This is reminiscent of Pope Innocent III's crusade against the heretical Cathars at Beziers in 1209. The Abbot Arnaud, commanding the Catholics, was asked how the troops could tell apart the Cathars from the Catholics and replied, "Kill them all, God will recognise his own". 20,000 were slaughtered indiscriminately, men women and children.
I can't believe I've read this on a bike forum. How about more training over the years and more testing, rather than more repression?
That would be nice but as the discussion was about Police tactics it is undeniable that reallocating resource from armed response to traffic would have a greater impact on the death rate
Re having more traffic police, I imagine he means having more human beings with discretion catching the incompetent, as opposed to more robotic cameras repressing on the basis of speed alone.
So would the massive installation of speed traps. It depends if you want to live in a cotton wool, dull society. Shades of Brave New World.
I wasn't actually advocating either solution, merely pointing out the obvious case that if you want to save lives there are better ways of doing it than giving the police guns.
your argument is not even worth discussi g. there is no way you can determine two trained police officers against one villain. or what have may have happened
What happened is extremely well documented. How do you think being armed would help in an ambush like that?
no report has been done yet incase it prejudices the trial. it has been well reported by the press is what I think you are struggling to say
OK, if we disregard the widespread press reports of the events, many of which were taken from press releases and press conferences by the Greater Manchester Police, if we ignore all the available reports, How can you suggest being armed would have made a difference?
If you have a gun, you are more likely to use it if you are threatened, or perceive yourself to be threatened. If the police are routinely armed, it comes down to a case or "my gun is bigger than your gun" - which would lead to escalation: assault rifles and submachine guns for the crims. Or it would come down to a case of "shoot first, worry about it later". If an armed crim knows that the police are unarmed, or suspects they are, they are less likely to shoot. More police guns will also mean more shootouts and more errors. In shootouts, members of the public may be hurt, in errors, innocent people may be shot dead who weren't even armed (as has already happened). Thus, I cannot see how arming the police makes for a safer society.
If they didn't have their guns drawn and ready and aiming in the right direction when the villain starts shooting they'd still be dead. Plenty of soldiers and NI Police were killed in ambushes, they were all armed.
