Posted on 12/12/2006 3:55:06 PM PST by kiriath_jearim
The shooting of Pc Rachael Bown in a Nottingham back street reopened the debate surrounding the routine arming of frontline police officers.
Pc Bown, a 23-year-old rookie with Nottinghamshire Police, was gunned down just three months after the death of Pc Sharon Beshenivsky, who was fatally wounded as she responded to an armed robbery in Bradford, West Yorkshire, in November 2005.
The shooting of both women led to renewed call for police to be armed in order to properly defend themselves and the public.
Pc Bown was on duty with more experienced colleague Martin Foster when Trevon Thomas opened fire.
Pc Foster, who has policed the tough Nottingham city beat for 17 years, told a jury during Thomas's trial that had he been armed he would have shot the gunman before he had chance to open fire on Pc Bown.
"My first thought was 'where's my gun?'," he said. "Had I had one I would have shot him. "Then my secondary thought was choosing between CS and my baton, which to draw, which would be best.
"I had a vest and if you call CS gas and a baton protection against a gun, we had that as well. That's it."
Another victim of Nottingham's gun crime, Victor Bates - widower of murdered jeweller Marion - has also spoken fiercely in favour of arming frontline officers.
He said: "We have got to show the criminals there's nowhere to hide and we have got to arm the police so that criminals know they will be caught."
However, the Government and the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), remain opposed to the idea.
A spokeswoman for Acpo said: "An unarmed police service is currently central to the British understanding of policing. We will continue to monitor gun use in the light of risk to the public or risk to our officers.
"We will ensure that we are equipped and ready to deal with what ever threat is posed. Societies change, but the Acpo view remains unchanged - as was supported by a Police Federation poll of officers - in that we do not see any need for the arming of the police service overall.
"This incident shows the bravery and commitment of police officers protecting the public 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
"There will always be some risks in policing and we constantly strive to make the risks as small as possible."
A Home Office spokeswoman added: "Police officers need to be equipped to deal with dangerous situations where they have to protect themselves and the public.
"In some cases that will involve the use of firearms and in some it may be appropriate for them to deploy less lethal options.
"The policy in this country has long been that the police should not generally be armed and that gives a character to our policing that we should not readily give up.
"The Government is determined to use new, effective technology to increase public safety. "But there must be firm limits and controls on that use, so that we get the benefits and do not suffer unintended negative consequences."
I think I know where to begin my life of crime.
Clueless Britania Alert:
Leathal is Leathal: the is no "less lethal"
UK: "violent crimes against citizens up 110% it period since private guns banned"
"Cops without guns are like steers in a dairy"
Can't fathom that it would help them much at this point.
The entire British mentality in regards to the use of force to protect life and property would need to change.
So it seems to me anyway.
First came "ASBOS", now they have "ACPOS", what will they think of next?
Wasn't there a time when the population was armed and the bobbies weren't?
Now they've disarmed the population and feel the need to arm the bobbies.
What gives?
If they want to reduce the risks don't force their police to face armed thugs with just batons and Mace.
When I read about the reasons for those in charge not arming their police I was reminded about the refusal of British generals in WWI to allow their pilots to have parachutes. They were worried that having such a safety net would make the pilots more likely to quit a dogfight and bail out prematurely...
Never bring a British Bobby to a gunfight.
I guess if you train your officers to turn around and bend over you figure a gun would only get in the way.
If you are facing an armed felon with a stick and a can of mace there is but one thing to do, Turn around and run like the devil were after you, because he is.
It is criminal to expect police officers to face armed people with a stick.
What makes this even worse, they expect their women to do frontline police work unarmed. At least an armed policewoman in America has a chance against a 300 lb crackhead. No offense, ladies.
If they want to reduce the risks don't force their police to face armed thugs with just batons and Mace.
When I read about the reasons for those in charge not arming their police I was reminded about the refusal of British generals in WWI to allow their pilots to have parachutes. They were worried that having such a safety net would make the pilots more likely to quit a dogfight and bail out prematurely...
Sorry, double post, my bad...
As a kid, when I first heard of this policy, I thought it was dumb.
Now as a grown up, is just, well, so European-PC!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.