Police office stabbed and assailant shot outside Parliament, Car runs into pedestrians on Westminster Bridge.
Quote from: f321ffc on March 22, 2017, 03:45:29 PM
Police office stabbed and assailant shot outside Parliament, Car runs into pedestrians on Westminster Bridge.
One person dead! Hopefully just the inbred terrorist
10m
Sky News @SkyNews
A woman has died and several other people have "catastrophic injuries" following the terror attack in Westminster
We all knew it wouldn't be long before what was happening in Europe would be making its way to the UK.
Poor people.
terrorist attacks in London ... reminds me of England in the 90s, the 80s, the 70s
I hope all are safe. You have the best police and, in my opinion, the best counter-terror regime in the world. 9739.gif
BBC now reporting that the stabbed Police Officer has died.
Quote from: HatterDon on March 22, 2017, 05:31:38 PM
terrorist attacks in London ... reminds me of England in the 90s, the 80s, the 70s
I hope all are safe. You have the best police and, in my opinion, the best counter-terror regime in the world. 9739.gif
True our police and security force are to be blessed but how on earth can anyone offer reasonable defence against these terrorists and there tactics.
We really have to recognise that we are at war with these people and put ourselves on a war footing.
Trump possibly had it right in keeping certain nations out of the country , no way would we have let Germans move freely about in Britain in WW2.
The best counter-terrorism in the world won't prevent a "lone wolf" driving on the pavement and attacking a copper with a knife. Acting alone with something that we all have on our drives and in the kitchen there's no electronic footprint that GCHQ could have picked up. Awful as it was, it could have been so much worse.
At least they got him - then tried to save his wretched life!
:047:
Quote from: HatterDon on March 22, 2017, 05:31:38 PM
terrorist attacks in London ... reminds me of England in the 90s, the 80s, the 70s
I hope all are safe. You have the best police and, in my opinion, the best counter-terror regime in the world. 9739.gif
:047: and thank you. Must be the most difficult job in the world.
Quote from: Jem on March 22, 2017, 08:22:07 PM
:047:Quote from: HatterDon on March 22, 2017, 05:31:38 PM
terrorist attacks in London ... reminds me of England in the 90s, the 80s, the 70s
I hope all are safe. You have the best police and, in my opinion, the best counter-terror regime in the world. 9739.gif
:047: and thank you. Must be the most difficult job in the world.
Amen to that. Thoughts with family & Friends.
Friends of Fulham would like to extend our thoughts and prayers to the victims of this horrible attack on innocent people. We consider this attack to be not only an atrocity to the citizens of England and London but a vile and shameful act on humanity itself.
We would remind members though that this is a football forum and not to bring politicians or politics into this or any discussion. Please keep all comments relevant to this terrible event.
Thanks for everyone's support and understanding.
The Mod Squad
Well said " LOVE " I'm echoeing those words . So close to home and so sad for the victims and their families. Will it ever stop? Perhaps not in my lifetime.
Quote from: bobbo on March 23, 2017, 08:30:22 AM
Well said " LOVE " I'm echoeing those words . So close to home and so sad for the victims and their families. Will it ever stop? Perhaps not in my lifetime.
Unfortunately not bobbo. Like many others using this forum I suspect, I worked in London and from the 1970's to late 1990's there were very many Irish-related bombings. Since then we've had The Angry Brigade, various letter bombs, and now a different flavour series of incidents. The world doesn't really change THAT much. All very sad but we just have to look after our nearest and dearest as best we can and support those unfortunates who suffer in atrocities.
Don't want to hijack the thread for football reasons but for a reporter like Gabriel Clarke to ask both Southgate and Cahill if the events in London were an excuse for defeat is an absolute shambles at the highest level . Inappropriate question looking for sound bite or controversy.
Ask them about the future of football, the game, the tactics, at a stretch about Podolski but not a terror attack on London
Quote from: Newry FFC on March 23, 2017, 10:08:25 AM
Don't want to hijack the thread for football reasons but for a reporter like Gabriel Clarke to ask both Southgate and Cahill if the events in London were an excuse for defeat is an absolute shambles at the highest level . Inappropriate question looking for sound bite or controversy.
Ask them about the future of football, the game, the tactics, at a stretch about Podolski but not a terror attack on London
I think you are quite right. They tend to look for meaning in the meaningless. Try to find soundbites from the uninformed. We know what happened, Many have seen this sort of things too many times. The broadcast media now have a tendency to treat atrocities as entertainment on the news and a way to fill in air time. We shall soon be hearing how this has upset some actor or actress with a film or play to publicise.
Let's just remember the victims, both injured and no longer with us. Not those looking for something to say.
Have Fulham put anything on Twitter about this? I saw on the BBC it said 'London Clubs Unite', but then only mentioned QPR & Tottenham. I do not have access to twitter at work :(
There is nothing on the FFC Website.
Quote from: HatterDon on March 22, 2017, 05:31:38 PM
terrorist attacks in London ... reminds me of England in the 90s, the 80s, the 70s
I hope all are safe. You have the best police and, in my opinion, the best counter-terror regime in the world. 9739.gif
Yep! And like every time before, us Londoners woke up this morning, had a cup of tea, spent a moment to think of the victims and then went off to work just like every other day.
I doubt the Millennials get this kind of behaviour, but when you've lived less than a mile from two explosions, and less than 100 yards from a controlled explosion, the fear is an afterthought. Terrorism has never worked in the UK and it never will.
PC Keith Palmer 065.gif was Charlton Fan, nice touch by the club.
https://mobile.twitter.com/TheFLZone/status/844901285065347072
No-one's said (so far as I've heard) whether he was wearing a stab-vest. Even beat bobbies do these days. If not, why not? If so, the terrorist must have got in underneath it.
Our thoughts go to everyone affected by this pointless atrocity. Been involved in planning for such attacks at work & prepared a business continuity exercise involving a lone wolf attack. There's also a police 'Stay Safe' film that's a useful reminder:
http://www.npcc.police.uk/NPCCBusinessAreas/WeaponAttacksStaySafe.aspx (http://www.npcc.police.uk/NPCCBusinessAreas/WeaponAttacksStaySafe.aspx)
Quote from: Holders on March 23, 2017, 04:03:32 PM
No-one's said (so far as I've heard) whether he was wearing a stab-vest. Even beat bobbies do these days. If not, why not? If so, the terrorist must have got in underneath it.
Multiple stab wounds to the head and neck. A stab vest wouldnt have made a difference.
Quote from: stevehawkinslidingtackle on March 24, 2017, 01:20:21 AM
Quote from: Holders on March 23, 2017, 04:03:32 PM
No-one's said (so far as I've heard) whether he was wearing a stab-vest. Even beat bobbies do these days. If not, why not? If so, the terrorist must have got in underneath it.
Multiple stab wounds to the head and neck. A stab vest wouldnt have made a difference.
I didn't know that, that's even worse.
Quote from: Holders on March 24, 2017, 07:15:20 AM
Quote from: stevehawkinslidingtackle on March 24, 2017, 01:20:21 AM
Quote from: Holders on March 23, 2017, 04:03:32 PM
No-one's said (so far as I've heard) whether he was wearing a stab-vest. Even beat bobbies do these days. If not, why not? If so, the terrorist must have got in underneath it.
Multiple stab wounds to the head and neck. A stab vest wouldnt have made a difference.
I didn't know that, that's even worse.
I've never quite understood why all police in the UK aren't properly armed and in fact it still feels strange to see unarmed police to me when I'm on the mainland. Surely this is something which needs to be considered given the current climate?
Quote from: Aaron on March 24, 2017, 10:46:45 AM
Quote from: Holders on March 24, 2017, 07:15:20 AM
Quote from: stevehawkinslidingtackle on March 24, 2017, 01:20:21 AM
Quote from: Holders on March 23, 2017, 04:03:32 PM
No-one's said (so far as I've heard) whether he was wearing a stab-vest. Even beat bobbies do these days. If not, why not? If so, the terrorist must have got in underneath it.
Multiple stab wounds to the head and neck. A stab vest wouldnt have made a difference.
I didn't know that, that's even worse.
I've never quite understood why all police in the UK aren't properly armed and in fact it still feels strange to see unarmed police to me when I'm on the mainland. Surely this is something which needs to be considered given the current climate?
For a lot of them it's a personal choice not to carry guns.
I know loads of Police Officers who feel it makes people more wary of them and hurts their 'Bobby on the Beat' image. They like to think that they are approachable and being armed stands in the way of that.
Very sad.
Quote from: Fulham Tup North on March 24, 2017, 12:51:02 PM
Quote from: Aaron on March 24, 2017, 10:46:45 AM
Quote from: Holders on March 24, 2017, 07:15:20 AM
Quote from: stevehawkinslidingtackle on March 24, 2017, 01:20:21 AM
Quote from: Holders on March 23, 2017, 04:03:32 PM
No-one's said (so far as I've heard) whether he was wearing a stab-vest. Even beat bobbies do these days. If not, why not? If so, the terrorist must have got in underneath it.
Multiple stab wounds to the head and neck. A stab vest wouldnt have made a difference.
I didn't know that, that's even worse.
I've never quite understood why all police in the UK aren't properly armed and in fact it still feels strange to see unarmed police to me when I'm on the mainland. Surely this is something which needs to be considered given the current climate?
For a lot of them it's a personal choice not to carry guns.
I know loads of Police Officers who feel it makes people more wary of them and hurts their 'Bobby on the Beat' image. They like to think that they are approachable and being armed stands in the way of that.
Very sad.
One was saying on the radio this morning that they don't want to be armed because of the extended witch-hunt that goes on if they do shoot someone.
Quote from: Holders on March 24, 2017, 02:48:33 PM
Quote from: Fulham Tup North on March 24, 2017, 12:51:02 PM
Quote from: Aaron on March 24, 2017, 10:46:45 AM
Quote from: Holders on March 24, 2017, 07:15:20 AM
Quote from: stevehawkinslidingtackle on March 24, 2017, 01:20:21 AM
Quote from: Holders on March 23, 2017, 04:03:32 PM
No-one's said (so far as I've heard) whether he was wearing a stab-vest. Even beat bobbies do these days. If not, why not? If so, the terrorist must have got in underneath it.
Multiple stab wounds to the head and neck. A stab vest wouldnt have made a difference.
I didn't know that, that's even worse.
I've never quite understood why all police in the UK aren't properly armed and in fact it still feels strange to see unarmed police to me when I'm on the mainland. Surely this is something which needs to be considered given the current climate?
For a lot of them it's a personal choice not to carry guns.
I know loads of Police Officers who feel it makes people more wary of them and hurts their 'Bobby on the Beat' image. They like to think that they are approachable and being armed stands in the way of that.
Very sad.
One was saying on the radio this morning that they don't want to be armed because of the extended witch-hunt that goes on if they do shoot someone.
Since when I was serving in the early eighties thru late 90's there has always been a vast majority, when voting, that said no to being armed. I believe the last vote I recall it was somewhere around 81% of No's.
There are many reasons I would say, two are of the most important:
Given that the UK is not a gun-culture country, the likelihood in being that only the ex-Military would be trained enough to be able to handle firearms to the level the public would accept (I point to the US - even though it is a gun-culture country inasmuch as the needless discharge of police firearms and killing as such proof), and the second reason would be the subsequent proliferation of armed villains and their willingness to shoot first.
Reasons might have varied in recent years, but those were the ones that I always heard and considered as paramount.
These-days, the need for a prosecution, or Political sacrificial lamb to appease everyone, is more important than anything else, including real justice, and Police Officers will always have that at the back of their minds, and such hesitation could cost them their own lives.
Quote from: Logicalman on March 26, 2017, 12:13:15 AM
Quote from: Holders on March 24, 2017, 02:48:33 PM
Quote from: Fulham Tup North on March 24, 2017, 12:51:02 PM
Quote from: Aaron on March 24, 2017, 10:46:45 AM
Quote from: Holders on March 24, 2017, 07:15:20 AM
Quote from: stevehawkinslidingtackle on March 24, 2017, 01:20:21 AM
Quote from: Holders on March 23, 2017, 04:03:32 PM
No-one's said (so far as I've heard) whether he was wearing a stab-vest. Even beat bobbies do these days. If not, why not? If so, the terrorist must have got in underneath it.
Multiple stab wounds to the head and neck. A stab vest wouldnt have made a difference.
I didn't know that, that's even worse.
I've never quite understood why all police in the UK aren't properly armed and in fact it still feels strange to see unarmed police to me when I'm on the mainland. Surely this is something which needs to be considered given the current climate?
For a lot of them it's a personal choice not to carry guns.
I know loads of Police Officers who feel it makes people more wary of them and hurts their 'Bobby on the Beat' image. They like to think that they are approachable and being armed stands in the way of that.
Very sad.
One was saying on the radio this morning that they don't want to be armed because of the extended witch-hunt that goes on if they do shoot someone.
Since when I was serving in the early eighties thru late 90's there has always been a vast majority, when voting, that said no to being armed. I believe the last vote I recall it was somewhere around 81% of No's.
There are many reasons I would say, two are of the most important:
Given that the UK is not a gun-culture country, the likelihood in being that only the ex-Military would be trained enough to be able to handle firearms to the level the public would accept (I point to the US - even though it is a gun-culture country inasmuch as the needless discharge of police firearms and killing as such proof), and the second reason would be the subsequent proliferation of armed villains and their willingness to shoot first.
Reasons might have varied in recent years, but those were the ones that I always heard and considered as paramount.
These-days, the need for a prosecution, or Political sacrificial lamb to appease everyone, is more important than anything else, including real justice, and Police Officers will always have that at the back of their minds, and such hesitation could cost them their own lives.
I agree with you 100%
Quote from: Woolly Mammoth on March 26, 2017, 02:24:21 AM
Quote from: Logicalman on March 26, 2017, 12:13:15 AM
Quote from: Holders on March 24, 2017, 02:48:33 PM
Quote from: Fulham Tup North on March 24, 2017, 12:51:02 PM
Quote from: Aaron on March 24, 2017, 10:46:45 AM
Quote from: Holders on March 24, 2017, 07:15:20 AM
Quote from: stevehawkinslidingtackle on March 24, 2017, 01:20:21 AM
Quote from: Holders on March 23, 2017, 04:03:32 PM
No-one's said (so far as I've heard) whether he was wearing a stab-vest. Even beat bobbies do these days. If not, why not? If so, the terrorist must have got in underneath it.
Multiple stab wounds to the head and neck. A stab vest wouldnt have made a difference.
I didn't know that, that's even worse.
I've never quite understood why all police in the UK aren't properly armed and in fact it still feels strange to see unarmed police to me when I'm on the mainland. Surely this is something which needs to be considered given the current climate?
For a lot of them it's a personal choice not to carry guns.
I know loads of Police Officers who feel it makes people more wary of them and hurts their 'Bobby on the Beat' image. They like to think that they are approachable and being armed stands in the way of that.
Very sad.
One was saying on the radio this morning that they don't want to be armed because of the extended witch-hunt that goes on if they do shoot someone.
Since when I was serving in the early eighties thru late 90's there has always been a vast majority, when voting, that said no to being armed. I believe the last vote I recall it was somewhere around 81% of No's.
There are many reasons I would say, two are of the most important:
Given that the UK is not a gun-culture country, the likelihood in being that only the ex-Military would be trained enough to be able to handle firearms to the level the public would accept (I point to the US - even though it is a gun-culture country inasmuch as the needless discharge of police firearms and killing as such proof), and the second reason would be the subsequent proliferation of armed villains and their willingness to shoot first.
Reasons might have varied in recent years, but those were the ones that I always heard and considered as paramount.
These-days, the need for a prosecution, or Political sacrificial lamb to appease everyone, is more important than anything else, including real justice, and Police Officers will always have that at the back of their minds, and such hesitation could cost them their own lives.
I agree with you 100%
On Friday night, someone came to my house to collect something that he'd bought on ebay. We got chatting, and it emerged that he trains the police firearms officers and others; had the Westminster events been a larger group, it would have been his team that got called out.
We discussed arming of the police and his view is that there are some who want to be armed who are suitable, some who want to be who aren't, some who don't want to be who are unsuitable and some who are suitable who don't want to be armed. To me this is a compulsive case for only selective arming of the police. The bloke said that in countries where general arming is the norm, the standard of training is much lower, some officers get armed who shouldn't be and we've seen some of the incidents that occur when that's the case.
The problem is the over-extended, over-PC investigation that takes place when a weapon is fired, almost giving the impression that it's the law officer who's the criminal. When confronting someone with a knife they have seconds to react, if the Westminster criminal had a gun it would have been split seconds. The very occasional mistake may occur but the very high standard of training severely minimises that. Not so in other countries where there's general arming.
Perhaps the level of investigation should be re-examined so that some of those who are suitable to carry weapons but won't become willing to do so. Maybe the Westminster event nay change public attitudes on this a little with a bit less of the self-righteous PC brigade.
They have to fill in 5 forms just for red dotting someone with a tazer let alone drawing a gun,the public cannot have it both ways.
Agree absolutely.
Quote from: Holders on March 26, 2017, 08:59:35 AM
Quote from: Woolly Mammoth on March 26, 2017, 02:24:21 AM
Quote from: Logicalman on March 26, 2017, 12:13:15 AM
Quote from: Holders on March 24, 2017, 02:48:33 PM
Quote from: Fulham Tup North on March 24, 2017, 12:51:02 PM
Quote from: Aaron on March 24, 2017, 10:46:45 AM
Quote from: Holders on March 24, 2017, 07:15:20 AM
Quote from: stevehawkinslidingtackle on March 24, 2017, 01:20:21 AM
Quote from: Holders on March 23, 2017, 04:03:32 PM
No-one's said (so far as I've heard) whether he was wearing a stab-vest. Even beat bobbies do these days. If not, why not? If so, the terrorist must have got in underneath it.
Multiple stab wounds to the head and neck. A stab vest wouldnt have made a difference.
I didn't know that, that's even worse.
I've never quite understood why all police in the UK aren't properly armed and in fact it still feels strange to see unarmed police to me when I'm on the mainland. Surely this is something which needs to be considered given the current climate?
For a lot of them it's a personal choice not to carry guns.
I know loads of Police Officers who feel it makes people more wary of them and hurts their 'Bobby on the Beat' image. They like to think that they are approachable and being armed stands in the way of that.
Very sad.
One was saying on the radio this morning that they don't want to be armed because of the extended witch-hunt that goes on if they do shoot someone.
Since when I was serving in the early eighties thru late 90's there has always been a vast majority, when voting, that said no to being armed. I believe the last vote I recall it was somewhere around 81% of No's.
There are many reasons I would say, two are of the most important:
Given that the UK is not a gun-culture country, the likelihood in being that only the ex-Military would be trained enough to be able to handle firearms to the level the public would accept (I point to the US - even though it is a gun-culture country inasmuch as the needless discharge of police firearms and killing as such proof), and the second reason would be the subsequent proliferation of armed villains and their willingness to shoot first.
Reasons might have varied in recent years, but those were the ones that I always heard and considered as paramount.
These-days, the need for a prosecution, or Political sacrificial lamb to appease everyone, is more important than anything else, including real justice, and Police Officers will always have that at the back of their minds, and such hesitation could cost them their own lives.
I agree with you 100%
On Friday night, someone came to my house to collect something that he'd bought on ebay. We got chatting, and it emerged that he trains the police firearms officers and others; had the Westminster events been a larger group, it would have been his team that got called out.
We discussed arming of the police and his view is that there are some who want to be armed who are suitable, some who want to be who aren't, some who don't want to be who are unsuitable and some who are suitable who don't want to be armed. To me this is a compulsive case for only selective arming of the police. The bloke said that in countries where general arming is the norm, the standard of training is much lower, some officers get armed who shouldn't be and we've seen some of the incidents that occur when that's the case.
The problem is the over-extended, over-PC investigation that takes place when a weapon is fired, almost giving the impression that it's the law officer who's the criminal. When confronting someone with a knife they have seconds to react, if the Westminster criminal had a gun it would have been split seconds. The very occasional mistake may occur but the very high standard of training severely minimises that. Not so in other countries where there's general arming.
Perhaps the level of investigation should be re-examined so that some of those who are suitable to carry weapons but won't become willing to do so. Maybe the Westminster event nay change public attitudes on this a little with a bit less of the self-righteous PC brigade.
The self righteous PC Brigade are one of the twin evils of this world.
Quote from: Woolly Mammoth on March 27, 2017, 12:31:19 AM
Quote from: Holders on March 26, 2017, 08:59:35 AM
Quote from: Woolly Mammoth on March 26, 2017, 02:24:21 AM
Quote from: Logicalman on March 26, 2017, 12:13:15 AM
Quote from: Holders on March 24, 2017, 02:48:33 PM
Quote from: Fulham Tup North on March 24, 2017, 12:51:02 PM
Quote from: Aaron on March 24, 2017, 10:46:45 AM
Quote from: Holders on March 24, 2017, 07:15:20 AM
Quote from: stevehawkinslidingtackle on March 24, 2017, 01:20:21 AM
Quote from: Holders on March 23, 2017, 04:03:32 PM
No-one's said (so far as I've heard) whether he was wearing a stab-vest. Even beat bobbies do these days. If not, why not? If so, the terrorist must have got in underneath it.
Multiple stab wounds to the head and neck. A stab vest wouldnt have made a difference.
I didn't know that, that's even worse.
I've never quite understood why all police in the UK aren't properly armed and in fact it still feels strange to see unarmed police to me when I'm on the mainland. Surely this is something which needs to be considered given the current climate?
For a lot of them it's a personal choice not to carry guns.
I know loads of Police Officers who feel it makes people more wary of them and hurts their 'Bobby on the Beat' image. They like to think that they are approachable and being armed stands in the way of that.
Very sad.
One was saying on the radio this morning that they don't want to be armed because of the extended witch-hunt that goes on if they do shoot someone.
Since when I was serving in the early eighties thru late 90's there has always been a vast majority, when voting, that said no to being armed. I believe the last vote I recall it was somewhere around 81% of No's.
There are many reasons I would say, two are of the most important:
Given that the UK is not a gun-culture country, the likelihood in being that only the ex-Military would be trained enough to be able to handle firearms to the level the public would accept (I point to the US - even though it is a gun-culture country inasmuch as the needless discharge of police firearms and killing as such proof), and the second reason would be the subsequent proliferation of armed villains and their willingness to shoot first.
Reasons might have varied in recent years, but those were the ones that I always heard and considered as paramount.
These-days, the need for a prosecution, or Political sacrificial lamb to appease everyone, is more important than anything else, including real justice, and Police Officers will always have that at the back of their minds, and such hesitation could cost them their own lives.
I agree with you 100%
On Friday night, someone came to my house to collect something that he'd bought on ebay. We got chatting, and it emerged that he trains the police firearms officers and others; had the Westminster events been a larger group, it would have been his team that got called out.
We discussed arming of the police and his view is that there are some who want to be armed who are suitable, some who want to be who aren't, some who don't want to be who are unsuitable and some who are suitable who don't want to be armed. To me this is a compulsive case for only selective arming of the police. The bloke said that in countries where general arming is the norm, the standard of training is much lower, some officers get armed who shouldn't be and we've seen some of the incidents that occur when that's the case.
The problem is the over-extended, over-PC investigation that takes place when a weapon is fired, almost giving the impression that it's the law officer who's the criminal. When confronting someone with a knife they have seconds to react, if the Westminster criminal had a gun it would have been split seconds. The very occasional mistake may occur but the very high standard of training severely minimises that. Not so in other countries where there's general arming.
Perhaps the level of investigation should be re-examined so that some of those who are suitable to carry weapons but won't become willing to do so. Maybe the Westminster event nay change public attitudes on this a little with a bit less of the self-righteous PC brigade.
The self righteous PC Brigade are one of the twin evils of this world.
and, obviously, the other twin is Martin
Quote from: Holders on March 26, 2017, 08:59:35 AM
On Friday night, someone came to my house to collect something that he'd bought on ebay. We got chatting, and it emerged that he trains the police firearms officers and others; had the Westminster events been a larger group, it would have been his team that got called out.
We discussed arming of the police and his view is that there are some who want to be armed who are suitable, some who want to be who aren't, some who don't want to be who are unsuitable and some who are suitable who don't want to be armed. To me this is a compulsive case for only selective arming of the police. The bloke said that in countries where general arming is the norm, the standard of training is much lower, some officers get armed who shouldn't be and we've seen some of the incidents that occur when that's the case.
The problem is the over-extended, over-PC investigation that takes place when a weapon is fired, almost giving the impression that it's the law officer who's the criminal. When confronting someone with a knife they have seconds to react, if the Westminster criminal had a gun it would have been split seconds. The very occasional mistake may occur but the very high standard of training severely minimises that. Not so in other countries where there's general arming.
Perhaps the level of investigation should be re-examined so that some of those who are suitable to carry weapons but won't become willing to do so. Maybe the Westminster event nay change public attitudes on this a little with a bit less of the self-righteous PC brigade.
I would agree 100% with that. I used to be on a Police Shooting Team (basically a gun club for local cops) and we would shoot friendly comps against the local army base at their range. We were lucky to have a great instructor who taught us not only how to handle the gun, and clean it, etc., but we made our own ammo as well. I was considered a reasonably good shot.
Transferring that to being an armed copper on the street though and it's a totally different story. Shooting at wooden targets and shooting at a living, breathing fellow human being (notwithstanding what s/he might had done in terms of villainy) are worlds apart, and my own fear was that I would freeze or over-react and others, or myself, would become victims due to that.
Yes, I know I could hit that static or moving target, but would I want to? Dirty Harry was a movie, and that's all.
It needs to be a balance of the correct mentality coupled with technical ability. I don't know what proportion of cops are firearms- trained maybe 10%? So long as they're on duty at the places required or otherwise available when needed, that seems to be right for us.
The chap who came to see me was ex-SBS, having served in the Falklands, Iraq and N. Ireland so I respect his opinion. And yours, Mr. L, as I read that you have experience as well.
A police officer carrying a weapon has an option. He can try all the sociology a good policeman knows, all the cajoling and all of his experience, He doesn't have to pull that weapon but what would an unarmed officer have done with that piece of shite that got onto the grounds of the House of Commons? Tell him his mommy wouldn't like this type of behavior? Modern day policing is needed for modern day problems. Jihadists can be dealt with words only until they began to carry out their hatred of civilization. Unarmed police may have a place at a football match or the local pub but to deal with events such as the one that prompted this thread, only a well placed shot by a well trained officer will do.
Sorry to be a "gun tottin" yank, but it easy to see what happens to those who are faced with these beasts and do not have the means to defend themselves. Ask a Yasidi or a Coptic Christian.
As I said: "So long as they're on duty at the places required".
Quote from: YankeeJim on March 31, 2017, 06:17:31 PM
A police officer carrying a weapon has an option. He can try all the sociology a good policeman knows, all the cajoling and all of his experience, He doesn't have to pull that weapon but what would an unarmed officer have done with that piece of shite that got onto the grounds of the House of Commons? Tell him his mommy wouldn't like this type of behavior? Modern day policing is needed for modern day problems. Jihadists can be dealt with words only until they began to carry out their hatred of civilization. Unarmed police may have a place at a football match or the local pub but to deal with events such as the one that prompted this thread, only a well placed shot by a well trained officer will do.
Sorry to be a "gun tottin" yank, but it easy to see what happens to those who are faced with these beasts and do not have the means to defend themselves. Ask a Yasidi or a Coptic Christian.
Unfortunately such threats and incidents can happen anywhere, including "at a football match or the local pub" as France Nov 2015 and previously in Pubs around England.
The second issue is the correct term you use: "only a well placed shot by a well trained officer will do". Not to be an anti-gun-totin' person, but how many Officers in the US have shot and either killed or injured persons that were offering no threat to them (as in shooting at a fleeing person). One is too many in reality, and with the level of training some officers receive, it is unlikely to be reduced in the near future.
So It would appear that even in a country that has a gun culture AND has potentially trained officers, such occurrences are all too often. In a culture like the UK, where there are strict gun laws and less trained persons, such behavior would never be accepted and the armed officers are held to a much higher standard than those elsewhere solely because of that limitation on trained officers. , and the need for Politicians and other politically-minded groups to use the forces as scapegoats for everything that they perceive wrong in that society.
Thankfully, such incidents that took Keith's life are few and far between, but to impose a gun culture on Police that refute its requirement is just kicking the can down the road and not dealing with the issue itself.
0001.jpeg
Quote from: Logicalman on March 31, 2017, 08:13:55 PM
Quote from: YankeeJim on March 31, 2017, 06:17:31 PM
A police officer carrying a weapon has an option. He can try all the sociology a good policeman knows, all the cajoling and all of his experience, He doesn't have to pull that weapon but what would an unarmed officer have done with that piece of shite that got onto the grounds of the House of Commons? Tell him his mommy wouldn't like this type of behavior? Modern day policing is needed for modern day problems. Jihadists can be dealt with words only until they began to carry out their hatred of civilization. Unarmed police may have a place at a football match or the local pub but to deal with events such as the one that prompted this thread, only a well placed shot by a well trained officer will do.
Sorry to be a "gun tottin" yank, but it easy to see what happens to those who are faced with these beasts and do not have the means to defend themselves. Ask a Yasidi or a Coptic Christian.
Unfortunately such threats and incidents can happen anywhere, including "at a football match or the local pub" as France Nov 2015 and previously in Pubs around England.
The second issue is the correct term you use: "only a well placed shot by a well trained officer will do". Not to be an anti-gun-totin' person, but how many Officers in the US have shot and either killed or injured persons that were offering no threat to them (as in shooting at a fleeing person). One is too many in reality, and with the level of training some officers receive, it is unlikely to be reduced in the near future.
So It would appear that even in a country that has a gun culture AND has potentially trained officers, such occurrences are all too often. In a culture like the UK, where there are strict gun laws and less trained persons, such behavior would never be accepted and the armed officers are held to a much higher standard than those elsewhere solely because of that limitation on trained officers. , and the need for Politicians and other politically-minded groups to use the forces as scapegoats for everything that they perceive wrong in that society.
Thankfully, such incidents that took Keith's life are few and far between, but to impose a gun culture on Police that refute its requirement is just kicking the can down the road and not dealing with the issue itself.
0001.jpeg
Guns have to be a last resort, why not stun guns for policeman in vulnerable locations.
Quote from: Logicalman on March 31, 2017, 08:13:55 PM
Quote from: YankeeJim on March 31, 2017, 06:17:31 PM
A police officer carrying a weapon has an option. He can try all the sociology a good policeman knows, all the cajoling and all of his experience, He doesn't have to pull that weapon but what would an unarmed officer have done with that piece of shite that got onto the grounds of the House of Commons? Tell him his mommy wouldn't like this type of behavior? Modern day policing is needed for modern day problems. Jihadists can be dealt with words only until they began to carry out their hatred of civilization. Unarmed police may have a place at a football match or the local pub but to deal with events such as the one that prompted this thread, only a well placed shot by a well trained officer will do.
Sorry to be a "gun tottin" yank, but it easy to see what happens to those who are faced with these beasts and do not have the means to defend themselves. Ask a Yasidi or a Coptic Christian.
Unfortunately such threats and incidents can happen anywhere, including "at a football match or the local pub" as France Nov 2015 and previously in Pubs around England.
The second issue is the correct term you use: "only a well placed shot by a well trained officer will do". Not to be an anti-gun-totin' person, but how many Officers in the US have shot and either killed or injured persons that were offering no threat to them (as in shooting at a fleeing person). One is too many in reality, and with the level of training some officers receive, it is unlikely to be reduced in the near future.
So It would appear that even in a country that has a gun culture AND has potentially trained officers, such occurrences are all too often. In a culture like the UK, where there are strict gun laws and less trained persons, such behavior would never be accepted and the armed officers are held to a much higher standard than those elsewhere solely because of that limitation on trained officers. , and the need for Politicians and other politically-minded groups to use the forces as scapegoats for everything that they perceive wrong in that society.
Thankfully, such incidents that took Keith's life are few and far between, but to impose a gun culture on Police that refute its requirement is just kicking the can down the road and not dealing with the issue itself.
Nice thought but my point was that sometimes there is no other alternative. Britain doesn't have the same problem as the US in that criminals have and use guns. We pass laws all the time to address the problem but gun laws do not work. By definition, criminals do not obey the law. So, all the nonsense that my state, California, puts into the legal code: trigger locks, limited magazines, Ad nauseam, do nothing to ease the crime problem. Confiscation is the only way and that would take a constitutional amendment and most likely a civil war.
Unarmed police work only when there is a general respect for the law by society. Had this country not been settled as it was, with individuals and families going into the wilderness where there was no law except that which you could enforce yourself and no meat market except what you could shoot yourself, then things might be different. Police were a nicety that only city dwellers had. My sister has a shotgun that my great grandfather used to hunt with for his family and was passed down to each generation. I think it would blow up if you tried to fire it (LOL) but my sister did use it to invite a trespasser out of her back garden. The sound of those hammers being pulled back are a sound that I'm sure, he won't soon forget.
Quote from: filham on March 31, 2017, 08:40:22 PM
Guns have to be a last resort, why not stun guns for policeman in vulnerable locations.
Actually, stun guns & bean bag rounds are standard equipment in most police departments and are deployed on a regular bases. It should be noted that these are usually used in standoff situations. If a person is waving a gun around, the police don't use them for obvious reasons.
Surprisingly to me is that statistics on police shootings vary somewhat. I did see one that the FBI says that there are approximately 390 people killed each year on average between 2000-2014 by the police. That in a nation of 320 million. Compare that to the city of Chicago where there were 762 people killed by guns in 2016 alone. If you take Chicago, Detroit and Baltimore out of the mix, US gun deaths are not much different than other industrialized nations. Also note, that the three cities I listed all have some of the strictest gun laws in this country and none are in the "gun tottin" west.
I think that the balance is right here now. Only those who are suitable mentally, technically very competent - and are prepared to do the job - get to carry weapons. If all police were armed, the level of training/competence would inevitably be lower, there'd be higher risk of an element who'd shoot inappropriately or even hesitate to shoot when they should.
The Westminster attacker was killed by a body shot but police have been trained to shoot to the head when required, e.g. suicide vests. I researched that 7% of London police are trained; that seems a little low to me but perhaps it's enough. Of course they should be armed when on duty at vulnerable locations, e.g Westminster, airports etc but a river bridge would hardly be classed as that. And, yes, in my view with hindsight the cop on duty in PC Palmer's position should have been armed but one must still wonder if he'd have been able to react quickly enough to defend himself from an attacker with a knife when he sees hundreds of friendly tourists a day and some even wanted "selfies" with him.
On a day-to-day basis around the country in general they don't need to be armed.
