Jump to content
Coronavirus topics renamed and some locked. No new topics please. We will try and merge the locked topics as relevant. Topics are UK, IoM, TT & Sports and Tips & Questions about isolation and home working ×
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man
Sign in to follow this  
Pierrot Lunaire

Arming The Police?

Recommended Posts

Yeah, I think arming police is already if they expect the people they come across in their day-to-day work to be armed too. Arm the people and protect them from the police. Maybe get some free training for citizens in gun use too at the College.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm no expert but surely an armed police force would encourage the criminal fraternity to be armed more so; would it not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

odss not in your favour i agree, but you are still better to be armed than not when someone is shooting at you. i'm sure if rabbits could shoot back there would be a few farmers with bullet wounds??

 

Explain to me the actions on taking effective enemy fire, whilst being in a domestic style car. I only ask because you seem to know more about this situation than anyone else.

 

First off, it was an ambush, so the poor buggers would not know which direction the fire was coming from. They didn't know how many assailants there were. Drawing a weapon whilst in a vehicle is difficult at the best of times, let alone while under fire from an unknown attacker. Throw the grenade into the mix (no pun intended) and they were fucked. Short and simple. Even if they were armed with pistols, they would still be dead. Only difference would be....they would have been dead armed officers as opposed to just plain dead officers.

 

Google the event and check images. The two tents that one assumes covered the bodies whilst forensics did their stuff are on the grass towards the buildings. You give the impression the officers were sat in the car and died in it. I think they had exited the car, were heading towards the building, and then the shooting started. Maybe even a stand off for a split second to give The officer time to unholster a taser??? I don't think I know a lot about the event at all, I just think you know even less.

 

 

 

I mean, you keep making claims how they had enough time to X, Y and Z, so you obviously know all about this kind of thing to speak with such authority.

 

and you keep claiming they didn't have enough time to -X, -Y and -Z. so you must have similar non credentials at a guess?? biggrin.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and you keep claiming they didn't have enough time to -X, -Y and -Z. so you must have similar non credentials at a guess?? biggrin.png

 

Well actually I was in the RAF for 10 years. In that time I was deployed with TCW (Tactical Communications Wing), providing communications and electronics warfare support to forward operating bases and forward elements such as 16 Air Assault Brigade. As part of the deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan, we were a monile unit, meaning we spent alot of time moving between main support bases and forward support bases. As such we had to attend specialist training courses, which included vehicle ambush response drills and reactions to effective enemy small arms fire.

 

Suffice it to say, you have been talking bollocks. Those poor girls never stood a chance, and even if they had been armed it would not have made a single bit of difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we will never know for sure, but armed officers often wear bullet proof vests so maybe they could have stood 'a chance'?? and your specialist RAF training courses which included blah de blah de blah etc would suggest there are actions that can be taken to give a chance of survival in such things?? or why bother learning a response that is 100% a waste of time??? are they just comfort actions so you don't think you're going to be fucked till you're fucked??? do the RAF run any other pointless training courses?? or are the courses they run actually worth bothering with? could the police receive the same ( pointless?? ) training?? or did the course show possible ways to survive an amateur attack but if pro's are doing the job you're proper fucked ?

Edited by WTF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we will never know for sure, but armed officers often wear bullet proof vests so maybe they could have stood 'a chance'?? and your specialist RAF training courses which included blah de blah de blah etc would suggest there are actions that can be taken to give a chance of survival in such things?? or why bother learning a response that is 100% a waste of time??? are they just comfort actions so you don't think you're going to be fucked till you're fucked??? do the RAF run any other pointless training courses?? or are the courses they run actually worth bothering with? could the police receive the same ( pointless?? ) training?? or did the course show possible ways to survive an amateur attack but if pro's are doing the job you're proper fucked ?

 

"we will never know for sure, but armed officers often wear bullet proof vests so maybe they could have stood 'a chance'??" Tell me oh so knowledgeable one....have you ever worn a "bullet proof" vest before? They are heavy and restrictive, and not extactly comfortable to wear for extended periods. Don't believe what you see on TV or in films, while vests do help....they are not 100% effective.

 

"and your specialist RAF training courses which included blah de blah de blah etc would suggest there are actions that can be taken to give a chance of survival in such things??" Oh I thought those courses were about flower arranging. My god you are a moron. Of course there is a chance of survival. And there are actions to take which can increase those chances. But these types of skills are not the sort of thing that could be taught to every single police officer on the street. But then its all a moot point if you're already dead.

 

"or why bother learning a response that is 100% a waste of time???" I'm afraid to tell you this but firefights are not nice orderly affairs where people are asked if they are ready before the bullets start to fly. Combat is fast, scary and dangerous. You train so that in the event of the shit hitting the fan, you can at least to attempt to defend yourself. But if the nasty man has already shot you, you don't get do overs. This isn't Call of Duty where you get respawns if the nasty man gets you.

 

"are the courses they run actually worth bothering with? could the police receive the same ( pointless?? ) training?? or did the course show possible ways to survive an amateur attack but if pro's are doing the job you're proper fucked ?" As I have said combat is chaotic, maybe you get lucky and you don't get hit in the initial assault and your training can kick in and maybe you can get some rounds down on the enemy or drive away or whatever. Or maybe you're time is up and you get one in the head before anyone knows what the fuck is going on.

 

Could the police receive training like this? Possibly....but then when do you stop with the training? House clearance? Grenades?

 

The point (which I have tried to get across several times) is that being armed would not have saved these girls. The odds were stacked against them as soon as the arsehole who carried out the attack called in the fake 999 call.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree it probably wouldn't have saved them, but it would have improved their odds of a more effective response had they been armed and more suitably clad. It may have been just as futile in the end, but neither of us can say 100% what the outcome would have been had they been armed. I'm not saying they would have survived, just an improved chance of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree it probably wouldn't have saved them, but it would have improved their odds of a more effective response had they been armed and more suitably clad. It may have been just as futile in the end, but neither of us can say 100% what the outcome would have been had they been armed. I'm not saying they would have survived, just an improved chance of it.

 

Guns dont stop bullets. I'm sorry that you can't understand this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree it probably wouldn't have saved them, but it would have improved their odds of a more effective response had they been armed and more suitably clad. It may have been just as futile in the end, but neither of us can say 100% what the outcome would have been had they been armed. I'm not saying they would have survived, just an improved chance of it.

 

Guns dont stop bullets. Rappers do I'm sorry that you can't understand this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree it probably wouldn't have saved them, but it would have improved their odds of a more effective response had they been armed and more suitably clad. It may have been just as futile in the end, but neither of us can say 100% what the outcome would have been had they been armed. I'm not saying they would have survived, just an improved chance of it.

 

Guns dont stop bullets. I'm sorry that you can't understand this.

 

i understand that perfectly, i also understand if you have your own bullets you can maybe use them to stop the other bullets being fired at you in the first place, or second place if you get shot at first? the police have a funny habit of sending armed officers to situations involving armed suspects even though their own guns won't actually stop any bullets, why take your own guns if they can't stop bullets?? i think it's because you can shoot back with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i understand that perfectly, i also understand if you have your own bullets you can maybe use them to stop the other bullets being fired at you in the first place, or second place if you get shot at first? the police have a funny habit of sending armed officers to situations involving armed suspects even though their own guns won't actually stop any bullets, why take your own guns if they can't stop bullets?? i think it's because you can shoot back with them.

If the Police shoot someone who has already shot at them, then there is never a problem. The problem is when an Officer has to make that difficult decision to shoot someone who they think is "about" to shoot at them....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i understand that perfectly, i also understand if you have your own bullets you can maybe use them to stop the other bullets being fired at you in the first place, or second place if you get shot at first? the police have a funny habit of sending armed officers to situations involving armed suspects even though their own guns won't actually stop any bullets, why take your own guns if they can't stop bullets?? i think it's because you can shoot back with them.

If the Police shoot someone who has already shot at them, then there is never a problem. The problem is when an Officer has to make that difficult decision to shoot someone who they think is "about" to shoot at them....

 

And that may be part of the reason police don't want guns as a matter of routine,it is one less mistake to make. And there have been quite a few mistakes made by firearms officers. It isn't an easy call to make, but having a gun to use in the event you are shot at cant be the worst option

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

second place if you get shot at first? the police have a funny habit of sending armed officers to situations involving armed suspects even though their own guns won't actually stop any bullets, why take your own guns if they can't stop bullets?? i think it's because you can shoot back with them.

 

"second place if you get shot at first?" Okay so you have been shot, now draw your weapon and aim at the target....oh wait you're already dead or seriously injured because....you've already been shot. Its not like in the cow boy films where you get to fight on even though you have a large hole in you.

 

"the police have a funny habit of sending armed officers to situations involving armed suspects even though their own guns won't actually stop any bullets, why take your own guns if they can't stop bullets?? i think it's because you can shoot back with them" Yes the majority of the armed officers there are to secure the perimeter by creating a wall that a suspect should not be able to get through, thus securing the immediate threat to one location. Those who have to engage the suspect at close range (otherwise called the entry team) are only used if the suspect is likely to or is about to cause harm to themselves or others in the situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...