http://neoneocon.com/2017/06/05/even-now-why-do-only-one-in-ten-london-police-officers-carry-guns/Even now, why do only one in ten London police officers carry guns?
To me this is surprising, considering the enemy the Brits now face:
…[M]ore than 90 percent of the capital’s police officers carry out their daily duties without a gun. Most rely on other tools to keep their city safe: canisters of mace, handcuffs, batons and occasionally stun-guns.
This is no accident…
Giving everyday police officers guns sends the wrong message to communities, so this thinking goes, and can actually cause more problems than it solves.
British police apparently have a philosophy of engagement that comes from a lengthy tradition of not carrying guns. They do have specially trained gun-wielding police units which are called to the scene if needed, which seems to me to involve an almost inevitable delay. And every time they fire a gun and injure or kill someone, the incident is investigated to the hilt:
Some police have complained that officers are reluctant to sign up for firearms training because they fear being dragged through years of lengthy investigations in the unlikely event they have to use their weapon.
“Officers have seen what happens to their colleagues who have had to use lethal force to protect the public,” outgoing Metropolitan Police Commissioner Bernard Hogan-Howe told reporters last month. “Increasingly, they seem to be portrayed as suspects, based, I can only assume, on an underlying belief that they must have acted in a criminal fashion if someone has died.”
It appears that British police have reason to fear that they will be considered guilty till proven innocent. Fortunately for them (and the terrorists), the British citizenry also has a very low incidence of gun ownership, and so the police can often get away with not having firearms themselves and not get blown away by armed criminals.
There also seems to be a philosophy, even among police, that a certain amount of terrorism is acceptable, and that this is a fair trade-off to make for the sake of having a kinder, gentler police force, at least according to the following quotes:
While British officials have long since accepted that [a terrorist] attack is “highly likely,” they believe that intelligence-gathering and stronger links with the community — rather than gun-toting cops — will do more to keep the city safer.
“In a free and democratic society, there is going to be a balance between democracy, freedom and openness, and a police state — and none of us want to live in a police state,” said Brian Dillon, former head of the Met’s firearms command who now runs the counterterrorism consultancy Rubicon Resilience.
“Therefore at some point some attacks are regrettably going to hit home, that’s inevitable,” he added. “Not everything can be stopped.”
It’s an odd definition of “police state” that equates it with police officers having guns. To me, out-of-control surveillance and intelligence-gathering runs a greater risk of turning a place into a “police state,” but I guess the Brits don’t see it that way.
So, how many terrorist attacks are acceptable to the British? There have been two major ones in just the last two weeks, and one a few months ago. I think the British attitude towards this represents a pipe dream, a dangerous case of wishful thinking and a failure to come to turns with the reality of the world they now face.
In the London Bridge attack on Saturday, it took the police eight minutes after the first call to come to the scene and kill the terrorists. Some people have suggested that’s a very short time, but it seems to me it’s a relatively long time in a big city like London that has many police. In fact, there were apparently police on the scene much earlier than that, but they were hamstrung by their lack of lethal firepower. For example:
A British Transport Police officer who was seriously injured in the terror attack at London Bridge has been hailed for his “outstanding” bravery.
Armed only with just a baton, the unnamed officer tackled the attackers and suffered injuries to his head, face and leg.
“Although he is seriously unwell, he was able to recount how he faced the attackers armed only with his baton, outside London Bridge station,” Crowther said in a statement.
“It became clear that he showed enormous courage in the face of danger, as did many others who were at the scene and rushed to help.”
So British authorities think it’s a good idea to bring a baton to a knife fight? This seems like madness to me. Why should this officer be in the position of defending himself and the crowd with such an inadequate weapon?
Some civilians seem unaware of the extreme unlikelihood of the police in London being armed:
“As [the terrorists] left [a pub] I was going “Oi, oi, cowards!” Vowles said. “I was just trying to get their attention by throwing things at them … I thought if I throw bottles or chairs they can come after me. If I can get them to come to the main road then the police can stop them, they can obviously shoot them.”
They could obviously shoot them—if they were armed with guns, that is. Otherwise, it’s not so obvious.
And if you read this account from eyewitnesses, some describe the amount of time the attackers were rampaging as having been ten minutes or more. That’s a long time, and there were a lot of injured people; the terrorists had time to go into many restaurants and pubs. What’s more [emphasis mine]:
A chef from Fish restaurant said: “I saw two men with big knives downstairs outside Roast. They were stabbing people. The police were running away, they were normal officers, they were running away.
“Normal officers”—that is, essentially unarmed officers.
There is a plan to increase the number of police officers at stations, including armed officers:
British Transport police said travellers may notice an increased police presence following the attack.
In a statement, the force said: “Members of the public should expect to see extra police officers patrolling stations in London and the south-east following the attacks. You may also see some of our armed police officers at stations.”
I would certainly hope so.
During Saturday night’s attack, the police killed the three perpetrators. But this action by police was actually highly unusual in Britain, so much so that the police feel the need to explain why they did it:
Armed officers responding to the London Bridge terror attack fired an “unprecedented” number of rounds at the three attackers because they were wearing what appeared to be suicide belts, police said.
Eight officers fired 50 shots at three attackers to ensure they were neutralized, said Mark Rowley, assistant commissioner for specialist operations in the Metropolitan Police Service. Rowley is Britain’s most senior counterterrorism office.
The suicide belts were later determined to be fake…
“The situation these officers were confronted with was critical, a matter of life and death. Three armed men, wearing what appeared to be suicide belts, had already attacked and killed members of the public and had to be stopped immediately,” he said.
But “immediately” isn’t going to be so immediate if police aren’t usually armed with guns. And I wonder: if the terrorists had not been wearing fake explosive belts, would the police who killed them have had more trouble justifying their own lethal actions, under British law?
Not only does Britain have extremely strict gun control for private citizens, but it’s only in Northern Ireland that police are regularly armed:
In 2012, the BBC reported that just five percent of officers in England and Wales were authorized to carry firearms. Former Metropolitan Police deputy assistant commissioner Brian Paddick told the BBC that the officers want to appear “approachable” to the public.
This relic of 19th Century philosophy has survived to the 21st Century. Why the exception for Northern Ireland? You’ll have no trouble whatsoever guessing: their experience with IRA terrorism.
Some more history:
The issue of routine arming in Great Britain was raised after the 1952 Derek Bentley case, in which a Constable was shot dead and a Sergeant severely wounded, and again after the 1966 Massacre of Braybrook Street, in which three London officers were killed. As a result, around 17% of officers in London became authorised to carry firearms. After the deaths of a number of members of the public in the 1980s fired upon by police, control was considerably tightened, many officers had their firearm authorisation revoked, and training for the remainder was greatly improved. As of 2005, around 7% of officers in London are trained in the use of firearms. Firearms are also only issued to an officer under strict guidelines
And now, as noted earlier in this post, the percentage of armed police in London is up again but only to 10%. Part of the reason the number is still so small is quite obviously the fear of accidental killing of innocent civilians. These days the armed police are brought to the scene in an Armed Response Vehicle. Originally, the weapons were kept locked and needed special orders to be distributed to the officers, but more recently, the officers have finally been allowed to wear their weapons.
However, the rank and file police officer is very very much against carrying a gun him/herself:
Surveys by the Police Federation of England and Wales have continued to show police officers’ considerable resistance to routine arming. In the Federation’s most recent (2006) Officer/Arming survey, 82% of respondents were against the routine arming of police…
Perhaps this is one of the reasons why:
As with all use of force in England and Wales, the onus is on the individual officer to justify their actions in court.
To me as an American, the entire situation seems to be a form of extreme denial.
