The Taser issue .....

dowie · 31 Jan 2015 at 12:31

garak112 said:
Suggesting that nothing would need to be cut to fund it is also flawed. This year the police received £8.6bn from government, next year they are getting £8.3bn, assuming all the additional counter terrorism money goes to the police leaves them with £8.4bn. They already have to cut £200m of costs from their budgets, if they buy tasers they would need to find a further £20m+.

yes things which cost money, cost money and have to come from budgets :confused:

your previous post suggested that they'd have to cut officer numbers - I'm pointing out that there exist other budgets

if x is required for 'terrorism' and can be sourced from an additional budget set aside for 'terrorism' then the impact of purchasing x only affects other Y, Z etc.. items which would have otherwise come from that terrorism budget

DisrupTor75 · 31 Jan 2015 at 12:36

garak112 said:
I think I'd rather the police spend counter terrorism money on countering terrorism, rather than buying stuff they don't need just because someone with an axe to grind attached the terrorism label to it.

^ this.

It's a common establishment trick to prey on peoples fears and "terrorism" seems to now be the eternal bogeyman, a non-specific threat that can be wheeled out anytime they want to take a little bit more of our so called freedom's away. :rolleyes:

setter · 31 Jan 2015 at 12:39

adolf hamster said:
all the cops here in ni carry guns, yet theres hardly anyone gets shot these days.

the only problem with tazers is they might feel more gung ho about using them but i'd rather the police have the luxury of choosing than being at risk.

they should be properly instructed about how and when to use them for definite.

Our situation here was and to an extent still is different to the mainland. With terror attacks on a daily basis, and the direct targeting of police officers, there was a real need for officers to be armed at all times.

LordSplodge · 31 Jan 2015 at 12:47

Terrorism. Great excuse to spy on everybody.
Terrorism. Great excuse to arm all police.

It's the bogeyman that keeps on giving for Governments around the world to tighten the yoke around civilians whilst claiming to protect use.

Look at how the police in America are being militarised, for example.

Will21st · 31 Jan 2015 at 12:50

LordSplodge said:
Terrorism. Great excuse to spy on everybody.
Terrorism. Great excuse to arm all police.

It's the bogeyman that keeps on giving for Governments around the world to tighten the yoke around civilians whilst claiming to protect use.

Look at how the police in America are being militarised, for example.

that's down to the war on drugs, unfortunately. Arming our police isn't militarisation.

OhEsEcks · 31 Jan 2015 at 12:54

LordSplodge said:
Look at how the police in America are being militarised, for example.

Exactly. That unit in New York they're putting together... Jesus Christ. Armed to the teeth to "protect" people from terrorism. But the same unit will also be used for crowd control situations. Because your right to protest makes you a terrorist. And make sure you stand in the free speech zone during the protest because protesting outside that free speech zone means you're breaking the law despite the fact that the right to lawful assembly and protest ANYWHERE is the first ****ing thing written in the American constitution.

The thing that America has going for it though is it has the most heavily armed civilian population on the planet. And when they finally wake up and realise just how ****ed they've been by their government all hell will break loose.

If we want to break free from tyranny we're probably going to have to invite another monarch from another country to bring an army with him/her again as the immortal seven did.

LordSplodge · 31 Jan 2015 at 12:54

Will21st said:
that's down to the war on drugs, unfortunately. Arming our police isn't militarisation.

It's the first step in that direction.

dowie · 31 Jan 2015 at 12:55

we have a rather different approach to the use of force over here than in the US, I'm not sure I'd worry too much about more UK police being armed with tazers in that respect

I'm quite glad they're not carrying firearms as standard and that local police don't have armored vehicles and assault rifles

Unbeliever · 31 Jan 2015 at 12:55

I'm firearms trained, it doesn't make me reckless. If anything the training i've received has made me more perceptive to the potential threat level and options available. I'm not militarised either. The bosses are very careful in how we present ourselves to make sure we don't come across as paramilitary. We're still the smiling face of the force, we just have some extra equipment on our possession.

scorza · 31 Jan 2015 at 12:58

Will21st said:
that's down to the war on drugs, unfortunately. Arming our police isn't militarisation.

I suggest it's down to the availability of firearms rather than the war on drugs. The police/state authorities *should be* better equipped than the bad guys, but if you live in a society where everyone can own an assault rifle then that's going to look like police militarisation.

Will21st · 31 Jan 2015 at 13:00

scorza said:
I suggest it's down to the availability of firearms rather than the war on drugs. The police/state authorities *should be* better equipped than the bad guys, but if you live in a society where everyone can own an assault rifle then that's going to look like police militarisation.

yes, and the main driver behind that is still the drug war.... read up on it.

scorza · 31 Jan 2015 at 13:02

Will21st said:
yes, and the main driver behind that is still the drug war.... read up on it.

Something about right to bear arms... (insert "hilarious" Family Guy jpg here).

Will21st · 31 Jan 2015 at 13:02

Unbeliever said:
I'm firearms trained, it doesn't make me reckless. If anything the training i've received has made me more perceptive to the potential threat level and options available. I'm not militarised either. The bosses are very careful in how we present ourselves to make sure we don't come across as paramilitary. We're still the smiling face of the force, we just have some extra equipment on our possession.

What?You mean you and your colleagues are sensible with your firearms and don't shoot muggers?

Seriously though, do you think every officer should carry a sidearm? What's the opinion of your fellow officers on the matter?

Will21st · 31 Jan 2015 at 13:03

scorza said:
Something about right to bear arms... (insert "hilarious" Family Guy jpg here).

so you haven't read up on it.

OhEsEcks · 31 Jan 2015 at 13:04

Will21st said:
yes, and the main driver behind that is still the drug war.... read up on it.

It's really not. Military equipment has a shelf life. They need to spend budgets to get the same budget or more the following year. They sell the excess off to police forces for pennies so they can renew budgets and equipment. Hell, the US keeps churning out Abram's tanks for no other reason than to keep people in employment.

http://news.yahoo.com/army-says-no-more-tanks-115434897.html

Unbeliever · 31 Jan 2015 at 13:08

You volunteer to carry one. Have to pass a stringent paper sift and your record is scrutinised to the nth degree. Then you need to sit and pass a 8 week course of which you are continually assessed.

I think given the way the country it is then taser is a good option for officers, even if its just one or two officers on a shift with a taser. It provides a different option.

My opinion is at some point taser training for every officer should be mandatory. As for conventional firearms, I don't see the need for it for everyone but an increase in numbers wouldn't hurt. As long as they undergo the same vetting I did.

I can't really speak for my fellow officers in that respect, some don't like firearms but like the idea of having the option of a taser. We carry a spray thats an irritant, doesnt mean its used on every occasion someone fights. Same if your carrying a taser. The gung ho types are usually found out quite quickly in my experience.

opstrat · 31 Jan 2015 at 13:14

OhEsEcks said:
It's really not. Military equipment has a shelf life. They need to spend budgets to get the same budget or more the following year. They sell the excess off to police forces for pennies so they can renew budgets and equipment. Hell, the US keeps churning out Abram's tanks for no other reason than to keep people in employment.

http://news.yahoo.com/army-says-no-more-tanks-115434897.html

aye. I saw last year a county police department had their own APC used from the army.

OhEsEcks · 31 Jan 2015 at 13:17

opstrat said:
aye. I saw last year a county police department had their own APC used from the army.

Loads of them do. Bum**** Alabama could probably get themselves a couple of Abram tanks for executing no-knock warrants if they could justify the expenditure to the county and citizens. What better way than the muslamic ray gun toting terrorist justifcation?

http://nypost.com/2015/01/30/nypd-to-launch-a-beefed-up-counterterrorism-squad/

This is the New York unit I mentioned earlier. They'll be supplied from ex-military stock.

The NYPD will launch a unit of 350 cops to handle both counterterrorism and protests

Because protestors should be staring down the barrel of a machine gun and be lumped together with terrorists.

terrorism
[ter-uh-riz-uh m]

Examples
Word Origin

noun
1.
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

The irony.

dowie · 31 Jan 2015 at 13:24

OhEsEcks said:
http://nypost.com/2015/01/30/nypd-to-launch-a-beefed-up-counterterrorism-squad/

This is the New York unit I mentioned earlier. They'll be supplied from ex-military stock.

sounds like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_Support_Group on steroids.....

The Strategic Response Group, or SRG, will be devoted to “advanced disorder control and counterterrorism protection,” responding to the sort of demonstrations that erupted after the Eric Garner grand jury decision and also events like the recent Paris terror attacks.

“It will be equipped and trained in ways that our normal patrol officers are not,” Commissioner Bill Bratton said Thursday.

“It will be equipped with all the extra heavy protective gear, with the long rifles and the machine guns that are unfortunately sometimes necessary in these *instances.”

that last bit seems a bit odd - do they actually mean machine guns? Surely pretty inappropriate for a police officer to have even if in a SWAT type unit given that it is an area weapon, you don't get to use it in a precise manner in the same way you can use a rifle.

Will21st · 31 Jan 2015 at 13:30

OhEsEcks said:
It's really not. Military equipment has a shelf life. They need to spend budgets to get the same budget or more the following year. They sell the excess off to police forces for pennies so they can renew budgets and equipment. Hell, the US keeps churning out Abram's tanks for no other reason than to keep people in employment.

http://news.yahoo.com/army-says-no-more-tanks-115434897.html

it really is. the military gear is mainly used for drug enforcement. US police is encouraged to forfeit assets, which is also mainly driven by the ill-gotten gains of the drug world.