Two Policewomen shot dead

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Tue Sep 18, 2012 10:31 am

One of the country's most wanted men is believed to have lured two unarmed female constables to their deaths

theia · Post by **theia** » Tue Sep 18, 2012 11:27 am

Bruv;1404729 wrote: One of the country's most wanted men is believed to have lured two unarmed female constables to their deaths

Awful!

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:45 pm

Hhhmmmm reminicent of the Walsh street shootings

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Sep 18, 2012 4:05 pm

fuzzywuzzy;1404769 wrote: Hhhmmmm reminicent of the Walsh street shootings

Welcome back :-6

How's life treating you?

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Tue Sep 18, 2012 4:38 pm

Horrible story... I can't understand what would motivate him to kill two innocent young women like that.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Tue Sep 18, 2012 10:32 pm

He handed himself in afterward ? If that's the case ...it's a gloat. He killed them to rub it in the faces of the cops I would say.

'Walsh street' where two very young constables were killed was a pay back for some investigation CI was handling . They shot one of the suspects . In retaliation the two connys were shot when they went to (can't remember if it was a phony burg or loud noise complaint or something) a job. It didn't matter who it was that turned up, whoever it was was going to be killed. One of the constables was shot in the head with his own firearm once he was already injured. detestable because who ever did it played with the poor sods first.

I reckon it's similar what's happened in this instance...either way it's a dog act

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Tue Sep 18, 2012 10:35 pm

Bryn Mawr;1404770 wrote: Welcome back :-6

How's life treating you?

Now spots' on Facebook he could probs tell you that ...in fact a few here could tell you lol lol

neffy · Post by **neffy** » Wed Sep 19, 2012 3:01 pm

very sad and so pointless

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Wed Sep 19, 2012 3:13 pm

Unarmed constables.

:-5

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Sep 19, 2012 3:29 pm

tude dog;1404876 wrote: Unarmed constables.

:-5

It is, indeed, shocking. This one incident has nearly doubled the number of Police Officers shot whilst on duty during the past twenty years.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Wed Sep 19, 2012 4:33 pm

still not very many considering what america is like, something like over 300 hundred in ten years. It wouldn't have mattered if they were armed or not. They were ambushed.

See, to bash your head against a wall because you're upset they aren't armed is pretty superfluous... what happened in all the cases where police were shot and were armed?

Humans react in kind . If police have guns they feel they should have guns, when police don't have guns people don't feel the need for over reaction.

this is why (I believe ) you have such a low death rate on the job for police.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Sep 19, 2012 4:36 pm

fuzzywuzzy;1404889 wrote: still not very many considering what america is like, something like over 300 hundred in ten years. It wouldn't have mattered if they were armed or not. They were ambushed.

See, to bash your head against a wall because you're upset they aren't armed is pretty superfluous... what happened in all the cases where police were shot and were armed?

Humans react in kind . If police have guns they feel they should have guns, when police don't have guns people don't feel the need for over reaction.

That is exactly the point. Here in the UK we have never had the arms race between the two sides and the use of firearms during a crime is rare - the shooting of a Police Officer even more so.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Wed Sep 19, 2012 5:30 pm

I do believe there is a social turn around in this country though, not sure about other places . And it doesn't make much sence at all.

I think I've mentioned this before. When every 'tom dick and harry' had guns police hardly ever and only in seiges wore bullet proof vests. With the new gun laws and so very few guns in our communities they now all go around with vests on like it's the uniform. Also since the end of the amnesty (guns) they have so much more personal weaponary now it's bloody stupid. Okay, Lets see, fire arms, extra bullets (because they think an army of fugitives are at hand or they are really bad shots or pumping six bullets into a human being may not be enough) capsicum spray, tazers , batons, vests, hand cuffs. All these things on their person ....against a mostly unarmed populace. And now they are calling for entirely dark blue/almost black uniforms that are reminiscent of military uniforms ...you don't need a psychologist to tell you that these are a forboding colour when it comes to authority. And constantly arriving at protests donned out in riot gear????

Something smells, and it's not the dog **** on my boots.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Thu Sep 20, 2012 5:36 am

Bryn Mawr;1404879 wrote: It is, indeed, shocking. This one incident has nearly doubled the number of Police Officers shot whilst on duty during the past twenty years.

How many been killed in the past twenty years?

Between 1990 and 1999 a further 18 officers were killed and from 2000 to date, a total of seven officers have lost their lives

About one a year. How many were seriously injured by scumbags? Oh well, no reason the police should have special rights to personal safety from thugs than the average sheeple who pay their salaries.

Personally, I just don't get it, living in a decidedly violent society and just accept being robbed, raped, burgled etc. as the price of civil society.:-2

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Thu Sep 20, 2012 5:57 am

fuzzywuzzy;1404889 wrote: still not very many considering what america is like, something like over 300 hundred in ten years. It wouldn't have mattered if they were armed or not. They were ambushed.

See, to bash your head against a wall because you're upset they aren't armed is pretty superfluous... what happened in all the cases where police were shot and were armed?

Humans react in kind . If police have guns they feel they should have guns, when police don't have guns people don't feel the need for over reaction.

this is why (I believe ) you have such a low death rate on the job for police.

You are right in that we have a lot of police killed. There would be a lot more killed if they were not armed.

Civilians don't see an armed police force as a reason we should have the right to be armed. Far as the average person is concerned, I would say it is a natural right to be able to defend oneself.

Police can't protect us, or you. Police are good for taking reports after the fact.

As far as :-5 has nothing to do with being upset. Maybe it was the wrong symbol to represent how incredulous the whole concept is.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu Sep 20, 2012 9:45 am

tude dog;1404955 wrote: How many been killed in the past twenty years?

Between 1990 and 1999 a further 18 officers were killed and from 2000 to date, a total of seven officers have lost their lives

About one a year. How many were seriously injured by scumbags? Oh well, no reason the police should have special rights to personal safety from thugs than the average sheeple who pay their salaries.

Personally, I just don't get it, living in a decidedly violent society and just accept being robbed, raped, burgled etc. as the price of civil society.:-2

Funny that you have to go back ten years to find an article that appears to support your view.

Look into it a bit more carefully though and it does nothing of the sort. Take the "and from 2000 to date, a total of seven officers have lost their lives" and let us see how arming the Police would have helped.

It wouldn't - all seven died in road traffic incidents.

You might live in a decidedly violent society in your neck of the woods but that is not the case here.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Sep 20, 2012 10:03 am

tude dog;1404957 wrote: You are right in that we have a lot of police killed. There would be a lot more killed if they were not armed.
Think about it...............

Civilians don't see an armed police force as a reason we should have the right to be armed. Far as the average person is concerned, I would say it is a natural right to be able to defend oneself.
I am thinking hard here........................................defend yourself ?

From who ?

Police can't protect us, or you. Police are good for taking reports after the fact.

As far as :-5 has nothing to do with being upset. Maybe it was the wrong symbol to represent how incredulous the whole concept is.

I am incredulous at the difference in attitude.........of course the different death rates are not in dispute.....are they ?

And they speak for themselves.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Thu Sep 20, 2012 10:11 am

Bruv;1404970 wrote: Think about it...............

I am thinking hard here........................................defend yourself ?

From who ?

I am incredulous at the difference in attitude.........of course the different death rates are not in dispute.....are they ?

And they speak for themselves.

Hell, here in Wichita we seem to have gone back to the wild wild west days. In our downtown pub, party area we had 4 weeks in a row with shootings, that doesn't even count the other drug and gang shootings around town. I can't imagine how many shootings they have daily in larger cities across the nation. I bet if you look up the old Dodge City and Wichita newspapers from the wild west days that they had less shootings than we have now.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Sep 20, 2012 10:20 am

It is slowly being found out that this particular incident is related to criminal activity, why the two Police Officers got slain so wantonly is a mystery.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Sep 20, 2012 12:37 pm

The reaction of the british public to this shooting should tell you something about the difference in attitude. Goes back to the early days of setting up the police. They were intended to be seen as civilians in uniform policing with the consent of the public rather than to enforce the law on an unwilling public. They were unarmed so they would not be seen as or used as an instrument of oppression. Effectiveness was to be measured not by arrest rates but rather by the absence of crime.

Principles of Good Policing

Reith notes that Rowan and Mayne's conception of a police force was 'unique in history and throughout the world because it derived not from fear but almost exclusively from public co-operation with the police, induced by them designedly by behaviour which secures and maintains for them the approval, respect and affection of the public' (p. 140).

The Nine Principles of Policing

1. To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.

2. To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.

3. To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.

4. To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.

5. To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion; but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour; and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.

6. To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.

7. To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

8. To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.

9. To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.

Our police aren't actually unarmed they are carrying clubs and in some cases nowadays nowadays. Knife crime is a bigger problem than gun crime - hence the stab vests. If you want to be free from the fear of government oppression keep the army small and the police unarmed. American policing is not an example anyone should be following, why do americans always think their way is the best - might be for americans I suppose.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Thu Sep 20, 2012 1:26 pm

gmc;1404989 wrote: The reaction of the british public to this shooting should tell you something about the difference in attitude. Goes back to the early days of setting up the police. They were intended to be seen as civilians in uniform policing with the consent of the public rather than to enforce the law on an unwilling public. They were unarmed so they would not be seen as or used as an instrument of oppression. Effectiveness was to be measured not by arrest rates but rather by the absence of crime.

Principles of Good Policing

Actually, I read somethings along those lines, why early on police were not armed. If it works for you, fine and dandy.

Ya know what, maybe I should have kept to myself when reading about the two Constables were unarmed when murdered.

I do not want to drag down this thread any further than I already have.

Really, I best keep my POV on guns more local where I understand the laws, culture etc then trying to expand to Great Britain.

None the less, I can't see no having a weapon in the house, if not also on my person.

gmc;1404989 wrote: Our police aren't actually unarmed they are carrying clubs and in some cases nowadays nowadays. Knife crime is a bigger problem than gun crime - hence the stab vests. If you want to be free from the fear of government oppression keep the army small and the police unarmed. American policing is not an example anyone should be following, why do americans always think their way is the best - might be for americans I suppose.

No different than why I think gun ownership it is better than American cities like Chicago, New York or Washington D.C.

Those cities while having high murder/violent crime rates, at the same time try to enforce laws like tha ya all have in Great Britain.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Thu Sep 20, 2012 2:04 pm

Uh, I don't know about that.

Bill Hickock not only (accidentally) killed his deputy in Wichita, but had many other gun fights, like in Hays.

He shot a lot of people, and today, the average police person never has to ever fire a weapon while on duty, not to mention the average citizen.