Arming the Police

Yesterday five police officers were seriously injured in South London having been attacked by a pitbull-type dog (read viscous little fucker with as much in common with the big soppy lumps we love as a ferrari has with a ford focus... Not the dog's fault I know but still a shame). The situation was eventually resolved when armed officers shot it.

This is yet another incident where everybody would have been better off all response police officers were routinely armed. The situation could have been concluded swiftly without the need for aroind 10 police officers to attend and most importantly, without five coppers being hurt. As soon as the dog started posing a threat, it could have been despatched (I'm not an animal hater despite my last comment and my last post. The opposite is true. I can't not make a fuss of the dogs I know and have been known to carry treats in my pocket on the off chance I run into my neighbour's pooches).

Dogs aside, now is the time to arm front line response police officers. The ones that deal on a daily basis with the detritus that society has to offer.

Some argue that arming the police will simply escalate violence between police and criminals. I think not. Criminals already routinely arm themselves and with some pretty nasty weapons. The police are playing catchup. How can we, as a society, ask police officers to put themselves at risk without the proper tools to defend themselves. We're not talking about going on Dirty Harry esque shootups, we are talking about giving them the kit to get the upper hand on the bad guys. Not routinely arming the police is as short-sighted as asking a doctor to treat a heart attack with leeches.

Various politicians talk about routinely arming the police violating the doctrine of policing by consent. While I understand all these words individually, I'm not sure they make any sense whatsoever when put together. As a society, we consent to policing; if we didn't we would lobby our elected representatives and get the system changed. If we therefore consent to being policed, why wouldn't we consent to it being done properly? Or is it that each individual has to consent to every action of the police? I somehow doubt criminals are going to consent to being nicked.

At the moment, a large swathe of people really take the piss when it comes to the police. They insult them, they threaten complaints, legal action and are just generally nasty. Beyond this, many are blatantly up for a fight and try it on with a copper safe in the knowledge that there will be no real consequences. Yes, they may get thumped a couple of times and nicked but that's it and in the grand scheme of things that's not much when compared to the supposed bragging rights of an heroic battle with the law. Perhaps they would think twice about threatening police if they knew they could get a lot worse than a couple of slaps. I realise this argument comes perilously close to sounding like a "gangsta" seeking "respec'" because they carry a weapon but I do believe that is better that police officers appear just the right side of intimidating rather than neutered lapdogs.

It does seem odd that we are practically the only country not to arm our police despite the fact that we clearly have a problem with gun crime. It seems a fairly certain fact that Raoul Moat for one could have been stopped far more quickly if the first officers on scene had been able to return fire. Again it boils down to the appropriate tools for the job. as a pre-emptive strike against the argument that arming police may cause unnecessary deaths I will say this. Firstly; most other countries have routinely armed police yet stories of gratuitous police killings are rather thin on the ground. Secondly; despite the flak they get, I think the vast majority of police officers on the front line are deeply responsible individuals who have a genuine vocation and are committed and motivated to carry out their responsibilities. Exactly not the sort of people you would expect to gratuitously shoot people. If they were, they could easily drive cars into them/hit them over the head with batons and all measure of other unpleasant things. They don't. To suggest our police force consists of mindless thugs is patronising and insulting.

Of course this one step won't solve all societies ills. We still need a judiciary prepared to hand our serious sentences for serious crime, a means of bringing cases to trial that doesn't protect the offenders and an ethos within senior police ranks that is focused on policing rather than political appeasement but it's a start and it would give the coppers on the street dealing with danger on a daily basis another way of protecting themselves and the public.

JR