As murder rate climbs, Chicago mayor makes ‘values’ appeal

[HankB]

I concur with De Selby. The British police do have armed units. They mostly keep their firearms at the armory back at their headquarters.

When I passed through Gatwick, British police traveled through the airport in pairs and were armed, with at least one of the pair carrying a slung submachinegun (it may have been SA rather than FA)  in addition to his sidearm.

[TommyGunn]

Have cop killings been a major issue in the UK, ever?

Why do UK cops need to be armed?

UK cops were known not to carry guns.  Over the twentieth century gun violence generally increased in England and the murder rate went up 150% in the twentieth century.  In more recent decades youth violence has become more of a problem and we increasingly have seen special squads of British police being armed.
I visited the UK twice in the 1980s and both times I saw police armed with submachineguns at Heathrow.  At that time you did NOT see that at American airports.  I haven't been to an American airport since 9/11/01 and don't really know what the TSA types carry there.
In the British Isles, an increasing problem with violent armed criminals means that, if you're a cop and want to be able to deal with this situation, having a gun is necessary.  Someone who is willing to put a bullet through your brain is probably not likely to acquiesce if you can only ask desperatly, "please don't murder me," but if that same officer has a handgun he atleast has a chance to off the badguy before he's "offed" by the badguy.
Clear now?
 

[MechAg94]

I don't mind the debate on whether police should be armed.  I am sure they would carry tasers and pepper spray anyway.

I am not sure criminals would disarm just because we disarmed police.  If rival gangs have guns, gangs won't disarm.  Also, since guns are likely considered "cool" in criminal cultures, I really don't think many criminals would disarm.  IMO, to change criminal gun ownership, it would require a culture change for criminals, not just police.  Perhaps if gun law enforcement focused more heavily on criminal ownership of guns rather than the legal trade and ownership, we could create that change more effectively.

Also, if you do disarm police, you WILL have incidents where a criminal guns down an unarmed officer where the officer saw it coming, but was unable to defend himself.  It will seriously affect how police interact and confront criminals.  How many times do you see footage where some guy with outstanding warrants pulls a gun and shoots at the cop just making a traffic stop.  I am not sure I like the idea of those people being able to take their time confident no one will shoot back.  Considering how spread out cops are in much of the country and how much ground they need to cover, I am not certain disarming all police is a very good solution.

[TommyGunn]

http://www.davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/lrstlupl.htm

He explains the reasoning there - disarming police appears, for whatever reason, to reduce incidences of armed crime.

Huh?  Kopel appears to be countering Professor Dixon's thesis here -- it is Dixon, not Kopel who seems to be "antigun."

[longeyes]

Mayor Emanuel has just underscored the immigrant-friendliness of his toddlin' town.  I'm sure this y'all-welcome policy will only improve things.

[Perd Hapley]

    

[Tallpine]

I've have no problem with police officers exercising their constitutional right to bear arms, just like the rest of us citizens 

[Ron]

Mayor Emanuel has just underscored the immigrant-friendliness of his toddlin' town.  I'm sure this y'all-welcome policy will only improve things.

The whole Chicagoland area is open to new immigrants and folks from other metropolitan areas looking for new opportunities!

http://www.policeone.com/gangs/articles/76128-Chicago-Police-Warily-Track-New-Violent-Gangs/

[roo_ster]

Why not?

I've have no problem with police officers exercising their constitutional right to bear arms, just like the rest of us citizens 

There is why.

[Perd Hapley]

I don't think of it as exercising a right, really, just a little good sense. It makes sense for the rest of us to carry guns for protection, so it makes sense for cops, too. If that encourages the bad guys to carry guns, then at least that means we have them a bit worried. Good for us.

[MicroBalrog]

UK cops were known not to carry guns.  Over the twentieth century gun violence generally increased in England and the murder rate went up 150% in the twentieth century.  In more recent decades youth violence has become more of a problem and we increasingly have seen special squads of British police being armed.
I visited the UK twice in the 1980s and both times I saw police armed with submachineguns at Heathrow.  At that time you did NOT see that at American airports.  I haven't been to an American airport since 9/11/01 and don't really know what the TSA types carry there.
In the British Isles, an increasing problem with violent armed criminals means that, if you're a cop and want to be able to deal with this situation, having a gun is necessary.  Someone who is willing to put a bullet through your brain is probably not likely to acquiesce if you can only ask desperatly, "please don't murder me," but if that same officer has a handgun he atleast has a chance to off the badguy before he's "offed" by the badguy.
Clear now?
 

So, how many police officers have been killed in the United Kingdom in 2010, per 100,000?
How has this number changed from, say, 1950?

That is to say, how likely is a British LEO to be murdered?

The answer of course is that the thread to British LEOs from actual murders is completely negligible.

In the year 2010, five British police officers have been killed in the line of duty. Every single one of them died in a traffic accident. Not one English cop had been murdered. NOT A SINGLE ONE. Source

In the year 2011 one British police officer had been murdered by a terrorist bombing (something you will hopefully agree a firearm would not protect against), two officers died of a heart failure on duty, and one died from an internal hemmorage.

http://www.policememorial.org.uk/index.php?page=roll-2011

It takes us until 2012 to have two police officers - TWO! - who died of gunshot wounds, though one of them died of the consequences of a wound inflicted in 2010.

http://www.policememorial.org.uk/index.php?page=roll-2012

Again: a police officer is a likely in England to just keel over and die of a heart attack on duty as he is to be shot dead.

Police murders in England have always been fantastically low source, but in fact they have actually been declining over the past two decades.

In other words: The average British civilian is actually spectacularly more likely to be murdered than a British police officer.

And indeed, British police officers overwhelmingly oppose arming the police. Thus say the polls.

[longeyes]

A peaceful isle, that.  Just make sure you're locked upstairs when the home invasion begins.

[MicroBalrog]

A peaceful isle, that.  Just make sure you're locked upstairs when the home invasion begins.

So what you're suggesting is to arm the police - who are broadly authorized to use force, even to shoot naked men in their own beds and to shoot people carrying chair legs - whose lives are not under threat in a major way, while keeping the people who are actually far more likely to be killed disarmed?

Arming on-duty police is nothing like just letting regular citizens carry guns for their own protection, it's a form of expanding the state's power to shoot and kill you. Excuse me if I'm not enthusiastic - and neither are actual people who live in that country.

Why should British police be armed and trained at taxpayer expense? What need does this fill?

[Tallpine]

I don't think of it as exercising a right, really, just a little good sense. It makes sense for the rest of us to carry guns for protection, so it makes sense for cops, too. If that encourages the bad guys to carry guns, then at least that means we have them a bit worried. Good for us.

I think you sorta missed the real point     

[JonnyB]

Micro - do you believe that disarming Chicago (or all American) police would result in:

a. Fewer officers shot in the line of duty?
b. More officers shot in the line of duty?
c. No change in the number?

If not "c.", then please explain.

President Lyndon Johnson and Defense Secretary McNamara believed that if they showed restraint in bombing Hanoi and the Haiphong harbor - where the Russian SAMs were arriving - then Ho Chi Minh would reciprocate, and not deploy those SAMs against American B-52s. They were sadly, stupidly mistaken in this belief.

jb

[MicroBalrog]

Micro - do you believe that disarming Chicago (or all American) police would result in:

a. Fewer officers shot in the line of duty?
b. More officers shot in the line of duty?
c. No change in the number?

If not "c.", then please explain.

President Lyndon Johnson and Defense Secretary McNamara believed that if they showed restraint in bombing Hanoi and the Haiphong harbor - where the Russian SAMs were arriving - then Ho Chi Minh would reciprocate, and not deploy those SAMs against American B-52s. They were sadly, stupidly mistaken in this belief.

I believe in neither of these things.

I believe that arming British police however, would show no tangible benefit.

I also think that the need for arming police in Chicago or Detroit is probably higher than to arm police in a small town. Indeed there are many small towns that could probably get away with abolishing their police departments entirely.

The modern notion that every town needs a police department, and that police departments need M113s, helicopters, drones, SWAT teams is not as sensible as it appears.

[longeyes]

Militarizing the police goes hand in hand with infantilizing the masses.

[Perd Hapley]

http://www.davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/lrstlupl.htm

He explains the reasoning there - disarming police appears, for whatever reason, to reduce incidences of armed crime.

I presume you are referring to part A. I didn't read the rest of it, or the footnotes. Kopel doesn't claim that disarming police reduces armed crime. Like you said in your earlier post, Kopel claimed that criminals are less likely to arm themselves if the police are not armed in the first place. But he did not say it was "the single biggest factor." I believe he called it an "important factor." He also seemed to be saying that, in Britain, the criminals started the arms race by shooting some police officers in the 1960s.

Thanks for bringing up that interesting article, though. I wonder if crime stats in Britain would change that analysis, in the present, compared to 1993.

[TommyGunn]

So, how many police officers have been killed in the United Kingdom in 2010, per 100,000?
How has this number changed from, say, 1950?

That is to say, how likely is a British LEO to be murdered?

The answer of course is that the thread to British LEOs from actual murders is completely negligible.

In the year 2010, five British police officers have been killed in the line of duty. Every single one of them died in a traffic accident. Not one English cop had been murdered. NOT A SINGLE ONE. Source

In the year 2011 one British police officer had been murdered by a terrorist bombing (something you will hopefully agree a firearm would not protect against), two officers died of a heart failure on duty, and one died from an internal hemmorage.

http://www.policememorial.org.uk/index.php?page=roll-2011

It takes us until 2012 to have two police officers - TWO! - who died of gunshot wounds, though one of them died of the consequences of a wound inflicted in 2010.

http://www.policememorial.org.uk/index.php?page=roll-2012

Again: a police officer is a likely in England to just keel over and die of a heart attack on duty as he is to be shot dead.

Police murders in England have always been fantastically low source, but in fact they have actually been declining over the past two decades.

In other words: The average British civilian is actually spectacularly more likely to be murdered than a British police officer.

And indeed, British police officers overwhelmingly oppose arming the police. Thus say the polls.

Micro, I'm not sure police murders are necessarily the criteria the Brits go by.  For some bizarre reason, they now seem to feel that it is a wise thing to  have a certain squad of officers armed with guns available in many of their cities.  
Maybe they use them for planters.
Or maybe they feel that the increasing violence they are facing merits the arms.

Has it entered your mind to do your own research?  Maybe if you write Scotland Yard some information geek will be good enough to help.  

[De Selby]

I've have no problem with police officers exercising their constitutional right to bear arms, just like the rest of us citizens 

Doing so in a personal capacity is no problem - it's when they're agents of the government that I think we should question what they can and can't do.

Removing instant lethal force as an option would understandably change the way they approach policing, and I'm not convinced it would be for the worse. 

Obviously there are valid arguments for arming police; my view is that we should take seriously the alternative and study it.

[Tallpine]

Doing so in a personal capacity is no problem - it's when they're agents of the government that I think we should question what they can and can't do.

Removing instant lethal force as an option would understandably change the way they approach policing, and I'm not convinced it would be for the worse. 

Obviously there are valid arguments for arming police; my view is that we should take seriously the alternative and study it.

I must give up being subtle 

[MechAg94]

I believe in neither of these things.

I believe that arming British police however, would show no tangible benefit.

I also think that the need for arming police in Chicago or Detroit is probably higher than to arm police in a small town. Indeed there are many small towns that could probably get away with abolishing their police departments entirely.

The modern notion that every town needs a police department, and that police departments need M113s, helicopters, drones, SWAT teams is not as sensible as it appears.

My experience of small towns (I grew up near one) is that the same stuff happens that happens in big cities.  It is just a smaller population and the murders and stuff don't happen every day.  You still have the drugs and robberies and all that stuff.  I guess the residents are more likely to be armed at least down here. 

[Matthew Carberry]

First off, my first mental picture of what Mayor Rahm was suggesting was of Gangster Disciple Wayne and Vice Lord Garth having a friendly shootout in the middle of the street then, when a kid walked by, yelling "game off" and relaxing until the kid rounds the corner, at which they yell "game on" and go back to bustin' caps.  

What DeSelby is saying (I think), and what seems to be being missed is that if you have an armed populace, who are able to defend themselves with deadly force when force is used against them, as it was in the early days of policing, even in England, criminals will be less likely to attempt violent crimes because their victims will be able to oppose them if they do.

When cops were off duty they could be armed like anyone else.

The corollary to that, again before the police/criminal arms race began, is that at that time cops were primarily "peace officers" not "law enforcers."  They corraled drunks, ran kids off of lawns, were "good witnesses" with formal training and legal credibility, thus deterring merely by visible presence (which is all cops on patrol do, even when armed, 90% of the time), and took reports after crimes were committed.  Nothing in their job description particularly -required- violent interaction with criminals and the criminals, realizing that resisting a cop had serious consequences above whatever non-violent crime they might have committed, for the most part went quietly.

Private citizens handled most violent criminals at the point and time of crime commission and officially sanctioned posses or specialist (and rare) armed cops tracked down and handled the ones who got away.

Contrast the Northfield Raid response in 1876 and its denoument with the road bandit bank jobs of the '20s and '30s with the LA shootout.

[Jim147]

I believe in neither of these things.

I believe that arming British police however, would show no tangible benefit.

I also think that the need for arming police in Chicago or Detroit is probably higher than to arm police in a small town. Indeed there are many small towns that could probably get away with abolishing their police departments entirely.

The modern notion that every town needs a police department, and that police departments need M113s, helicopters, drones, SWAT teams is not as sensible as it appears.

I'm just outside of one of those small towns without a police force.

What do we do? We leave the keys in the car with the windows down, the house is unlocked with a bunch of electronics and firearms if you know where to look. My work shop, with at current prices has well over a thousand dollars in refrigerant in it, is really a large open fronted building without a door to even close or lock. I would hate to replace the tools in it at current prices.


There are few unarmed houses here. And fewer people that don't look after their neighbor. I know there are bad people here. They just tend to look elsewhere for the easy targets.

If we happen to see a Sheriff car making a run to the far southwest end of the county, we wave.

jim

[Perd Hapley]

What DeSelby is saying (I think), and what seems to be being missed is that if you have an armed populace, who are able to defend themselves with deadly force when force is used against them, as it was in the early days of policing, even in England, criminals will be less likely to attempt violent crimes because their victims will be able to oppose them if they do.

When cops were off duty they could be armed like anyone else.

The corollary to that, again before the police/criminal arms race began, is that at that time cops were primarily "peace officers" not "law enforcers."  They corraled drunks, ran kids off of lawns, were "good witnesses" with formal training and legal credibility, thus deterring merely by visible presence (which is all cops on patrol do, even when armed, 90% of the time), and took reports after crimes were committed.  Nothing in their job description particularly -required- violent interaction with criminals and the criminals, realizing that resisting a cop had serious consequences above whatever non-violent crime they might have committed, for the most part went quietly.

Private citizens handled most violent criminals at the point and time of crime commission and officially sanctioned posses or specialist (and rare) armed cops tracked down and handled the ones who got away.

Contrast the Northfield Raid response in 1876 and its denoument with the road bandit bank jobs of the '20s and '30s with the LA shootout.

Ah ha. Now that someone is taking the focus off of the equipment on the cop's belt, we're getting somewhere.