Shovelhead
Regular Member
Not sure of the impunity part ..... there's probably more former MPD officers in DC and Maryland jails than current number of officers on the street.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
GWU Police Department....I can't believe this....
- Thread starter hunter45
- Start date
Not sure of the impunity part ..... there's probably more former MPD officers in DC and Maryland jails than current number of officers on the street.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
It's DC. I guarantee you the thin blue line is no different from anywhere else.
If DC cops get busted at such a rate, but always for unambiguously criminal behavior, how often do you think they get away with the sort of boundary-pushing cops all over the country routinely get away with?
papa bear
Regular Member
i have always felt that LE should not carry firearms. they already have the color of law protecting them. they should only have non-lethal carry. then maybe a lot of citizens would not be shot and killed.
we did have a sheriff here in Mayberry, named of Taylor. got shot in the butt one time with a shotgun. the only thing is he didn't have a single hole in his britches
we did have a sheriff here in Mayberry, named of Taylor. got shot in the butt one time with a shotgun. the only thing is he didn't have a single hole in his britches
EMNofSeattle
Regular Member
Only mainland Britain and Scotland...
Northern Ireland and mainland Europe their forces are routinely armed.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
Don't forget Norway and Iceland, bro.
EMNofSeattle
Regular Member
Norweigan police carry firearms, not on person, but every officer has multiple firearms in the patrol car, usually a G-36 and a H&K P-30 from what I understand.
Last edited:
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Police_Service
This is the same as in the UK. And it's essentially what most of us are advocating for.
Last edited:
EMNofSeattle
Regular Member
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Police_Service
This is the same as in the UK. And it's essentially what most of us are advocating for.
No, most UK Officers do not carry firearms, only armed response vehicles keep guns in the car. In metro areas most officers are on foot and not in vehicles.
Now New Zealand keeps guns in their cars...
Most of who? You and one other person are the only people seriously advocating for this. Why don't you keep your guns locked in your car instead of open carrying? A gun is not useful if not on your person.
If somebody's going to have a pistol, civilian or LE they should have it on their person whenever possible, or they may as well not even waste the money
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
I lived there, bro. Every cop car has a gun in the trunk. Seen it with my own eyes. And, yes, these cars do patrol, even in London.
And what, you don't think Norwegian cities have cops on foot, too?
More advice: learn to admit when you're wrong.
Obviously I'm referring to those of us who advocate less-armed police.
Yeah, on this forum alone, there are numerous people who share my opinion.
I'm not a cop. Apples and oranges. Police are called to situations; individuals find themselves in situations.
Police basically never "happen across" a crime in progress. Whereas crimes in progress, pretty much by definition, happen to non-LEO citizens.
Last edited:
EMNofSeattle
Regular Member
According to the Home Office, there are only 6000 firearms officers in the UK. the London Met alone has about 40,000 sworn personel. only AFOs can carry or control firearms on routine duty. so it is not possible for every car to have firearms. the only cars with firearms are ARVs. I know several people who are expats from the UK, one of whom worked as an SC for the Met, I have sources in this too....
If I'm actually wrong, you're saying stuff that makes no sense and then expecting everyone to believe your anecdotal experience
who comprise what? a full .5% of the population? you must hang out in totally libertarian circles and never interact with normal society...
Yeah, on this forum alone, there are numerous people who share my opinion.
and yet only three including you have actually gone around saying you think police should disarmed.
so do police. I don't know what blotters you read, cops roll up on stuff all the time. in addition there are off-duty officers and investigators in plain clothes who end up just as likely as you to encounter a situation
That is false, police happen across criminal activity frequently.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
Well, it may be that not all cars are "ARVs", but that doesn't mean that "ARVs" are never out driving around (which they are). And none of that changes the fact that Norway's system is, for all intents and purposes, identical.
Off-duty and plainclothes are totally different contexts. Nobody has argued that police officers shouldn't be permitted to be armed off-duty, or that off-duty cops aren't equally likely to be victims of crime. So that's irrelevant.
As for uniformed patrol police "rolling up" on crimes, what's your definition of "frequently"? It's highly infrequent compared to the overall rate of such crimes that police might reasonably be expected to "roll up" on. This, of course, is the only metric of any value.
It's certainly not frequent enough to justify cops routinely pulling guns on non-threatening people during traffic stops. Or shooting those people at the absurdly high rate they do.
Off-duty and plainclothes are totally different contexts. Nobody has argued that police officers shouldn't be permitted to be armed off-duty, or that off-duty cops aren't equally likely to be victims of crime. So that's irrelevant.
As for uniformed patrol police "rolling up" on crimes, what's your definition of "frequently"? It's highly infrequent compared to the overall rate of such crimes that police might reasonably be expected to "roll up" on. This, of course, is the only metric of any value.
It's certainly not frequent enough to justify cops routinely pulling guns on non-threatening people during traffic stops. Or shooting those people at the absurdly high rate they do.
EMNofSeattle
Regular Member
well why don't you define what an "absurdly high rate" is? I can think of maybe two questionable shootings in my general area, and one of those officers is no longer working as a police officer.
what statistics do you possess on how often firearms are drawn by police versus how often people are contacted.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
How do I define "absurdly high"? I'll tell you what's not absurdly high:
In 2011, Norwegian police only fired a gun on one occasion
Not sure if anybody as compiled such statistics. But the countless cases (nowadays increasingly caught on video) of police drawing guns on people who don't pose any sort of threat go well beyond the merely anecdotal.
I read stuff like this far too frequently:
Oakland police draw guns without cause too often, federal report finds[/quote]
Last edited:
EMNofSeattle
Regular Member
papa bear
Regular Member
In my estimation, one citizen shot by LEO, is absurdly high
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
lol, nice desperate strawman.
The UK, the county which you were desperately trying to show has fewer armed cops than Norway, had for nearly a century a situation where citizens were basically free to be armed as they saw fit, but the police were not. You'd routinely hear about police in hot pursuit borrowing a gun from a nearby citizen.
And yet, somehow, the police voluntarily maintained this policy because they believed it made them safer.
Oh by the way, since the rest of European police are routinely armed, I guess that means that you must be similarly happy to bring their gun laws here. (Since that's not a complete non-sequitur or anything.) I win.
Absolutely. And when there is any regularity to this at all (which there presently is), it's no longer up for debate IMO.
Last edited:
EMNofSeattle
Regular Member
lol, nice desperate strawman.
The UK, the county which you were desperately trying to show has fewer armed cops than Norway, had for nearly a century a situation where citizens were basically free to be armed as they saw fit, but the police were not. You'd routinely hear about police in hot pursuit borrowing a gun from a nearby citizen.
And yet, somehow, the police voluntarily maintained this policy because they believed it made them safer.
Oh by the way, since the rest of European police are routinely armed, I guess that means that you must be similarly happy to bring their gun laws here. (Since that's not a complete non-sequitur or anything.) I win.
Absolutely. And when there is any regularity to this at all (which there presently is), it's no longer up for debate IMO.
It has been a long time since UK citizens could arm themselves as they saw fit, since the early 20th century all guns have been registered in the UK and strict licensing procedures followed. Even now with their crime rate out of control most armed crime involves contact weapons and not firearms, no UK police officers have been shot yet this year that I'm aware of, so the working environment that you're desperately trying to equate is not the same at all.
And if you set the number at 1 being too many then you've got the perfect set up, it allows you to bitch and moan all you want. For people living in the real world incidences of misconduct or mistakes at a rate of zero is not possible. What do you tell anti gunners who say one with a gun is too many? Oh I forgot, you live on a libertarian commune where everyone around you agrees with you.....
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
What the hell kind of logic is this?
So the UK implements a bunch of bad laws, and only the present situation is of any relevance? The fact that it worked in the past under a so-called "libertarian" model is of no interest to you at all?
You've made it clear this is not a good-faith debate. I think I'll be "moving on" now.
DocWalker
Regular Member
I guess if you or your child is the "1" than it would be too many.
EMNofSeattle
Regular Member
an accidental death from lawn darts was one too many for the parent who lobbied and got them banned under the cover of darkness.
if you place yourself in the scenario of facing pain and loss you can always be sympathetic, that doesn't mean we need to change the law or established practice just because something bad happens every now and then.