British Terror Duo

[picklesuit]

I was going to post a rant about the apparent lack of citizen involvement in the incident yesterday in London where the Soldier was murdered by a couple of Muslim Terrorists. But then I read this story: http://www.foxnews.mobi/quickPage.h...ge_html_page_22995_content_93294936_pageNum_1

Detailing the efforts of a woman to help. At least she tried. I'd like to think in our country if someone tried to hurt one of our military members in public like this the attacker would get their spleen kicked in.

Upsetting to watch these people stand around like cattle and video with their cell phones, but when your government takes away your right to own guns, a knife and a revolver might as well be a bazooka..,
Pickle

 

[wink]

I was going to post a rant about the apparent lack of citizen involvement in the incident yesterday in London where the Soldier was murdered by a couple of Muslim Terrorists. But then I read this story: http://www.foxnews.mobi/quickPage.h...ge_html_page_22995_content_93294936_pageNum_1

Detailing the efforts of a woman to help. At least she tried. I'd like to think in our country if someone tried to hurt one of our military members in public like this the attacker would get their spleen kicked in.

Upsetting to watch these people stand around like cattle and video with their cell phones, but when your government takes away your right to own guns, a knife and a revolver might as well be a bazooka..,
Pickle

I share your sentiment, but I can understand the reluctance of someone not wanting to provoke or lay hands on people they just saw butcher a human and still hold the bloody weapons. It just isn't that the UK famously has taken away law abiding citizen's guns, but that their criminal justice system has time and again held victims of assault equally guilty for defending themselves. In the UK you are essentially told to do nothing, that it is a police matter. Well it took 20 minutes for police to arrive. It is an embarrassment to The Met. While it isn't likly a quicker response, like the 3-5 minutes usually found in major US cities, could have saved the victim, it would have prevented the attackers insulting civil society and undermining the authority and reputation of The Met. Love the UK. Leaving for London in just two days. But I think we agree, citizen reaction would have been different here, armed or not.

 

[Flash]

A couple of things to note, from the news reports apprently many people thought at first thought it was an accident and that the attackers were helping the victim. In some of the pictures you can also see bystanders trying to help the victim.

As for the 'slow' police response I haven't seen anything definitive on how long it took them to respond but initial reports or claims from people especially on times are often incorrect. What I do find interesting though is that it appears officers who attempted to arrest the men were armed and there are only a minority of officers armed in London and they are often to limited to special teams and vehicles and mixed in with regular constables. That may account for the longer than usual response time.

While some might claim that things might have been different in the states we have our own shameful episodes where bystanders did not intervene or help out those in distress so it isn't unique to any particular country. As for the claim that someone who was armed might have stopped them......well, it is still a very small minority here of folks carrying and intervention in preventing or responding to crimes.

 

[wink]

A couple of things to note, from the news reports apprently many people thought at first thought it was an accident and that the attackers were helping the victim. In some of the pictures you can also see bystanders trying to help the victim.

I saw the same reports. As the victim was first mowed down by a car, it is certainly logical to assume an accident. Wouldn't take but a second before you noticed the bloody hands and weapons of the attackers though. Before all that, there were witnesses to the actual slicing and dicing. I also read that the women, and only women, who were trying to attend to the victim was permitted to do so by the armed attackers. So the timeline of video of Samaritans is important.

As for the 'slow' police response I haven't seen anything definitive on how long it took them to respond but initial reports or claims from people especially on times are often incorrect. What I do find interesting though is that it appears officers who attempted to arrest the men were armed and there are only a minority of officers armed in London and they are often to limited to special teams and vehicles and mixed in with regular constables. That may account for the longer than usual response time.

Agree. It is possible that unarmed officers could have been there sooner but a tactical decision was made to wait for a more appropriate response. But that is something worthy of review by The Met. I know that unarmed "bobbies" remain popular in the UK. It is a source of pride. Having two levels of capability, training and response time would never fly here and someday may come under more scrutiny in the UK. Times have changed, even for a place like the UK where guns are hard to come by. Edged weapons are very popular with criminals in the UK as are baseball bats (interestingly, not so much cricket bats). They are deadly. They should be met with deadly force that ensures the best possible outcome for the law enforcer and defender of innocents

While some might claim that things might have been different in the states we have our own shameful episodes where bystanders did not intervene or help out those in distress so it isn't unique to any particular country. As for the claim that someone who was armed might have stopped them......well, it is still a very small minority here of folks carrying and intervention in preventing or responding to crimes.

Very true, but generalizations allow for the exceptions, and we can only generalize here. In this country we are far more self-reliant. Not saying it would have been too different in this case, especially if no armed citizen were present, but in general, our culture is different and not yet anyway do our law enforcement and courts disincentivize people from defending themselves or taking action.

 

[Flash]

.....I know that unarmed "bobbies" remain popular in the UK. It is a source of pride. Having two levels of capability, training and response time would never fly here and someday may come under more scrutiny in the UK. Times have changed, even for a place like the UK where guns are hard to come by. Edged weapons are very popular with criminals in the UK as are baseball bats (interestingly, not so much cricket bats). They are deadly. They should be met with deadly force that ensures the best possible outcome for the law enforcer and defender of innocents.......

I have noted with some interest the debate about arming the 'bobbies' since it is an aberration in present day policing worldwide but apparently the police themselves are still overwhelmingly against making armed police the standard though the public is split.

 

[Brett327]

What's the logic there? That they're less likely to get shot at by perps?

 

[EODDave]

The police were there fairly quickly. However, they were not armed. So, they stood back with the crowd until the armed police showed up. The officer that shot them was a woman. From the time of the call, it was around 15 minutes until the officer shot the guys. The MOD went crazy here and they had all sorts of brass in meetings. Unreal. I cant believe that ALL the police are not armed here. There have been police killed here because they didn't have weapons to defend themselves. Stupid British laws. I really, really miss not being able to CC. I feel vulnerable, especially when I have my wife and kids with me. Most places you feel safe enough, but there are others that we go out of our way to avoid.

 

[Flash]

What's the logic there? That they're less likely to get shot at by perps?

A mix of history, tradition and practicality . When first founded the Metropolitan Police Service wanted to distinguish themselves from the army, which the British public has long distrusted when used domestically (sound familiar?) so they went without firearms and wore blue instead of red. Today most British constables apparently don't want to be armed since they feel it will make themselves more intimidating and less accessible to the average citizen they are serving. Practically they also face less of a threat due to the limited number of firearms owned by citizens in the UK.

Then there is the fact that organizations and their members often defend what makes them distinctive, we would know something about that on this board . In the case of the 'bobbies' I think they take considerable pride in being one of the rare police forces that is able to do it's job without the regular use of firearms, and they are usually pretty good at their job without them.

All that said I don't agree with them but it is their country.

For info: As I mentioned earlier the Met uses only specially designated and trained officers who use marked 'Armed Response Vehicles' when responding to an incident where police firearms might be needed, and those weapons are usually locked in a safe and the trunk. The latest info I have seen is that only 5-7% of Met officers are armed.

 

[wink]

Excellent paper written by a George Mason law professor about the history of self-defense in the UK. They clearly see things differently than most Americans, gun owning or not.

It is interesting the numbers on arming The Met is lopsided. Like Flash I do think most "bobbies" pride themselves on being able to do their jobs unarmed. It makes them exclusive among international law enforcement. But let’s face it. What an unarmed Met officer does is simply not the same job as a NYPD cop or a Paris Gendarme does. Armed officers, because of their capability, have a different job description and responsibility. I fully expect that if Dallas or Peoria cops were unarmed they would do just as good of a job handling the types of cases a "bobbie" typically sees in a day. And that wouldn't be stopping deadly attacks or arresting armed violent criminals. I would submit that those unarmed officers that had to stand by for 10 minutes or more (which I haven't seen in a video yet) while a man was hacked up wished they had guns. They may even be applying to an Armed Response assignment this very moment. The British public, on the other hand, don't share the personal pride Met officers have for being unarmed. The public simply wants to be protected against any manner of violence that would befall them. So they want every officer to be prepared to handle any eventuality. I believe that is why as a percentage the British public is more in favor of armed officers than rank and file Met officers.

 

[Mumbles]

The hits just keep on coming from the religion of peace.......

 

[BigBadBoJenkins]

I have to say that if I was in that situation, facing a ranting guy with bloody hands and still holding the murder weapon, I would be very hesitant to involve myself physically. At that point I would have a severe disadvantage (assuming I'm unarmed), and the crime has already occurred.

 

[picklesuit]

I see a dude injuring my fellow American, I'm getting stabbed/shot; I've already broken up two fights involving knives sans weapon, amazing how being loud and aggressive can make a difference...just the way it is...
Pickle

Edit- to be clear, I didn't have to hit anyone or do some Chuck Norris shit, a loud "What the fuck?!" Goes a long way...I'd more than likely get my 168 pound ass kicked in a "real" fight...

 

[JollyGood]

Excellent paper written by a George Mason law professor about the history of self-defense in the UK. They clearly see things differently than most Americans, gun owning or not.

It is interesting the numbers on arming The Met is lopsided. Like Flash I do think most "bobbies" pride themselves on being able to do their jobs unarmed. It makes them exclusive among international law enforcement. But let’s face it. What an unarmed Met officer does is simply not the same job as a NYPD cop or a Paris Gendarme does. Armed officers, because of their capability, have a different job description and responsibility. I fully expect that if Dallas or Peoria cops were unarmed they would do just as good of a job handling the types of cases a "bobbie" typically sees in a day. And that wouldn't be stopping deadly attacks or arresting armed violent criminals. I would submit that those unarmed officers that had to stand by for 10 minutes or more (which I haven't seen in a video yet) while a man was hacked up wished they had guns. They may even be applying to an Armed Response assignment this very moment. The British public, on the other hand, don't share the personal pride Met officers have for being unarmed. The public simply wants to be protected against any manner of violence that would befall them. So they want every officer to be prepared to handle any eventuality. I believe that is why as a percentage the British public is more in favor of armed officers than rank and file Met officers.

The irony of the matter is that the British police are unarmed because it feels they best serve the public (not the government) through being less intimidating. However, per some recent polls as you posted, the public is increasingly moving towards arming the "bobbies."

As someone with lots of family in the U.K., many do believe that the implications of arming the bobbies would include increased gun violence. I have heard the view stated "Well, we do not want to turn into America." Just as the stereotype of Brits to many Americans is an old-fashioned, polite tea drinker with poor dental hygiene; the stereotypical American is a gun-toting Redneck who yells Yeehaw while drinking beer by the bucketload and shooting said gun in the air.

 

[wink]

I see a dude injuring my fellow American, I'm getting stabbed/shot; I've already broken up two fights involving knives sans weapon, amazing how being loud and aggressive can make a difference...just the way it is...
Pickle

So, I should be going out with you on liberty. Good to know. I'll even let you have the lead.

 

[picklesuit]

I was a little younger then...I tend to hang out in slightly better bars/locales...besides, you couldn't hang with the Pickle!