@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:It would help if you actually knew what you were talking about David,
instead of just responding in your typical knee-jerk fashion, which quite often is unthinking.
Olde Chinese Proverb:
"He who woud deliberate fully
before taking a step will spend his whole life on one foot."
izzythepush wrote:In this case having the police officers armed would have made very little difference,
they believed they were responding to a burglary call, where the criminal had left, they were walking into a trap.
That (being unarmed &
assuming
that the bad guys had left, i.e.
: underestimating the enemy)
was professional negligence, resulting in unnecessary loss of life.
Those circumstances were not unique.
That was not the first time in history that the same thing happened.
Thay were
NOT prepared to do their jobs. No kudos.
izzythepush wrote:I don't read the simplistic grunts of inbred imbeciles, so I'd appreciate it if you don't quote creatures with such a shallow a gene pool. You don't need to, it only has four responses, and is very predictable.
I
don 't understand. I am aware of no such person.
izzythepush wrote:There is a debate going on about arming the police, or increasing sentencing.
This is from The Telegraph, a right wing broadsheet, colloquially known as The Torygraph,
so it should be right up your street.
It is my articulated position
that laws
against ` any human being possessing
such defensive emergency equipment as he deems necessary to preserve his life
amount to a
de facto P
ARTNERSHIP between government and perpetrators of predatory violence,
be thay man or beast. Laws against defensively bearing arms (as Englishmen commonly used to do)
are, in effect, laws that require the populace to volunteer to be
slaughtered, in the
DISCRETION
of violent predators. From that
: I DISSENT.
Quote:In the crime museum at Scotland Yard are a dozen or so cutlasses of the sort that constables once took on their patrols of Victorian London. Unlike the two WPcs murdered in Manchester on Tuesday, they went expecting trouble and bearing the means to combat it.
Arguments over whether the police should be routinely armed date to the creation of the capital’s first force by Robert Peel in 1829. Indeed, senior officers in the 19th century would often carry a side-arm. But British policing took a different direction from that of Europe or America by declining to issue weapons on a routine basis (apart from in Northern Ireland). [It was the same in America: police used their own private guns, of their own choice. David]
The reason for this was set out in Peel’s principles of policing: he regarded the police as the public in uniform. Not for us the military–style Continental carabinieri of whom the general populace walk in fear and distrust. Our police, said Peel, are civilians, members of the public “who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence”.
This relationship explains why we find the murder of police officers so especially shocking: they act as our proxies, required to place themselves in circumstances that, thankfully, we can stay clear of. This has led to a style of policing that emphasises containment, negotiation and the use of force as a last resort. By and large, it has made this country a less violent place than those where the police are armed. On the other hand, it leaves our police more vulnerable to the cornered gangster, the ruthless drug-trafficker or the evil cop-hater who carry guns and are prepared to use them.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9553111/Do-we-really-want-to-arm-our-police.html
