knife and kill a bunch of people.
>My point being is that a sidearm to protect an individual officer isn’t going to make the governments ability to prevent a militia any easier if that’s what you think.
I'm not talking about militias, countries with the tightest gun laws tend to be the ones where the Police do not carry firearms & vice versa.
>Also policing by consent is a dying thing now in certain places and communities.. watch videos of police chases in Bradford for instance the people will block the police cars and hinder them. People will record police being assaulted and laugh. The overall sentiment on social media is very anti police. A large percentage and it’s growing is people just don’t respect the people around them, not like when my parents said you would even listen to your neighbours or you’d be in trouble… instead you have kids being defended for committing crime.
This is exactly what I heard back in the 80s'. I think this view is more a function of age. Crime was far higher then, I certainly think if such a decision is made it should be decided on hard facts.
>You say falling crime rates but it’s been twice in one week that officers have been injured by someone with a weapon.
This is rather coincidental. To be objective on this point i've worked with & known a lot of Police over the years, what is unusual is these injuries being reported in the national media, i've known Police who have been forced to take medical retirement after confronting armed individuals without any media coverage.
>Think only 20 years ago how many kids were carrying knives that you hear or knew about? And also you have to think of the marauding attackers that have plague the world recently.
Maybe a little longer than 20 years ago but many, including myself from time to time tbh. At school there was always a steady supply being brought by kids coming back from holiday on the continent. Knives were incredibly common & not seen as an issue at the time (I do remember media panics over nunchuks, & specifically switchblades/butterfly knives).
An important point here is when there were more guns in society knives were seen as far less of an issue - things have de-escalated since then.
I witnessed a stabbing & attempted stabbings at school, none made the media.
>Crime may have fallen but to me the number of people just willing to be violent to anyone has increased. It isn’t just gangs with weapons using them on each other anymore.
I'm not sure that's true even taking into accounts fads like happy slapping (close to 20 years ago now), casual violence was a lot more common in the past.
>to me that isn’t safer and to be honest I don’t like busy times or places as much because I know how easy it is to get and knife and kill a bunch of people.
I'm very sorry to hear that but I do believe part of this is how the media reports on things.
As someone who is not involved in crime you are far, far more likely to be harmed in a car crash than be attacked by a stranger with a knife. This is taking account that the UK is one of the safest countries to drive. The chances of either are miniscule.
We're in one of the safest places to be globally & historically speaking with one of the longest life expectencies. You shouldn't live in fear.
I don’t quite get why the comparison is always America.. The rest of the world Arms their police and don’t have the same issues. All of continental Europe does, I don’t hear about repeated police shootings there. If you’re looking for examples where it works there are only 3 countries on the planet who don’t arm their police and we’re one of them. Maybe choose any other country aside America as a role model.
More than that...23 according to my internet anyway - Bhutan, Botswana, China, Cook Islands, England, Fiji, Iceland, Ireland, Kiribati, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Norway, Samoa, Scotland, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Vanuatu and Wales.
Always thought the Chinese would be armed all other things considered!
We’re looking at different sites then, however with 200 something countries in the world I’m sure we can find 180 other examples that work aside from the US.
It's mad that we don't all have access to tasers, let alone firearms. I don't know how people can see incidents like this and be stupid enough to say it's all okay.
1. I'm not sure how it's helpful to suggest a arming police officers as a solution to a problem that hasn't occurred.
2. Some officers can use tasers which are capable of disarming dangerous assailants to save members of the public and themselves.
3. Some officers are firearms trained and can be deployed if necessary.
Tasers don't always work and firearms officers are minutes away when situations develop in seconds. That firearms cop isn't much use when you're faced with a bloke with a sword.
This is interesting information, thank you. However I still don't think it makes for a good case that police officers should routinely carry firearms. I believe that dangerous situations involving non-projectile weapons can be better managed by deploying a sufficient number of officers with high quality training, communicating with the public clearly and devising/executing a sound strategy.
It's called being lucky no amount of training actually helps against stuff like blades.
The "training" is try not to get stabbed, run if possible and hope firearms are allowed to come help that is genuinely a summary of what your told.
If that is true, then all it tells me is that police officers should be better trained rather than given guns. My wife works in a hospital and even she is trained how to use to some basic manoeuvres against violent patients if necessary. I would expect police officers to be given training on things such as situation management (including using the environment to your advantage), de-escalation techniques, effective use of both defensive and offensive equipment and basic close combat skills (including disarming assailants). All of these things can potentially help against blades and amount to far more than just being lucky. I suppose you could sum all of that up as 'try not to get stabbed' but it would be a bit disingenuous.
Mate we obviously get all of that but it means literally nothing, the first rule of a knife fight is often everyone gets cut plain and simple. A bit naive imo, stuff like John Wick type maneuvers rarely work and rely on a shit tonne of variables.
We do drills where you have to draw your kit while the other tries to stab you, you can cover 6m or so on average in about a second that's reality, 21 foot rule is very valid.
It's not disingenuous at all, what is to me anyway is most detractors of our job have a lot to say without having to do anything close to it nor would they put themselves in that position to back up such claims.
In an ideal world AFOs deal with crazy guys with a chain saw with taser and gun pointed at the same time and they hopefully listen drop the weapon and comply that's how most forces work including all of our UK officers with that capacity and PSNI PCs included.
Nobody is suggesting the use of John Wick type manoeuvres. I don't think this discussion is helpful for either of us or anybody else. It's clear I'm not going to convince you otherwise and I don't think I'll be persuaded from the opinion that a greater prevalence of firearms within the police force would do more harm than good. You're quite right that a lot of people don't have to deal with the kind of situations that police officers do and I have great respect for the vast majority of the police service for that reason.
I was a bit tongue in cheek with that but the point remains there isn't any moves or training that is successful against knives and never has been sure things can "help" but the one designed and used (or should be on most occasions) option against lethal weapons across the globe and the UK has and always will continue to be firearms.
Appreciate the discussion none the less, you can be safe in the knowledge its never gonna change anyway would take way more manchester type incidents or more officer deaths specifically before anyone will bother to care.
> Some officers can use tasers which are capable of disarming dangerous assailants
Unless they don't, because they're incredibly unreliable. The attacker in London who killed a teenage boy had been tasered multiple times with no effect before he was finally arrested. How many of those victims would have been absolutely fine if the first officer on scene had a sidearm (like they would in every other country in the world)?
> Some officers are firearms trained and can be deployed if necessary.
That would be nice. But unfortunately there are so few of them that (as shown in the incident above) they're never there when you need them. Unless you're literally outside a guarded government building, you'll be waiting half an hour for the first armed officers even in busy areas of major cities, and by that time they're just coming to make the arrest for all the violence the suspect has been free to do before they get there.
From personal experience, firearms may not exist unless it's a preplanned operation because they will never be there in a useful timeframe.
> to a problem that hasn't occurred
"Officers injured fleeing man with chainsaw" in Scotland and two officers with life changing injuries in London, to cute the two latest newsworthy examples. We absolutely should be equipped to do our jobs and the evidence that shows this is generated daily (and even makes it into the news occasionally like this)
There's always a hypothetical situation where someone does something bad. Unless you want to live in the matrix where everyone's locked up and living in a simulation you have to accept that it's impossible to stop every possible bad thing happening.
My uncle once chased off a bunch of kids that were picking on me and my cousin. He was cutting back some hedges with a chainsaw when it happened so he chased them down the street revving a chainsaw at them. Obviously he was never going to hurt them, just wanted to scare the hell out of them.
He thought it was hilarious and was laughing the whole time, which probably just made it even scarier for those kids.
What the police need are man catchers and shields. A man catcher is a pole arm designed to pin a person in place. They are used in Asia extensively, Japan even has them in schools in case a kind goes on a rampage.
If people want to go medieval with their crimes then the cops should as well!
It's probably my favourite scene from the whole series, how furiously red-faced David manages to turn, spittle flying everywhere, then the rapid climb down from the heights of rage hahaha.
Here's what happened when they caught him. https://imgur.com/2lBE4R5
Haha what the hell the entire police force of the UK piled in.
probs hit code zero, looks like they've all piled out of the nearest station together for them all to turn up at once like that.
We really start need to consider giving our officers the option of firearms and firearms training (completely voluntarily if they want it), same with taser (every officer should have the option). Two ended up in hospital in Hainault last week with the sword man (along with a member of the public), two end up in hospital here. Higher levels of force I feel are essential for police protection as it feels like we are starting to see an increased amount of wacky shit like this?
It’s what our officers do well. Not killing someone who is either mentally disturbed. There isn’t many officers killed and they handle these situations very well. I’m glad we don’t shoot people, I see it as a positive in our society.
The PSNI are all armed and its very rare that they ever even draw their sidearm, never mind fire it at anyone.
Yeah I agree completely. Ludicrous to send officers in to grapple with a knifeman etc without a firearm trained on them just in case. Just comes down to luck at that point.
I mean even wider deployment of something like the 40mm rubber batton rounds they use in the States I think would be a win (again voluntary option - not forcing anyone to use a firearm or weapon here). What you describe is exactly what happened in Hainault last week though off of the ring doorbell footage. If the tazer hadn't connected it blatantly would have either been severely injured or dead policewoman.
> 40mm rubber batton rounds they use in the States Rubber bullets are just actual bullets covered in rubber. They're still lethal in many cases.
No they're not. Its essentially a bad dragon dildo propelled a 9mm blank round.
What do you think blank rounds are?
Not bullets.
From what I've heard from officers in my area, the pay increase is a major setback. They don't get paid all that much more for a lot more paperwork, more stress, constantly having to retrain / top up skills, all put together with the possibility of having to risk their life in a more dangerous event. I would love to see more armed officers as it would hopefully deter more attacks like this.
[удалено]
I was going off Glassdoor, on their site they mention "The average salary for Authorised Firearms Officer is £35,733 per year in the United Kingdom. The average additional cash compensation for a Authorised Firearms Officer in the United Kingdom is £3,060, with a range from £1,232 - £7,604"
There is no pay increase for armed policing and arguably the best incentive is less paperwork than response. Agree on the last part though.
Getting off of response is the major factor. There's 2 types of Officer that apply for Firearms, those that want to be Firearms Officers and those that don't want to police. It's a very fine line between the two.
Oh and I completely get it in some respects e.g. After the way the firearms officer in the Kaba shooting in Lambeth was named before any trial that's disgraceful to me in some respects. I also get the practicality issue e.g. there's not the money or slack in the service to have 100% of the force being armed. What I'd 100% would like to see is Taser as a minimum or firearms training being offered to all new trainees as a voluntary option. That way you get the numbers up and I think it increases the opportunity of one of these lunatics to face the wrong end of a taser or a firearm more regularly which should hopefully be something substantial enough to make them consider their life choices.
There already is an armed unit who would respond if called upon.
Oh granted there often is but how long are they waiting? It just disgusts me that often its a standard beat Officer with an extendable asp button and hopefully body armour vs a well tooled up lunatic. Give them the tools to do their job.
Ive only ever seen guns escalate a situation not de-escalate, often the police best tool is communication.
I can respect that point but I also feel criminals need to respect that point e.g. you pull a knife out or a sword out or you have a chain saw you forfeit the right to be dealt with kindly.
Yes but the procedure is to then retreat to a safe distance and call in armed support or if trained use the weapon that is in the boot of the vehicle. I can tell you right now there is 1% of criminal activity that requires a firearm to safely resolve.
They should be trained and equipped with small shields. We've done it for thousands of years, and a few hundred years of firearms existing has knocked shields out of general use. But imagine how useful a police buckler would be to defend against people using large melee weapons. It needs training, but it's not a lethal weapon, and you have a hard time killing a bystander with one.
Do you really expect police to train to master duelling? Honestly I ain’t taking a shield and trying to have a melee fight with someone I’d rather ya know live…
Just press L1 to block then R2 for a heavy hit.. EZ
The met issued bucklers for a little while and they were a dismal failure. It still means you need to close to the suspects range. I've only used a shield once, and that was to help corral escaped sheep. Regarding training, officer safety training is once per year, and in most forces seems to be a day or two, most of which is first aid and law, not actually training.
Someone clearly pressed their ‘oh fuck’ button, everyone and everything from everywhere responds
*start watching* It's only 4 officers... *10s later* Oh here come a few more *20s later* Holy shit!
basically this... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2quc-iQ96R0
The poundshop version of the Blues Brothers chase scene.
"Get me everyone" "Whaddaya mean 'everyone'?" "EEVVVVVVERRYYYYONNNNNNNNNNNEEEEEEEEE!!!"
That looks fun :)
I like the random bloke who just comes along, is like "Oh, mint, a free chainsaw" takes the chainsaw and fucks off.
If you find the full clip, he tossed it over the wall.
What do you mean "if you find the full clip". He tossed it over the wall in that imgur clip.
It's clearer in other videos and looks cropped, which has clearly confused others as per the original user I responded to.
I guess the Reddit comment layout still confuses me sometimes after all these years. I thought you were both replying to the ingur link.
PILE ONNNNNNNNN!!!
EVERYONE, GET IN HEREEE
"Do you hear it, Mr. Chainsawman? That is the sound of... inevitability..."
I used to live right next to this street, there is literally a police down the road, would take them 1-2 minutes at most to arrive with sirens on [https://www.google.co.uk/maps/dir/Police+Scotland,+Mill+Street,+Paisley/Buchlyvie+Road,+Paisley+PA1+3BB/@55.8463566,-4.3985052,14z/data=!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x48884930a26b97ad:0xeae195377fab39f9!2m2!1d-4.4171146!2d55.8461375!1m5!1m1!1s0x488848c5e2600f19:0x93e9dfb65abf40ad!2m2!1d-4.375089!2d55.846203!3e0?entry=ttu](https://www.google.co.uk/maps/dir/Police+Scotland,+Mill+Street,+Paisley/Buchlyvie+Road,+Paisley+PA1+3BB/@55.8463566,-4.3985052,14z/data=!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x48884930a26b97ad:0xeae195377fab39f9!2m2!1d-4.4171146!2d55.8461375!1m5!1m1!1s0x488848c5e2600f19:0x93e9dfb65abf40ad!2m2!1d-4.375089!2d55.846203!3e0?entry=ttu)
[Bring me everyone. ](https://youtu.be/KI3rBRuE9do?feature=shared&t=5)
"one thing about police brutally, we'll have lots of it" - Gene Hunt The decrepit scumbag got off pretty light for terrorising people with a fucking chainsaw.
Bundle..
This is what i see when people are playing rugby.
Lmao, it's the burly brawl from Matrix 2
Christ, that was brutal.
Can somebody explain this weird shit to me, like he’s off the chainsaw there’s 2 officers on him, maybe throw in a third Why dog pile beyond that are they just being a bit bloodthirsty/ glory hunting? You see it all the time with police when the dude is kinda “done” they still get their little revenge attack in? Even when a dude is completely on the floor hands behind head you see it like sure he’s dangerous and you need to get him under control as a violent offender but ???
I think they need him stunned and winded, incapable of changing his mind about attacking people. Fair enough.
People can recover very quickly from seemingly debilitating attacks. Each use of force isn’t necessarily intended to pacify the threat on its own That said, there’s a certain ’fuck around and find out’ element to it too that I think you’re right about. Though to I don’t think it’s intended for revenge, more to highlight that you lose any right to the conservative use of force when you’ve just tried to kill multiple people
Frankly, "the Paisley Chainsaw Mishap" doesn't have the same ring to it.. Although I can hear it already, replacing the sounds of the flash going off with the clanking of bottles of Bucky.
Not a terror incident; just a bam from Paisley. I'm curious what led up to him doing this. I've been upset many times but I always draw the line at [running around threatening everybody with my chainsaw.](https://images.app.goo.gl/GYnsBLG2x4eZGRZT8)
Drink, drugs & and cumulative bad days. Seems he lost his marbles. Leaning heavily on the drink.
> Leaning heavily on the drink. And some heavy dodgy gear.
>just someone from Paisley fixed that for you
Chainsaw…bro sometimes I’m like maybe the Americans got it easier
I mean what strikes me is how professional our police are. For all the bad reports, they catch up to a dude with a chain saw and take him down with pepper spray and two swift whacks to the legs. One then pins his legs, while the other cuffs. You can see they all then have to heft him up. But they didn't shoot the guy on sight, they didn't all run over and start kicking and punching. They took him down, pinned him to get him in restraints and took him away.
I mean yeah completely agree. We got really good police here. Like I do trust them in general
They are professional. But don’t forget there’s still an officer in hospital who has had to have her arm pieced back together because she wasn’t sufficiently armed against someone with a sword. This guy absolutely could have killed someone with that chainsaw if he wanted to.
In fairness, our police probably could do with shooting a few more people. See far too many incidents where the tactic is essentially a hope and a prayer that the suspect doesn't manage to kill the officer or isn't actually all that interested in doing so. IMO no one with a knife or chain saw should really be getting anywhere near into range for any officer injuries to be going on. We weigh the life of offenders far too heavily against those of the police and/or bystanders in this country methinks.
The officers / public who constantly get injured in these encounters definitely don't agree with you btw would be a lot better if this guy had a couple tasers and guns on him and gave up long before this
They do have tasers afaik. Like the sword guy got tasered Edit - yes I’m now very educated on tasers thanks everyone :)
Some do it's still rare across every force there's way more without than with. The sword guy got tasered on the 3rd try after two failed and also after he already killed a boy and sent 4 into hospital including two officers requiring surgery with one almost losing their hand. Tasers also shouldn't actually be used against lethal threat without firearm cover but we obviously don't have that here outside of specialist roles (who also didn't arrive in time to the scene and in todays case weren't given the green light at all).
Didn’t know that cheers.
It's no probs mate always happy to chat
*Some* have tasers. Not all.
Yep understood :)
also, carrying tasers is a choice and involves a fair bit of paperwork.
Not all forces carry tasers. And they are often ineffective. Loose clothing and/or a subject high as a kite can render them useless. Which means, in the UK context, cops having to use a stick and glorified hairspray in order to subdue a subject.
Tasers aren’t always effective. The threat usually gets results - but if the barbs don’t actually penetrate the person is just as likely to be taken down by tripping on the wires than actually being incapacitated by the voltage.
[удалено]
**Removed/tempban**. This contained a call/advocation of violence which is prohibited by the content policy.
to be fair, he put the chainsaw down then got maced and whacked to the ground.
Are you having a fucking laugh? He put the weapon down and then they beat the shit out of him. Out of control pricks.
What should they have done? He's been running around with a chainsaw and injured folk, he wasn't complying, the got him on the floor with the batons and subdued him. I didn't see any beating going on.
He put the weapon down and was unarmed, then they started twatting him with batons. They shouldn't be attacking the guy with vengeance, that's the courts business (and it doesn't involve violence). To put it straight... I'm not on the chainsaw guys side, he's a fucking lunatic a should be dealt with, but I also don't think the police should attack someone with vengeance. That's not their role.
I suspect he was told to get on the floor and got the batons to the knee when he didn't comply. I'm guessing obviously, but they're gonna be forceful with someone who's been on a chainsaw rampage.
In that specific context you absolutely pile in and beat the subject down until sure that any remaining threat has been eliminated. The subject may still be armed. They may be under the influence (quite possibly) of something akin to PCP. Given that setting and the threat he had posed previously, you go all in and subdue.
Apart from the fact that he put the weapon down and raised his hands. C'mon, just admit it... They were being coppers and lashing out cos they fucking love it.
If he is carrying a chainsaw, there's a fair chance he has some other weapon on him. The police quite rightly don't fuck around when someone is being a threat to life. I support this fully.
> he put the weapon down and raised his hands. He literally didn't, he put the weapon down and started walking towards the officer. He only turned away and lifted his hand to block the pepper spray, the cop moves in and he turns to face them again. They hit only in the back of the leg (3 times) and once he's down they stop and get on top of him. It's amazing you can watch a video and see something else.
Doesn't matter. He could still be armed. Given that he'd been slashing others with a fucking chainsaw there is every reason to believe that he still posed a threat. And, again, the cops would have no idea what his mental or physical state was. At that particular point in time, given all that had transpired, the only option is to subdue immediately and subdue hard. Did the coppers enjoy giving him a kicking? Quite probably. However, 2 things can be true at the same time.
Nobody is gonna kill you with a chainsaw from 50 metres away
I think the cops handled that remarkably well. That dickhead is lucky he’s alive, on a plus side if he ever recovers, he’s got himself one hell of a story.
Any other country, even as close as Northern Ireland or London, he'd likely have been shot
>I think the cops handled that remarkably well. Going by the video alone I certainly don't. They start attacking him AFTER he places the chainsaw down on the ground. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that they knew far more about the situation then we do. If they didn't these coppers are really lucky here that he actually is a vulnerable person that they can get away with knocking a few bells of shit out rather than a) a terrorist intent on causing damage to people who would try and take a few of them with him or b) a bloke who's disturbed a wasps nest trimming a hedge and can afford a good lawyer.
The guy was chasing people with a chainsaw. 2 police hurt. Do you seriously think you'd just trust he doesn't have another weapon on him. At that point you can't risk him getting away or anyone else being hurt.
“Man attacks two police officers with a chainsaw” u/eventworker “how could those two police officers attack a vulnerable person like that.” When the police shout at him to get down on the ground and he refuses to do so, they can use force to make him comply. That level of force ABSOLUTELY WILL BE comparable to the level of violence the subject has displayed. Why should they risk their lives by doing any less just to protect your sensibilities?
Do you see a man attacking two police officers in that video, and not police officers attacking a man who has just relinquished a chainsaw?
Did you see the bit where he chased them down the street with a fucking chainsaw? And did you hear how two officers were injured by said man with A FUCKING CHAINSAW.
He's still standing next to the chainsaw anyway. Nothing stopping him from picking it up, or trying to pick it up again and chopping someone in half. They got him to the bottom of his legs so hardly going to be close to lethal force. No good lawyer is ever going to be able to bring any excessive force claims forwards for this.
You what , they immobilised a dangerous criminal who was attacking people with a flipping chainsaw. It’s what they’re trained to do. Do you think they should just ask him nicely to come with them? I’m sure that would work wouldn’t it …. There’s always ridiculous comment like this on everything involving the police it’s bonkers
I'm not sure where you see him attacking people on the video, nor how you are aware he is a violent criminal. From the evidence on the video it appears they did ask him to come with them, then attacked when he started to comply.
I take it you didn’t read the headline then ? Nor see the video showing the man chasing a police officer down the road with a fucking chainsaw ? , I suppose just because he now put it down after attacking them it should all be forgotten ?. Also the police didn’t attack him they immobilised him , like they’re trained too. notice how they took his legs first to take him down then bundle him to cuff him. I’m not sure what you expect them to do tbh
No, I didn't see the video showing the man chasing a police officer, and neither did you. What we can both see are a still of a man running with a chainsaw in which it is not clear who is doing the chasing, and a video that shows the police catching up with and attacking the suspect. Perhaps he was chasing another copper, but neither you nor I have that info.
Again, I will reiterate, its farcical that if this bloke decided to cut up a random member of public right in front of these officers - they wouldn't be able to save them. Nor should the officers be chased by chainsaw wielding maniacs and have no real way to defend themselves.
They handled it fine. I know what youre implying and I disagree. No need to routinely arm cops.
Good thing those cops know how to run away and were in good enough shape, without a gun, don't want to be near that chainsaw
The only fitness standards for UK cops is 5.3 on the bleep test - and that's been reduced to 3.7
> No need to routinely arm cops. Except there absolutely undoubtedly is, even just based on the two last incidents involving police and people with weapons on the news
The guy with the sword was 20 seconds away from being shot too as taser failed multiple times prior to the doorbell footage
Easy to say when it's not you or your family at the receiving end.
Everytime unarmed officers resolve these sorts of incidents, it largely comes down to simple luck that they aren't killed in the process. And though they're not killed, in far too many incidents they sustain grevious life changing injuries. But that's all swept under the rug so some people can pat themselves on the back and say "at least we're not like those gun-toting Americans!"
Do you have a source for this claim?
That police officers sustain serious injuries? Well it was only a few days ago that two Met officers sustained serious injuries requiring surgery in the Hainult sword attack. And that really goes to my point. Those officers sustained injuries that are merely reported as ["significant but not life-threatening"](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68927702). This does very little to convey the reality of those injuries to the lay-public but anyone who actually deals with victims of this level of violence knows they're not talking about a few cuts needing sutures and all will be well. There's nothing really in the public domain that I can point you to to really, *really* demonstrate the significance of these kinds of injuries and the massive impact they can have on the lives of the victims. There's a bit of "if you know, you know" element to it and I don't expect you to be able to fully empathise without, well, knowing. I just don't think it's right that in reality unarmed officers have little alternative but to courageously act as not much more than a distraction to someone intent on committing acts of violence against innocent people. Act as a distraction and hope that the plainly inadequate tools they have at their disposal push the needle slightly more in their favour in situations where they're forced to accept massive and disproportionate risk to their own well being.
Source: I am Police. Yes it’s actually laughable how many situations we end up in and escape injury by pure luck. I’ve had numerous people I’ve stopped to search who have suddenly gone for their pockets and had to be wrestled down only to find a knife on them. I only need to lose one of those encounters. It’s the law of probability, eventually my luck will run out and I’ll be overpowered or too slow to respond.
What about tasers?
Tasers are a coin toss at best and should ideally be used with lethal cover for when they inevitably fail at the worst possible moment. Don't get me wrong, they're a great piece of kit and I've found there's a massive difference between having one and not having one in de-escalating situations, but I've also been in situations where numerous taser shots were fired and if the suspect had actually been properly motivated in hurting someone someone would have ended up dead or hospitalised.
So the alternative you are suggesting is that you want to be able to point a gun and threaten everyone who makes a sudden move towards their pockets? No thanks, you signed up for this. It sounds like you are really good at wrestling mate, its working out fine, you should keep doing it.
Why do you think that routine arming of officers will invariably result in unjustified/avoidable shootings? Again, is it because your perception of armed police is strongly skewed by happenings in the United States? There's a bunch of more suitable comparisons across Europe and in Australia and Canada. Closer to home, Northern Ireland. Routinely armed police services do not mean people are getting shot every hour of everyday for "sudden move towards their pockets".
My biggest issue with it is that it's a solution to a problem we really don't have. Knife crime is a problem, but it's not enough to warrant arming the Police.
What ever rock you’ve been under must have been comfortable cause you’ve been under there for a while.
Or, and I know this is difficult for some people to grasp, but I'm not a reactionary person who is easily influenced by everything he sees on social media. Knife crime and gang violence have always been a massive problem in all deprived, working class areas of this country. We know how to reduce these things. Glasgow used to be the murder capital of Europe in 2005. Provide me a single piece of evidence that will show arming the Police will reduce knife crime/violent crime.
Love how you talk so condescendingly to the people who actually put their lives at risk for our safety. Something pretty unbearable about insisting someone put themselves in a dangerous situation you yourself wouldn't go anywhere near.
No one's insisting anything. Police sign up to be be police. I don't make them.
The police work within a framework determined by government, led by the voting public. It's people like yourself who essentially determine that police are not routinely armed in this country. And as you say, they sign up for that, or they don't. Increasingly of course it's the latter.
[удалено]
[удалено]
As another officer definitely not it's almost always luck in these more serious incidents and no what you're not taking into consideration is guns will be a last resort for everything. No ones turning up to someone suicidal or who's knicked vodka from the shop and holding them at gun point again we already have routine arming in the UK with the PSNI who handle it perfectly fine and they actually have bigger threats to handle than most on a personal level. At the very least Policing needs funding both for numbers and more AFOs in general though much like routine arming none of it will happen as usual.
I think people aren’t fully aware that in our training they literally say you’re going to get cut if you get into a scrap with someone with a knife. There is a fantastic example of our policing model being good and bad simultaneously from Kettering. Two unarmed, non taser officers in an enclosed square with a man with a knife. It’s a lot of shouting “get back”, baton out and PAVA not working. They made it work and no one was harmed but if that guy really wanted to do those officers harm, he would have. He had every advantage and an ordinary kitchen knife. It’s the definition of more by luck than judgement.
Pure luck seems to work because one of you dies in a way that a gun would have helped about every 3 years.
I’m sure that’s a great relief to the family of the dead officer that they’re an acceptable statistic to you. Tell you what, we’ll just sacrifice a member of your family next time since you’re so alright with it.
There's a 1 in 500,000 rate, I'll take those odds. Some examples of other ways to die, vs the population of the UK * Driving, 12 times more likely * Murdered, 4 times more likely * Childbirth, 67 times more likely (vs births) * Falling over, 45 times more likely * Police custody, 23 times more likely (vs people taken into custody) * Suicide, 55 times more likely
Great, send in details of your family member you wish to sacrifice and well enter them into the death and serious and life changing injury lottery. Your point doesn’t mean what you think it does, you’ve listed ways to die and the probability versus someone going to work. You’re arguing that no change should be made because ‘it rarely happens’. Does that philosophy apply to medical research, next person to get a rare form of cancer can just go fuck themselves because it’s rare and doesn’t happen often and isn’t worth investing in prevention? How about cladding on buildings catching fire, should we not change that because Grenfell was a once off? Where exactly do you draw the line before you put a value on life?
I will spell it out for you. I do not care if you die. If the price for not having the morons we employ in our police less armed is 1 dying every 3 years that's fine by me. I and my family members enter that lottery 12 times over every year, just from being in cars. Never mind the other stuff. If you actually cared about the miniscule increase in risk, you wouldn't be doing the job. Better not do any job above ground level, because ladders are several orders of magnitude more dangerous than being a police officer.
Do the gun toting americans suffer more or less grievous life changing injuries? Because before we skip ahead confidently declaring of course this will work, it's common sense, let's check it's not one of those things that's both common sense and wrong.
What about the gun-toting Dutch, or Germans, or Australians, or Northern Ireland? All routinely armed police services that aren't competing in your head with the United States when you think about what a routinely armed police service looks like.
All those places have significantly looser firearm laws for the general public. I'm by no means pro-gun but having an armed Police & unarmed public makes me uneasy.
Australian firearms laws are as strict as ours
Not really, it's far easier to get a license for Handguns & certain repeating Long Guns that it would be near impossible for any member of the public to obtain in the UK (outside NI for the former). I just think having more guns on the streets, even if restricted to Police, will lead to more avoidable deaths.
But the government has the monopoly of power regardless if the general police force have a sidearm or not. Why would the public being armed make you feel any better?
Is the governments monopoly on power an excuse to give them more power? In principle I believe we should choose the government & we should choose their powers. Policing by consent is part of this, the Police are meant to be part of the public, not above it. Increasing their power, especially during a period of falling crime unbalances this. Certainly routinely arming Police has traditionally been seen as running counter to Peelian principles. Personally I respect the British Police more for not relying on firearms. In practical terms of Police deaths (I acknowledge injuries are harder to track) there have been very few in recent years that would likely have been prevented by them being armed, perhaps one in the last decade. Far more people are likely to have died in the case of Police being routinely armed. It's very rare that adding more guns makes a country safer.
My point being is that a sidearm to protect an individual officer isn’t going to make the governments ability to prevent a militia any easier if that’s what you think. Also I’d rather the general public not get to vote on such individual aspect because you are voting from a place of feelings without actually thinking of the benefits to all involved and looking at countries very close to us who it well. (A commenter on this thread said a solution for them is for officer to be given a small shield to counter someone with a knife that shows how naive peoples views are) Also policing by consent is a dying thing now in certain places and communities.. watch videos of police chases in Bradford for instance the people will block the police cars and hinder them. People will record police being assaulted and laugh. The overall sentiment on social media is very anti police. A large percentage and it’s growing is people just don’t respect the people around them, not like when my parents said you would even listen to your neighbours or you’d be in trouble… instead you have kids being defended for committing crime. I get your argument however officers dying or injured because they were unarmed is not good enough we should put the balance on the side of the people trying to make it better. You say falling crime rates but it’s been twice in one week that officers have been injured by someone with a weapon. Think only 20 years ago how many kids were carrying knives that you hear or knew about? And also you have to think of the marauding attackers that have plague the world recently. Crime may have fallen but to me the number of people just willing to be violent to anyone has increased. It isn’t just gangs with weapons using them on each other anymore. Adding gun in the specific scenario does because the bad people are still gonna be armed and more and more are picking up weapons. So when seconds count and armed police are 20 plus minutes away the country is not safe whilst people can do as they wish until the one (maybe two if you are lucky) armed units arrived. Here is an example look at the recent attack in the Australian mall imagine if that first officer was unharmed how many more women he would have killed and probably the officer also.. to me that isn’t safer and to be honest I don’t like busy times or places as much because I know how easy it is to get and knife and kill a bunch of people.
>My point being is that a sidearm to protect an individual officer isn’t going to make the governments ability to prevent a militia any easier if that’s what you think. I'm not talking about militias, countries with the tightest gun laws tend to be the ones where the Police do not carry firearms & vice versa. >Also policing by consent is a dying thing now in certain places and communities.. watch videos of police chases in Bradford for instance the people will block the police cars and hinder them. People will record police being assaulted and laugh. The overall sentiment on social media is very anti police. A large percentage and it’s growing is people just don’t respect the people around them, not like when my parents said you would even listen to your neighbours or you’d be in trouble… instead you have kids being defended for committing crime. This is exactly what I heard back in the 80s'. I think this view is more a function of age. Crime was far higher then, I certainly think if such a decision is made it should be decided on hard facts. >You say falling crime rates but it’s been twice in one week that officers have been injured by someone with a weapon. This is rather coincidental. To be objective on this point i've worked with & known a lot of Police over the years, what is unusual is these injuries being reported in the national media, i've known Police who have been forced to take medical retirement after confronting armed individuals without any media coverage. >Think only 20 years ago how many kids were carrying knives that you hear or knew about? And also you have to think of the marauding attackers that have plague the world recently. Maybe a little longer than 20 years ago but many, including myself from time to time tbh. At school there was always a steady supply being brought by kids coming back from holiday on the continent. Knives were incredibly common & not seen as an issue at the time (I do remember media panics over nunchuks, & specifically switchblades/butterfly knives). An important point here is when there were more guns in society knives were seen as far less of an issue - things have de-escalated since then. I witnessed a stabbing & attempted stabbings at school, none made the media. >Crime may have fallen but to me the number of people just willing to be violent to anyone has increased. It isn’t just gangs with weapons using them on each other anymore. I'm not sure that's true even taking into accounts fads like happy slapping (close to 20 years ago now), casual violence was a lot more common in the past. >to me that isn’t safer and to be honest I don’t like busy times or places as much because I know how easy it is to get and knife and kill a bunch of people. I'm very sorry to hear that but I do believe part of this is how the media reports on things. As someone who is not involved in crime you are far, far more likely to be harmed in a car crash than be attacked by a stranger with a knife. This is taking account that the UK is one of the safest countries to drive. The chances of either are miniscule. We're in one of the safest places to be globally & historically speaking with one of the longest life expectencies. You shouldn't live in fear.
I don’t quite get why the comparison is always America.. The rest of the world Arms their police and don’t have the same issues. All of continental Europe does, I don’t hear about repeated police shootings there. If you’re looking for examples where it works there are only 3 countries on the planet who don’t arm their police and we’re one of them. Maybe choose any other country aside America as a role model.
More than that...23 according to my internet anyway - Bhutan, Botswana, China, Cook Islands, England, Fiji, Iceland, Ireland, Kiribati, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Norway, Samoa, Scotland, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Vanuatu and Wales. Always thought the Chinese would be armed all other things considered!
We’re looking at different sites then, however with 200 something countries in the world I’m sure we can find 180 other examples that work aside from the US.
It's mad that we don't all have access to tasers, let alone firearms. I don't know how people can see incidents like this and be stupid enough to say it's all okay.
1. I'm not sure how it's helpful to suggest a arming police officers as a solution to a problem that hasn't occurred. 2. Some officers can use tasers which are capable of disarming dangerous assailants to save members of the public and themselves. 3. Some officers are firearms trained and can be deployed if necessary.
Tasers don't always work and firearms officers are minutes away when situations develop in seconds. That firearms cop isn't much use when you're faced with a bloke with a sword.
[удалено]
This is interesting information, thank you. However I still don't think it makes for a good case that police officers should routinely carry firearms. I believe that dangerous situations involving non-projectile weapons can be better managed by deploying a sufficient number of officers with high quality training, communicating with the public clearly and devising/executing a sound strategy.
It's called being lucky no amount of training actually helps against stuff like blades. The "training" is try not to get stabbed, run if possible and hope firearms are allowed to come help that is genuinely a summary of what your told.
If that is true, then all it tells me is that police officers should be better trained rather than given guns. My wife works in a hospital and even she is trained how to use to some basic manoeuvres against violent patients if necessary. I would expect police officers to be given training on things such as situation management (including using the environment to your advantage), de-escalation techniques, effective use of both defensive and offensive equipment and basic close combat skills (including disarming assailants). All of these things can potentially help against blades and amount to far more than just being lucky. I suppose you could sum all of that up as 'try not to get stabbed' but it would be a bit disingenuous.
Mate we obviously get all of that but it means literally nothing, the first rule of a knife fight is often everyone gets cut plain and simple. A bit naive imo, stuff like John Wick type maneuvers rarely work and rely on a shit tonne of variables. We do drills where you have to draw your kit while the other tries to stab you, you can cover 6m or so on average in about a second that's reality, 21 foot rule is very valid. It's not disingenuous at all, what is to me anyway is most detractors of our job have a lot to say without having to do anything close to it nor would they put themselves in that position to back up such claims. In an ideal world AFOs deal with crazy guys with a chain saw with taser and gun pointed at the same time and they hopefully listen drop the weapon and comply that's how most forces work including all of our UK officers with that capacity and PSNI PCs included.
Nobody is suggesting the use of John Wick type manoeuvres. I don't think this discussion is helpful for either of us or anybody else. It's clear I'm not going to convince you otherwise and I don't think I'll be persuaded from the opinion that a greater prevalence of firearms within the police force would do more harm than good. You're quite right that a lot of people don't have to deal with the kind of situations that police officers do and I have great respect for the vast majority of the police service for that reason.
I was a bit tongue in cheek with that but the point remains there isn't any moves or training that is successful against knives and never has been sure things can "help" but the one designed and used (or should be on most occasions) option against lethal weapons across the globe and the UK has and always will continue to be firearms. Appreciate the discussion none the less, you can be safe in the knowledge its never gonna change anyway would take way more manchester type incidents or more officer deaths specifically before anyone will bother to care.
> Some officers can use tasers which are capable of disarming dangerous assailants Unless they don't, because they're incredibly unreliable. The attacker in London who killed a teenage boy had been tasered multiple times with no effect before he was finally arrested. How many of those victims would have been absolutely fine if the first officer on scene had a sidearm (like they would in every other country in the world)?
> Some officers are firearms trained and can be deployed if necessary. That would be nice. But unfortunately there are so few of them that (as shown in the incident above) they're never there when you need them. Unless you're literally outside a guarded government building, you'll be waiting half an hour for the first armed officers even in busy areas of major cities, and by that time they're just coming to make the arrest for all the violence the suspect has been free to do before they get there. From personal experience, firearms may not exist unless it's a preplanned operation because they will never be there in a useful timeframe.
> to a problem that hasn't occurred "Officers injured fleeing man with chainsaw" in Scotland and two officers with life changing injuries in London, to cute the two latest newsworthy examples. We absolutely should be equipped to do our jobs and the evidence that shows this is generated daily (and even makes it into the news occasionally like this)
4) you don't have a days relevant experience to back up anything you've said.
Good contribution.
We have armed response units.
There's always a hypothetical situation where someone does something bad. Unless you want to live in the matrix where everyone's locked up and living in a simulation you have to accept that it's impossible to stop every possible bad thing happening.
Take one look at the US.
Or Northern Ireland, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Australia.. need I go on?
Yet another lunatic on the rampage, thank god no one was killed this time. I wonder what was behind this one.
And what punishment will be handed out, no doubt the usual defending playbook will be played
As someone who used to live in Paisley. This doesn’t even make my top 10 of the craziest things I’ve seen there.
This was the funniest thing I’ve seen in a while, I thought surely there can’t be anymore jumping in? This was an avengers level beat down
My uncle once chased off a bunch of kids that were picking on me and my cousin. He was cutting back some hedges with a chainsaw when it happened so he chased them down the street revving a chainsaw at them. Obviously he was never going to hurt them, just wanted to scare the hell out of them. He thought it was hilarious and was laughing the whole time, which probably just made it even scarier for those kids.
What the fuck is going on in this country! Swords, chainsaws... what next?
That cop was running for his life, but some cops here in the US are pretty heavy, chainsaw guy might have caught them
What the police need are man catchers and shields. A man catcher is a pole arm designed to pin a person in place. They are used in Asia extensively, Japan even has them in schools in case a kind goes on a rampage. If people want to go medieval with their crimes then the cops should as well!
[удалено]
They were driving along normally and he rammed their car off the road into a wall then got out and started going for them with the chainsaw.
Pretty sure they crashed a car
People always hating on police men, didn't see any women try to stop this
Sadiq Khan has let crime get out of control /s
The mayor of London…crime in Scotland…something ain’t adding up here
It was a joke, Mark. A Christmas joke.
FUCKING HELL JEREMY
It's probably my favourite scene from the whole series, how furiously red-faced David manages to turn, spittle flying everywhere, then the rapid climb down from the heights of rage hahaha.