'Outrage as police officers armed with huge guns pose with children at Christmas market'
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
.Where's the logic in that? Did 9/11 happen a century ago? It happened over a decade ago so terror could never have been a cause to impose martial law back in 1956 lol. Things happen due to cause and effect.
It's nice to see how people assume there is a limit to terror, some sort of invisible line, that it will never descend to needing martial law to protect us. It is the ultimatum for goodness sake.
Believe me, I can only hope that this is a "delusional fantasy".
Last edited:
Yeah me too. No need for that crap though is there, I assure you I haven't seen many Info Wars videos, I've watched a few for analytical purposes only. My conclusion was that Alex Jones is a businessman, he makes videos to make money and sell his BS magic health pills ffs. Please don't accuse me of being an Info Wars supporter. I'm not trying to sell you pills or make money.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
Gosh thanks for trolling me after I have promised to stop.
This is about street patrol. According to that logic it is fine to have them in a station since they can be deployed to any location. Which I am fine with. I am not against having stationed armed police.
Err, when they're deployed to a crowded place as per the CONTEST strategy, they will park somewhere close if they need to go to another job. That's no different than being at a station.
Fair enough. Countermeasures against terror have been increasing in perfect correlation with terror attacks, since 9/11, all because I'm not bright.
Top argument. Makes perfect sense.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 4,590
I be pretty happy to have my photo taken with them armed cops.
He wasn't highly trained...
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 22,506
- Location
- ST4
I could kind of understand if they looked like this;
(Taiwan special forces for anyone interested)
The now disbanded Bolivian UTARC police unit would give them a run for their money.
The media (and some politicians) have an axe to grind over armed policing in Scotland, this sort of story keeps popping up here. They already pressured PSoS into restricting what jobs ARVs can attend, but ideally they'd like it if they were never seen at all and even then, disarmed at all times unless expressly authorised.
What does having a police officer sitting in a station waiting to be deployed actually achieve though? It's a waste of resources, increases response times, would be a pretty boring job and makes armed policing look seem like a dirty little secret that should never be seen in public, which is something we're trying to move away from. British police services have done a lot over the past decade to be more transparent about armed policing and make the public more aware that it exists and isn't going anywhere.
All that armour would just make someone shoot them between the legsThe now disbanded Bolivian UTARC police unit would give them a run for their money.
That is only conditional. It only relevant if the time and place of "the attack" coincides with the time and place those officers are being paraded.
There could always be situations where the station is closer to the incident so that argument is only correct if certain conditions are met.
Last edited:
Yes there could be, but statistically it makes more sense to have resources mobile so they can be used as and when necessary, and work pro-actively when not answering calls. Again, it comes down to most efficient use of resources, which was one of the other points I made.
They're putting armed officers in places that are densely populated because historically terrorists have attacked places where a lot of people congregate (e.g. Paris bars and restaurants on a Friday night) so they can do the maximum amount of damage before they're stopped. You must understand this, it's dead easy stuff. Sure they might come round to my house but there'd only be me, my girlfriend and my rabbits home, so they'd only kill 2 people and 2 small animals, they'd be better going to Leeds city center where there are hundreds of people walking around the Christmas market.
I love how you apply these conditions. So the only place where you won't find parading officers is your house? And there's no densely packed place in the UK where there aren't armed parades?
Considering a terrorist who wants to do "maximum amount of damage", as per your conditions, then a gun isn't going to stop that particular attack. As I explained you cant really stop someone pressing a button on their vest. Even if the attacker has a gun or knife, dual wielding he can take out two officers posing for pictures quite easily. People need to think realistically, this is real life, not a movie where the officers will see the reflection in the camera's lens and turn around and take out the bad guy.
It really does seem like people watch too many films.
But they can stop an MTFA, or someone with a bladed weapon, or using a vehicle as a weapon. Hence why strategies are put into place to have armed officers deployed in key locations and in vehicles so as to be better placed to deal with any kind of incident, not just a guy with a bomb vest and dual-wielding meat cleavers.
You're accusing people of making arguments based on specific conditions, then doing exactly the same yourself a sentence later.
Oh, and you're using the term 'parading' wrong, within a policing context at least.
Last edited: