Police Duty to Rescue

Oct 2018
1,209
Adelaide south Australia
#61
"I have American relatives, and they've never been shot, stabbed or robbed. And nor have I or most of my friends in the UK."

Really? That is truly horrible, and very sad.

I was burgled in 1980 they took TV and some money. No damage, fully insured.

A friend of mind was bashed in the city about 10 years ago after he had admonished a group of young drunks.

My uncle was once arrested for being drunk in charge of a bicycle.

Murders and.home invasions tend to be reported on the six o'clock news ,as indeed are any police shootings anywhere in the country.

Of course, one reason I don't get beaten up and all that may be because I rarely go out at night any more.
 
Jul 2016
7,751
USA
#62
Well, because officers generally don't patrol neighbourhoods and get dispatched according to the reports they receive from the public, if they get reports of armed criminals, they can then dispatch armed police if they feel it is warranted. In some places, police carry tasers, but I'm not sure if that's all police or just specific taser armed units. But yes, most offciers only carry their batons (night-stickes, I think you call them in the US). It seems to have largely worked. In fact, only a few days ago, an armed police intervention went spectacularly wrong when they received reports of an armed man taking someone hostage in a pub, the armed unit managed to shoot two unfortunate innocent men, and no hostage taker was found. It's things like this that make the public resist the idea of armed police.
Do British police have a policy of something similar to Stop and Frisk, where if they see someone they suspect might be carrying a weapon they use that as reasonable suspicion to halt them, question them, and search their person?

LEO in the US were rather aggressively reliant on that technique, especially in the most violent big cities, as it helped get illegal weapons off the streets. But because they obviously profiled, their chief targets being black or hispanic young males (who make up the gang members and are unfortunately responsible for most of the crime), but it was despised by the local citizens and was eventually banned over the last couple years as a civil rights abuse. Police were furious after that because for them it was one of the most useful methods. Removing that technique from their tool box, along with a few others, while threatening to indict them for manslaughter or murder over officer involved shootings resulting from routine stops, is a chief reason the Ferguson Effect has taken hold nation wide, and crime is getting worse.
 

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
31,337
T'Republic of Yorkshire
#63
Do British police have a policy of something similar to Stop and Frisk, where if they see someone they suspect might be carrying a weapon they use that as reasonable suspicion to halt them, question them, and search their person?

LEO in the US were rather aggressively reliant on that technique, especially in the most violent big cities, as it helped get illegal weapons off the streets. But because they obviously profiled, their chief targets being black or hispanic young males (who make up the gang members and are unfortunately responsible for most of the crime), but it was despised by the local citizens and was eventually banned over the last couple years as a civil rights abuse. Police were furious after that because for them it was one of the most useful methods. Removing that technique from their tool box, along with a few others, while threatening to indict them for manslaughter or murder over officer involved shootings resulting from routine stops, is a chief reason the Ferguson Effect has taken hold nation wide, and crime is getting worse.
It's the same here (they call it Stop % Search), except that they are usually looking for drugs when they stop people. It worked better when neighbourhood policing was still prevalent, as officers would know thr locals and know who was acting suspiciously or if there was a stranger in town, but nowadays, you only really see police on patrol in crowded areas like city centres - and if they're patrolling during the day, it's usually in response to something like a terrorist threat. It might be different in London, but in the city where I live, the city centre is relatively free of junkies - they tend to gather in areas where the drug dealers live. Some friends of mine lived next door to a cannabis dealer, but did the police ever raid the place? Did they heck.
 

redcoat

Ad Honorem
Nov 2010
7,534
Stockport Cheshire UK
#64
Since when? Metropolitan Police were cracking skulls through a good part of their history.
indeed, even today police cadets receive dedicated riot training, but a far larger part is spent on learning how to de-esculate potentially violent situations without the use of force.
The vast majority of police on the British mainland have always been unarmed, though after a couple of policemen had been shot in 1881 a small number on night duty in the rougher parts of London were allowed to carry guns if they wished.
My understanding they used to be armed too, at times officially they were allowed to carry pistols, sometimes even issued them. But, fearing a leftist revolution in the late teend to the '30s, in '20 they first massively restricted civilian gun ownership, in '36 removed them from police, and in '37 cracked down even harder on civilians. Is this not the case?
Due to the fear of a Red revolution and the high number of soldiers bringing back weapons from the front, they did indeed issue strict ownership laws and introduced futher restrictions in 36, which included in return the ceasing of armed Police patrols.

ps.
Interesting fact about UK gun laws.
In the last Gallop poll done on UK gun laws over 84% were unhappy with them, of whom 79% thought they were not strict enough.
 
Last edited:
Jul 2016
7,751
USA
#65
indeed, even today police cadets receive dedicated riot training, but a far larger part is spent on learning how to de-esculate potentially violent situations without the use of force.
Its the same with the US. They even have a name for it, its called Verbal Judo, using strategic choices of words to unbalance someone in order to de-escalate.

The problem is that it often isn't applicable. Due to the nature of their job, and that they're, by the nature of their profession, constantly dealing with criminals, including violent ones, who have attitude problems, reject authority, receive positive social status by resisting arrest, etc., police need to go hands on in order to conduct an arrest. That is extremely risky, as it allows an assailant to possibly greatly injure or even kill a police officer, which gives them permission to shoot to save their own life. I guess if they weren't armed then that option doesn't present itself, and they just get beat up, stabbed, or whatever, until back up can dogpile the suspect and restrain them.

Also, Met Police are issued stab proof vests. Why? Is there some sort of problem where they need to worry about being stabbed in the torso? How come they can't de-escalate to prevent that?
 

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
31,337
T'Republic of Yorkshire
#66
Also, Met Police are issued stab proof vests. Why? Is there some sort of problem where they need to worry about being stabbed in the torso? How come they can't de-escalate to prevent that?
It's all police forces, I think, not just the Met.

I actually think it's the other way around. I'd need to look up the history, but I suspect the vests were issued in response to some stabbing incidents. Then, because they have the vests, there's less incentive for them to de-escalate, as they feel they're (over)confident about the protection the vests give them. I'm just speculating though.
 

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
31,337
T'Republic of Yorkshire
#67
I don't know what training the police receive, but we see reports of tactics such as "kettling", when is used to control crowds, and it forces people into narrow choke points, which seems to me wouldd raise tensions,/ Having seen crowd control in the UK, it generally involves shouting very loudly and aggressively at the public, and generally trying to intimidate them into obeying.

I much prefer Japanese crowd control, which involves the use of megaphones to make themselves heard, and a lot of "please" and "thank you"s. However, Japanese crowds are generally more compliant and don't really need to be shouted at.
 
Jul 2016
7,751
USA
#68
It's all police forces, I think, not just the Met.

I actually think it's the other way around. I'd need to look up the history, but I suspect the vests were issued in response to some stabbing incidents. Then, because they have the vests, there's less incentive for them to de-escalate, as they feel they're (over)confident about the protection the vests give them. I'm just speculating though.
Its the same with firearms. Police carry them because, frankly, it would be insane to expect police to do their jobs against armed assailants without themselves being arms. However, because they're armed, they're more likely to get involved in things aggressively whereas before they might pull an Andy Griffith style of policing, and try to talk them down. Also, being armed makes going hands on even more dangerous, because if the assailant grabs for the duty pistol, then the fight automatically escalates into a lethal encounter, as the police officer HAS to kill the assailant before being killed.

They pushed the use of tasers just to try to create another option for American LEOs so they weren't so quick to shoot (vast majority are still legal shoots, but getting into the gray of ethics). Instead of cutting down on shootings, the issuing of tasers simply increased the number of times somebody is tased for something previously they'd only receive a warning order for.

Pre-Taser:
"Hey you, stop what you're doing!"
Doesn't stop.
"Hey you, I just said stop!"
Doesn't stop.
"Stop!"

Post taser:
"Hey you, stop what you're doing!"
Doesn't stop.
Tased
 
Jul 2016
7,751
USA
#69
I don't know what training the police receive, but we see reports of tactics such as "kettling", when is used to control crowds, and it forces people into narrow choke points, which seems to me wouldd raise tensions,/ Having seen crowd control in the UK, it generally involves shouting very loudly and aggressively at the public, and generally trying to intimidate them into obeying.

I much prefer Japanese crowd control, which involves the use of megaphones to make themselves heard, and a lot of "please" and "thank you"s. However, Japanese crowds are generally more compliant and don't really need to be shouted at.
Reminds me of the military. Modern drill sergeants and drill instructors yell a lot. Why? Because they aren't allowed to hit anyone. If they could hit, there is no need to act like this:

USMC Drill Instructors • Get Ready For Screaming

In previous times of history, when officers and NCO equivalents had to instill discipline, there was no reason to get into faces and scream to intimidate. Just beat the crap out of them. If they hit back, execute them in some brutal way.
 

redcoat

Ad Honorem
Nov 2010
7,534
Stockport Cheshire UK
#70
Also, Met Police are issued stab proof vests. Why? Is there some sort of problem where they need to worry about being stabbed in the torso? How come they can't de-escalate to prevent that?
Only 1 British police officer has been killed by a terrorist or criminal using either a knife or gun in the last 7 years, so their methods seem to work reasonably well..
 

Similar History Discussions