Would you support a policy in the US where police are unarmed and SWAT teams only have semi-automatic rifles?
No. If I was being attacked by some crook with a gun and the police arrived, I’d very much like the policeman to have a gun of his own.As long as many criminals have guns, it seems insane to have them better equipped to survive than the police. It seems fair to give the police the best chance of doing their jobs and yet live to be able to go home to their families.This is an answer by an American and it applies to my country. It has nothing at all to do with what works best in other countries.
Why don't police officers in the UK have guns?
For the first 150 years or so of the U.K.'s current model of policing created by Sir Robert Peel, guns weren't needed. Private firearms ownership in the U.K. is relatively rare as compared to the U.S. Handgun ownership is very rare. Some people own shotguns or rifles for hunting, but they're generally kept at a hunt or gun club, not in private residences. Gun crimes were fairly rare.In the 1970s and 1980s, the U.K. experienced an increase in gun-related crimes and a general escalation of violence. They also had to deal with "The Troubles," e.g. guerrilla warfare fought by the Irish Republican Army and other terrorist organizations. This caused the U.K. police to rethink their position on deploying armed police officers. Experienced officers with good performance records are screened and selected for firearms training. The vetting and training process is considerably more rigorous than police in the U.S. receive, as is the ongoing training that firearms-qualified officers receive during the rest of their careers while in that assignment. Firearms-qualified officers do not normally carry their weapons at work, although those officers assigned to airports may be armed at all times with a fully-auto-capable rifle and handgun. Constables on regular patrol duties are assigned in pairs to armed response vehicles that carry the firearms and ammunition in a locked compartment. The firearms are deployed only on the order of a qualified commander, or on the constables' own initiative in very restricted circumstances. Although U.S. police can't imagine working unarmed, many (if not most) U.K. constables have no desire to carry firearms. I saw several interviews of U.K. constables in the 1980s, when the firearms-qualified constables were first deployed. Many regular constables said they would leave the police service if required to carry firearms. It's just contrary to the U.K. police custom and culture.
Can a Jehovah's Witness be a Police Officer or a Fireman?
Yes, and yes. There is a firefighter in my congregation that is a Ministerial Servant. When I lived in another state there were several firefighters. There were JW firefighters that died while working on 9/11. My friend's JW husband is a policeman. Those with armed employment cannot have special privileges in the congregation, since the potential is there for them to incur bloodguilt. If you sincerely want more info, I can send you an article.
Could an unarmed police force still enforce the law?
It could work in cities if there were backup officers with guns like the British have. Those thousand+ cops who shoot people every year would probably be dead or disabled. So, there is that, but some would consider 1000 dead or disabled cops per year better that 1000 dead alleged criminals.That number of dead cops could be reduced some by taking on British police tactics. Instead of one or two cops with guns, you get four or six cops who aren't shy about using their clubs. This, plus the cost of those extra "armed patrols" who are held in reserve will multiply the manpower requirements, and therefore the budget, of the police department.This won't work at all in vast swaths of the country where officers perform most tasks solo. There's no way those areas can afford to double or triple the police force, and limited armed patrols would likely be too far away to do any good. Small town cops see less dangerous stuff on a daily basis than big city cops, but when they do see it, they often have to handle it all by themselves with no backup.Now, I could probably do 99.9% of my job without a gun. I've only really needed it to stop a person once, and in that case just pointing it at him without firing got the job done. However, without it, I would have had to fight a man who had a big knife by myself. I might have won anyway. Hard to say. Maybe some other times people were deterred just by knowing I had a gun on my hip. Again, hard to say. One time I definitely needed it when I was being attacked by three dogs at once in the middle of the street. I most certainly would have been dead or disabled that time if I hadn't shot one of the dogs, causing the other two to run off. Still, I'm confident that I could successfully do most of my job without a gun.The time I had to work a fatal motorcycle crash while surrounded by 60 or so members of a biker gang, I didn't end up needing my gun. I was sure glad it was there though. I couldn't have beaten them all, of course, but I felt confident that the fact that I could probably take out the first couple served as a helpful deterrent.We really don't need guns most of the time, but when we do need them, we really, really need them.
Why isn’t the Minneapolis police department telling the public why one of their officers shot and killed an unarmed civilian in her pajamas?
Why isn’t the Minneapolis police department telling the public why one of their officers shot and killed an unarmed civilian in her pajamas?IN all honestly and probability, they don’t even know why yet.The scene was secured, there was no other shooter according to what the officers or one officer told dispatch. The shooter was the officer. They claim they didn’t have their body cameras on. As far as we know, there was no other witnesses.Now let’s think about this, we’ve seen enough shows, watched enough events, we know that they have to do investigations and there are procedures, timelines and deadlines for doing things. Even with a regular shooting by a civilian there are protocol issues and we’ve seen days go by before we even hear WHY a shooting took place. Sometimes we NEVER hear anything until the trial and often nothing then.So, going off what we’ve seen in the news, and even well crafted portrayals of a police shooting:So, the Officers, by now have spoken to their guild reps and may have end of shift, 12, 24 or even 72 hours to compose their reports. They told their supervisors, enough to determine the crime scene and if there was anyone else involved, which we’re hearing there wasn’t. They’ll be talking to their guild rep or equiv., and likely a guild appointed attorney. They’ll be talking to Internal Affairs, representatives from the Mayor’s Office, community activists, and the media will be probing. This woman was apparently well known and well loved, and a celebrity to many, with a reputation for being non violent and against gun violence which will bring on perhaps a media circus.Protecting the Officers, the department, the city government, the mayor, are all being considered, not sating our curiosity, unfortunately.Now will we ever know what happened?that’s one question.the real question is:Will we ever know what REALLY happened?What we do know:There was a push to get this guy a badge that was very strong, Mayor level.BEFORE he picked up a badge, he’d problems with at least one woman, and another complaint about his behavior that would probably have barred him from getting a badge.His body camera was turned off.The other officer said he was ‘stunned’ by the shooting as he was talking to the woman at the time.We’ll see. It’s too early to speculate, but wow, there’s so much out there.
Should police still carry guns? If so, why?
I am going to say yes, but I am also going to take a VERY hard line on its use. We have allowed FAR too free use of deadly weapons and given far too many free passes on its use leading to its over user.The officer's life must be in direct and immediate danger for its use. Furtive actions shootings are not allowed. Unarmed persons shootings are virtually not allowed. Failure to take the time to determine what is in someones hand is not allowed.In short, if that weapon is discharged that person better be armed AND starting to actually point the weapon at you. If the person is unarmed they better be coming at you and close. Furtive movements are a huge problem, far too often we hear "he was going for a gun in his waistband", only to find out that he was unarmed, which means that the chances of him going for his waistband for his gun is pretty slim. I don't support granting any lee-way to police not granted to everyone else, in all actuality I support greater restraint on the police as representatives of the state.And you better hope there is video and enough forensics evidence to prove your story, just the same as when ANYONE else shoots someone. Police shootings are literally always assumed to be good shootings until proven otherwise, the opposite is true for everyone else, they should be evaluated the same. The police write the report and human nature is to write it showing yourself in the best light and the other person unfavorably which is still possible even when telling the truth. Look at Michael Slager, he had a good shoot (at least on paper) until the video comes out and then not so much. They might administratively put them on desk duty as a policy after a shooting but that doesn't mean anything.I can sum up my point in a few very simple lines. I don't want anyone dead who doesn't need to be. I am a firm believer in self defense but also demand the state be held to a higher standard when it is used. I don't place an officer's life above anyone else's. If you drop the hammer on someone you better be right regardless of who you work for. I want there to be a chilling effect on police using their weapons. I'm tired of people dying needlessly.