www.ditl.org

Deepcrush wrote: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.

All police forces have this. There's not a single police force in the world where every cop can do every job. We just choose to make shooting people a specialism, as it's not necessary for the enforcement of the law in 99.9% of cases.

Mikey wrote:If the army needs to be called in, that indicates a law enforcement version of an epic fail.

No, it doesn't. It simply indicates that normal law-enforcement skills are unsuited to the situation at hand, for whatever reason.

The army is the army, not internal law enforcement - and should never be.

Why? When the training and equipment available to the police are insufficient to deal with a situation, it's entirely reasonable to turn to whatever group has the appropriate skills. Both our countries have done so when the situation demanded.

Captain Seafort wrote:normal law-enforcement skills are unsuited to the situation at hand

Captain Seafort wrote:When the training and equipment available to the police are insufficient to deal with a situation

Thanks for making the point for me. Police training and equipment insufficient to the task of law enforcement is unacceptable. To say otherwise would be tantamount to having a math teacher who is incapable of teaching math. While there is no perfect police force, what we're discussing is the willful and purposeful intent to be inadequate to the task of law enforcement.

Bear this in mind - when the military takes over internal legal matters you call it in this discussion "entirely reasonable." When it happens elsewhere, you'd agree with me in calling it anything from martial law to a junta to an anarchic void filled by an illegitimate warlord. I trust you see the dichotomy, even if you won't admit it.

Mikey wrote:Thanks for making the point for me. Police training and equipment insufficient to the task of law enforcement is unacceptable. To say otherwise would be tantamount to having a math teacher who is incapable of teaching math.

On the contrary - it's the equivalent of calling a primary or secondary school maths teacher incompetent because they aren't up to lecturing to a Masters course.

While there is no perfect police force, what we're discussing is the willful and purposeful intent to be inadequate to the task of law enforcement.

No, we're not, we're discussing a situation in which a police force encounters criminals who have obtained sufficiently superior firepower to render them out of their depth.

Bear this in mind - when the military takes over internal legal matters you call it in this discussion "entirely reasonable." When it happens elsewhere, you'd agree with me in calling it anything from martial law to a junta to an anarchic void filled by an illegitimate warlord.

It depends on the situation. There is a world of difference between a democratically elected government deploying the armed forces to deal with situations the police have neither the training nor the equipment to deal with on the one hand, and Tienanmen Square on the other.

On a personal level, a criminal armed with an assault rifle or a mortar such as Seafort's example earlier in the thread is no longer a criminal and more like a terrorist. If a criminal over here is armed with a handgun or a shotgun etc then armed policeman are equipped to combat them. Criminal armed with military grade weaponry then they warrant a military response. I fail to see how that's a failing on the police force. Police forces are not designed to combat every eventuality.

It's like asking a police boat to combat a missile frigate. Appropriate law enforcement for the appropriate level of threat.

Reliant121 wrote:On a personal level, a criminal armed with an assault rifle or a mortar such as Seafort's example earlier in the thread is no longer a criminal and more like a terrorist.

On a point of principle I disagree with making a distinction between criminals and terrorists. The latter are simply a particular subcategory of the former, and I feel that to treat them otherwise is giving them a higher status they don't warrant. I entirely agree with the rest of your post from a practical standpoint, but if and when they're nicked they should (and do) go through the courts like anyone else.

Captain Seafort wrote:

Reliant121 wrote:On a personal level, a criminal armed with an assault rifle or a mortar such as Seafort's example earlier in the thread is no longer a criminal and more like a terrorist.

On a point of principle I disagree with making a distinction between criminals and terrorists. The latter are simply a particular subcategory of the former, and I feel that to treat them otherwise is giving them a higher status they don't warrant. I entirely agree with the rest of your post from a practical standpoint, but if and when they're nicked they should (and do) go through the courts like anyone else.

That's fair enough, and I'd agree with your point. I was making the distinction merely for the level of response they garner.

Firstly, that assessment is completely wrong. A guy holding up a bank is a robber - not a terrorist - whether he does so with a knife, a BB gun, or a Steyr AMG.

Secondly, are you guys reading what you're writing?

Captain Seafort wrote:police force encounters criminals who have obtained sufficiently superior firepower to render them out of their depth.

Reliant121 wrote:Police forces are not designed to combat every eventuality.

You're in essence saying that the police shouldn't be up to the task of law enforcement. This must be a cultural difference between us - over here, the police's job is law enforcement. Seafort's statement is saying that it's normal, and just fine, for police to be "out of their depth" in a law enforcement situation; Reliant's says that police forces shouldn't be able to handle certain law-enforcement scenarios.

I hope you understand how ridiculous that sounds. So, no, Seafort - your assessment of my analogy is incorrect. Rather, the situation you describe is more like an elementary math teacher being incapable of teaching to any student in his class who is above average in mathematics ability... and the parents and school system being perfectly happy with that inability.

Use of automatic assault weapons stops being law enforcement and becomes a military issue. Yes, in a black and white world, he is illegally threatening with a gun and breaking weapon ownership permits so it is a matter of law. An invasion of another country is a "legal enfringement" on their territory. Does that mean that you should fight off invaders with a police force?

Mikey wrote:Firstly, that assessment is completely wrong. A guy holding up a bank is a robber - not a terrorist - whether he does so with a knife, a BB gun, or a Steyr AMG.

Who said anything about bank robbers? Go back and read the thread.

You're in essence saying that the police shouldn't be up to the task of law enforcement. This must be a cultural difference between us - over here, the police's job is law enforcement. Seafort's statement is saying that it's normal, and just fine, for police to be "out of their depth" in a law enforcement situation; Reliant's says that police forces shouldn't be able to handle certain law-enforcement scenarios.

It obviously isn't a cultural thing, since US police also have a history of calling in military assistance, including regular army and marines, when the situation demands. I'd also like to see your justification for equipping the police with MBTs, since that's what was needed in some of the situations we're discussing.

Rather, the situation you describe is more like an elementary math teacher being incapable of teaching to any student in his class who is above average in mathematics ability... and the parents and school system being perfectly happy with that inability.

If you want to use that sort of analogy then it's more like said student being, rather than merely above average, a genius. As in doing integration at five. Speaking of which, have you ever read Matilda?

Reliant121 wrote:Use of automatic assault weapons stops being law enforcement and becomes a military issue.

Not necessarily. If there's just one of them the plods would probably just deal with the culprit through armed response. It's only when there's enough of them to require fire and manoeuvre to clear them that the army would be needed.

Captain Seafort wrote:

Reliant121 wrote:Use of automatic assault weapons stops being law enforcement and becomes a military issue.

Not necessarily. If there's just one of them the plods would probably just deal with the culprit through armed response. It's only when there's enough of them to require fire and manoeuvre to clear them that the army would be needed.

Well, yes. I would hope the Police force is able to assess the threat and the manpower required to combat it to determine whether it's worth the risk.

A police force, in a perfect world, should be able to handle whatever criminals they encounter. Reality has to take over at some point though, and neither US or British tax payers would put up with the expense of giving every police officer the training and equipment needed to counter every threat either nation has found it's police forces having to deal with at one time or another. Therefore they have to settle with their police getting the training and equipment that is suitable for the majority of the police work they do, and having specialist forces/units to cover the rare cases where the standard officer is insufficient. In the US, police carry guns because they deal with gun armed criminals often enough for it to be more practical than waiting for some specialist unit. Obviously the situation isn't the same across the pond, as their police don't seem to be getting slaughtered or routinely failing to up hold the law by their lack of firearms. Since they seem to be doing just fine as it is, best of luck convincing the tax payers to throw in extra for the training and equipment that would be needed to arm the plods.

That's probably the best way to sum it up.

Captain Seafort wrote:Who said anything about bank robbers? Go back and read the thread.

I've read it - perhaps you'd like to as well. What I said directly followed on this:

Reliant121 wrote:On a personal level, a criminal armed with an assault rifle or a mortar such as Seafort's example earlier in the thread is no longer a criminal and more like a terrorist.

Not only was my response accurate, it was appropriate.

Reliant121 wrote:Use of automatic assault weapons stops being law enforcement and becomes a military issue.

Nope. The difference lies not in the tools, but in the essay. A soldier trying to achieve a military objective, such as taking a position from enemy soldiers during wartime, is still a soldier performing military action whether he's using an assault rifle, a battle rifle, a handgun, or a K-bar. Likewise, a guy trying to rob a bank is a bank robber, no matter if he's using a knife, a SMG, a bunch of raspberries, or a pointed stick.

Captain Seafort wrote:when the situation demands.

Your intent is correct, but your interpretation isn't. It isn't a matter of what the situation demands, but (similar to the above comment) under which sphere of influence the situation falls. To use another example, a spy is properly dealt with by counter-espionage forces no matter how he's armed, because in the final analysis he's still a spy.

Captain Seafort wrote:If you want to use that sort of analogy then it's more like said student being, rather than merely above average, a genius.

I'd say "above average" suits better, but OK. Is it alright, then, for the educational system to be unable to educate that student properly?

As in doing integration at five.

No, that's way overblown.

Captain Seafort wrote:Speaking of which, have you ever read Matilda?

No, what did she write?

Captain Seafort wrote:I'd also like to see your justification for equipping the police with MBTs, since that's what was needed in some of the situations we're discussing.

When criminals (not terrorists or miltants, but internal criminals of the type with which police should be able to deal) start commiting crimes with APC's, IFV's, MBT's, or tank-killers, then I'd feel perfectly justified in equipping the police with MBT's. Some SWAT teams do use them, albeit without the big guns - to either get through inconvenient walls/houses/etc. and to armor the folks who are doing so.