Should police force be routinely armed?

ysabel

/ˈɪzəˌbɛl/ pink 5
#1
Does routinely arming the police cause a spiral of violence or is a deterrent to criminal behavior?

In California, some people think it's the former. People have asked city council to disarm BART PD after an unarmed man was shot dead on a commuter train platform by a rapid-transit police officer.

Tuesday, January 20, 2009 By Anne Makovec

OAKLAND, CA (KGO) -- In Oakland, people enraged about the shooting of Oscar Grant appealed to the city council Tuesday night. They're asking it to pass a resolution to support disarming the BART police force.

It's a quieter demonstration than what we've seen protesting the killing of Oscar Grant, but the passion remains.

"Clearly, there's a huge and deeply-felt amount of rage and anger around this racist execution," said Yvette Felarca, from By Any Means Necessary.

And now these activists want to disarm BART Police.

"I don't feel safe going to BART now," said another protester.

"If BART Police didn't have guns, Oscar Grant may very well be alive today," said Felarca.

BART Director Tom Radulovich says it's possible.

"On the one hand, Tasers might work, but if we feel like there is a need for armed response, would we lengthen response times or could be create more chaos calling a lot more police forces with all different levels and abilities and training in responding?" said Radulovich.

The BART Board is the agency that could actually disarm its police, but the Oakland City Council is being asked to put pressure on BART. The response is mixed.

"They are a real police force that probably does need to carry arms in order to protect the general public," said Pat Kernighan, from the Oakland City Council.

"I also think we should look at training and use of force policies, as well," said Rebecca Kaplan, from the Oakland City Council.

Since the item wasn't on the agenda, the council didn't discuss it Tuesday night, prompting an outburst from a Black Panther in the crowd.

"When you see what happens in downtown Oakland get worse, then you going to be talking about it," said the Black Panther member.

The BART Board of Directors says it will hold a public meeting to talk about how the police department should be run. We can expect an announcement about when by the end of the week.

I don't think they're routinely armed here. However, in the case of the BART accident where police are seen putting Grant (victim) face-down on the ground (one of the officers kneels on Grant as another officer stands, tugs at his gun, unholsters it and fires a shot into Grant's back.), is it really an issue of him having a gun or just lack of training?
 

pro2A

Hell, It's about time!
#2
This is from Oakland, CA so it doesn't surprise me. I'll say it here like I have said many times before. It's the person not the gun. We have no clue why this officer shot the man. In America if there is a threat i.e. they reach into their pocket, jacket etc... that can be construed as a threat.

Do you really think disarming cops will make crime stop? They've already done it to law-abiding citizens...
 
#3
Police are pretty much useless if they're disarmed. A tazer works fine against one or two bad guys but against several of them then what? And it's really stupid to disarm everyone in society but the criminals who obviously don't give a shit whether the law says they can have weapons or not.
 

Bananas

Endangered Species
#4
Police are pretty much useless if they're disarmed.

Is there not more to a cops job than just shooting things? To say they are useless is a bit offensive to the police officers.

And it's really stupid to disarm everyone in society but the criminals
....and where do criminals come from?.......society! You arm society you are arming the criminal.

I disagree with what you say, it is stupid for society to have guns, be they law abiding citizens, criminals or even the regular police on the beat. You give criminals a green light to use excessive force and the weapons on a plate for them to do, the consequence is a perpetuating circle of violence and havok.
 

Nevyrmoore

AKA Ass-Bandit
#5
In America if there is a threat i.e. they reach into their pocket, jacket etc... that can be construed as a threat.
Hold up, I thought it went that police only allowed to fire on someone when they actively point a firearm at the officer or someone else?
 

PretzelCorps

Registered Member
#6
While I've admired British police for going unarmed, with respect to their own laws, I think it'd be a little counterproductive for American police to do so...

I think higher salaries and harder screening/personality tests would make for a better police service --> Make the job more desirable to attract more applicants, and pick the best of the best. A lot of police services allow too much aggression in.
 
#7
Bananas said:
Is there not more to a cops job than just shooting things? To say they are useless is a bit offensive to the police officers.
You know what, I should take that back, there's all kinds of domestic things they help solve. But dangerous matters like drug dealers, they can't do much if they have no weapons.

Bananas said:
....and where do criminals come from?.......society! You arm society you are arming the criminal.
Ever heard of getting weapons from other places? You think criminals and terrorists get their weapons from just America?

Bananas said:
I disagree with what you say, it is stupid for society to have guns, be they law abiding citizens, criminals or even the regular police on the beat. You give criminals a green light to use excessive force and the weapons on a plate for them to do, the consequence is a perpetuating circle of violence and havok.
Criminals don't give a shit about the law, whether cops have guns or not, they have a green light to do whatever.

Next I suppose you'll tell me the military doesn't need guns or weapons either?
 

Shwa

Gay As Fuck
V.I.P.
#8
The men and women of law enforcement are given the privilage to serve and protect us because they went through training and know the difference between right and wrong in most situations where regular people would clam up. Sending an officer out into the feild without a fire arm is the most deadly thing you can do to an office, it's pretty much asking for them to commit suicide, they are going into the unknown people!

Yes, the situation that was posted is very unfortunate and I'm sure there will be an investigation, but that doens't mean they should only carry firearms routinely.

~Shwa
 

Merc

Certified Shitlord
V.I.P.
#9
Yeah, that'd be an awesome idea. Let's disarm police while the illegal gun trade is as active lucrative as it's ever been.

And people wonder why I have such little faith in humanity.
 

BigBob

Registered Member
#10
This is from Oakland, CA so it doesn't surprise me. I'll say it here like I have said many times before. It's the person not the gun. We have no clue why this officer shot the man. In America if there is a threat i.e. they reach into their pocket, jacket etc... that can be construed as a threat.

Do you really think disarming cops will make crime stop? They've already done it to law-abiding citizens...
What about the guy that got shot and killed by a police officer because the cop was chasing a black man and another black male was on his porch so the officer shot him because, uh oh.. he thought it was the same guy. Was that that guys fault for getting killed? Don't give me the "Yeah, he should've went back in the house when the cop was coming.." bullshit either.