www.ditl.org

Mikey wrote:I see. Then when there is a crime involving a firearm - and no matter how less often it happens over there, it does and will again - do the police just wait until some of the fraction of the force which is properly equipped and trained show?

Yes, that's exactly what they do. It works out pretty well, too.

How does a professional law enforcement official justify not going to help people in trouble?

As explained, it's much like bomb disposal training. If our cops find a bomb, they don't run in and try to disarm it - they get everyone away and call the experts. We could train every single cop to be a bomb disposal expert for those rare times it would be needed, but it would be rather a waste of time, effort and money.

There's simply no need for most police to be armed. The public don't want them armed, the police officers don't want to be armed.

Worse, it would up the ante. If the cops start carrying guns around, a great many more criminals likely would do the same. The result would be more dead criminals, cops and civilians.

Moreover, it would completely change the dynamic (and increase the risk) of any encounter between a plod and a potential crook, because regardless of whether or not the other individual was armed, the plod would be, and there would therefore be a risk of a crook grabbing the plod's gun, a risk the plod would be constantly aware of and guarding against. In the US this threat is (understandably) considered less serious than that posed by armed criminals. In the UK the latter doesn't even come close.

I think it's a cultural thing. The American mindset seems to carry a heavy element of "be prepared!" - got to have a gun, because it's better to "have it and not need it rather than need it and not have it!" The idea that you can not have it and not need it doesn't seem to enter the mindset.

And I have to say, I would never suggest that US cops lay down their guns tomorrow - given the culture they live in, it would be a massacre as the criminals would go armed even if the cops didn't.

But here, it just makes no sense.

There would appear to a bit of a discrepancy between the available time to call in a bomb squad and the available time to call in the "other" beat cops who can deal with an armed criminal. Considering that, I still have a hard time getting my head around the image of a cop telling an innocent cashier in a store being robbed, "Yes, I'm here! *ahem* Now, I'm leaving you to your fate until some other cops show up."

GrahamKennedy wrote:I think it's a cultural thing. The American mindset seems to carry a heavy element of "be prepared!" - got to have a gun, because it's better to "have it and not need it rather than need it and not have it!" The idea that you can not have it and not need it doesn't seem to enter the mindset.

And I have to say, I would never suggest that US cops lay down their guns tomorrow - given the culture they live in, it would be a massacre as the criminals would go armed even if the cops didn't.

But here, it just makes no sense.

Damn simultaneous posts.

Now, I don't own a firearm. I've never owned one, and I doubt I ever will... if I ever do, it will probably just be a cheap .22 RF handgun for plinking, and even that's a big "if." However, I don't just want my cops to be armed like the criminals - I want them to be armed better.

Mikey wrote:Considering that, I still have a hard time getting my head around the image of a cop telling an innocent cashier in a store being robbed, "Yes, I'm here! *ahem* Now, I'm leaving you to your fate until some other cops show up."

Two problems with that image. 1) the crook would almost certainly have grabbed what they could and run within a few seconds, before the plods arrived and 2) if the robber was even armed the encounter would be more along the lines of the plod drawing their baton and telling the crook to drop his knife/hammer.

Mikey wrote:There would appear to a bit of a discrepancy between the available time to call in a bomb squad and the available time to call in the "other" beat cops who can deal with an armed criminal.

The armed cops drive around in "Armed Response Vehicles", with weapons locked in safe boxes inside. If a cop whistles for one, they'll arrive at least as fast as an ambulance would. If the initial call to the cops is along the lines of "We're being robbed by a guy with a gun!" they'd be the first ones on the scene.

Considering that, I still have a hard time getting my head around the image of a cop telling an innocent cashier in a store being robbed, "Yes, I'm here! *ahem* Now, I'm leaving you to your fate until some other cops show up."

More like "Yes I'm here! Now stay down and come with me, I'll get you to safety!" Followed by guys with sub machine guns showing up three minutes later.

GK, read page two but thanks for agreeing with me in part.

Seafort, my problem is that you have a system in place where only a part of your police force is able to effectively enforce law. Your bit on "crook has knife so cop pulls baton" kinda puts it to measure. Having to let you officers get in a knife fight every time they go to arrest someone just sounds silly. Taser or LTL round is much safer to all involved.

Deepcrush wrote:Seafort, my problem is that you have a system in place where only a part of your police force is able to effectively enforce law.

Wrong - our entire police force is able to enforce the law. Your problem is that you're consistently failing to recognise that the equipment necessary for them to do so is significantly different in the UK than the US. Our plods aren't routinely armed because they don't need to be. The only time the UK has had to deal with a situation where enough of the local criminals had firearms that specialist armed response vehicles weren't sufficient, we didn't mess around just arming the plods - we sent in enough battalions of the regular army to maintain round-the-clock patrols.

Not gonna get into the debate... but I do have to ask. Plods? Odd slang term for police, there. Any idea where it comes from?

Seafort, having your cops run away from the crooks and then having to call in the army is the very definition of failing to enforce law. Also I didn't say it was all about fire arms either. Read the post an you'll notice the concern was also about ANY weapon that requires the cop to have run away from the situation.

I must say, although it's common to use the phrase 'the plod' in slang reference to the police, I don't really hear 'plods' used in the same fashion. Mind you, colloquialisms and all that. There must be quite a few slang terms for the police as well:

The old bill
coppers
peelers
pigs
the fuzz
the law
the rozzers
the scuffers
the filth

..probably more

Deepcrush wrote:Seafort, having your cops run away from the crooks and then having to call in the army is the very definition of failing to enforce law.

True, but when the crooks in question have assault rifles and mortars I suspect you'd be calling in the army as well.

Read the post an you'll notice the concern was also about ANY weapon that requires the cop to have run away from the situation.

And if you'd read further up you'd realise that if they've just got a knife or hammer the plod can take them on with their batons. Of course, if there's no threat to life then they'd just back off, cordon off the area and call in firearms per normal while they try and convince the offender to surrender. Why rush things when there's no need to?

Plod:

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definitio ... 640640.004

noun
1 a slow, heavy walk:
he settled down to a steady plod
2 (also PC Plod)British informal a police officer.
[with allusion to Mr Plod the Policeman in Enid Blyton's Noddy stories for children]

If the army needs to be called in, that indicates a law enforcement version of an epic fail. The army is the army, not internal law enforcement - and should never be.