NFR terrorists in Westminster.

[stevehawkinslidingtackle]

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.

[Holders]

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.

[Aaron]

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?

[Fulham Tup North]

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.

[Holders]

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.

[Logicalman]

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.

[Woolly Mammoth]

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%

[Holders]

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.

[epsomraver]

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.

[Woolly Mammoth]

Agree absolutely.

[Woolly Mammoth]

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.

[HatterDon]

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

[Logicalman]

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.

[Holders]

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. 

[YankeeJim]

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.

[Holders]

As I said: "So long as they're on duty at the places required".

[Logicalman]

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.

[epsomraver]

 0001.jpeg

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

[filham]

Guns have to be a last resort, why not stun guns for policeman in vulnerable locations.

[YankeeJim]

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.