Posted on 03/25/2017 11:23:22 AM PDT by rktman
The officer stabbed in Wednesday’s terror attack in London was unarmed, like more than 90 percent of the British police force.
Ketih Palmer, 48, was stabbed to death while guarding the entrance to the British Houses of Parliament unarmed. Just 2,800 out of London’s 31,075 police officers are armed, which the police force considers a safety measure.
A cornerstone principle of the Metropolitan Police in London is that guns send the wrong message to communities by provoking crime rather than preventing it. Most officers are only equipped with batons, handcuffs, a mace and in some cases, stun-guns. A small number of specially-trained officers are the only ones carrying guns on patrol. These include counterterrorism police and some officers in high-risk areas like the Parliament.
While countries such as Germany, France and Belgium have put more armed officers on the streets in response to a wave of terror attacks around the continent, the United Kingdom has maintained its “policing by consent” approach to security. The Metropolitan Police increased the number of armed officers by 600 after the truck attack in Nice last July, but the total number is still a mere 9 percent of the entire force.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
And what happens when the majority of Londonstan revokes its consent?
“Well heck yeah. Someone might get their eye put out or something.”
Or even worse, get their feelings hurt.
If they fervently believe in this, why are there specially trained officers in high risk areas? Certain people more important than others to protect?
And take a red marker and draw a red dotted line around your neck.
“In the rest of the United Kingdom, the majority of police officers do not carry firearms; that duty is instead carried out by specially-trained firearms officers. This originates from the formation of the Metropolitan Police Service in the 19th century, when police were not armed, partly to counter public fears and objections over armed enforcers as this had been previously seen due to the British Army maintaining order when needed.”
FOOLS!!!
It’s amazing that they can even recruit anyone to be a police officer unarmed.
The Brits have a small Army and most of the police are unarmed, seems the British Muslims could at least temporarily take by force the city of London and all government buildings?
These lib/commies just don’t quit. In Communist Brookline, where I live, there was a woman with a rainbow decal asking me to sign a petition making Massachusetts a sanctuary state. I replied, “are you not aware of what happened in London?” She left me without comment. Instead of admitting their gross error, they double down on it.
If they fervently believe in this, why are there specially trained officers* in special/certain high risk areas?
Certain/special people are more important than others to protect!
*How many of these specially trained officers are retired or active duty SAS?
Can the British at least do some vetting? That is more to the root of the problem. No amount of armed citizens can really stop covert bombings and suicide bombings.
Is this for real????
The British police developed in a very different environment than US policing. They take it as an article of faith (and historically it has worked) that most policing does not require firearms. Armed police are on call if a situation turns violent. (Much like SWAT backs up US police).
The issue is that in certain areas, crime is no longer the greatest problem. Instead, it is the threat of either armed attack on a high profile target or violent unarmed assaults by religious fanatics.
The Brits successfully coped with IRA terrorists, and still feel that they can handle the current threat with the same tactics. I hope they are correct, but I doubt it.
Halt! Or I’ll yell, Halt! again!
How does an unarmed man guard Parliament? Poorly I suppose.
True, and it's impossible to overestimate the weight of history behind this. The culture is very deep-rooted in the Police, and anonymous polling of rank-and-file officers always shows a large majority against routine arming. That majority gets steadily smaller, however...
And don't forget how very few British police die as a result of violent crime - still only 26 since the year 2000.
One word: insanity.
Big Old Can of Grizzly spray instead of the tiny 1 and a half ounce shake em up bottle. At least a friggin’ TAZER. Probably cruel and unusual though.
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.