Port of Tilbury-Police Constable

[Fedster + 1,307]

The question of routine arming is a 'hearts and minds things', says firearms instructor.

Black Rock shooting range

The heightened terror threat across the country is reshaping the nature of armed policing amid a firearms recruitment crisis, a leading instructor has warned.

Firearms training manager at Black Rock training centre in Portishead, Bristol Sergeant Tony Henley, has called for a review into how firearms roles can be made an “attractive option” and raised concerns officers no longer see the specialism as a career path.

“What’s going to make the job attractive, because actually on the face of it it’s not the most attractive job unless your ego based," he said. 

“We are going into situations other people are running away from.

"That has always been the case but we’ve always dominated in firearms. We teach officers to be dominant so we don’t have to shoot people and we overwhelm them with our tactics and our numbers.

“What we’re seeing are various situations where that isn’t the case - we’re actually going [in] and could be overwhelmed. The odds are different especially if you go in with IDs [improvised destructive devices].

“It’s that uncertainty that is changing the way people are thinking about the role now because actually, I’m not saying we’re outgunned or outclassed, but the odds have changed.

“We need to make it a more attractive option - there’s a shortage in firearms and firearms instructors.”

He added he is concerned firearms is “not necessarily a career option anymore”.

“We have ended up with people who maybe want to do a few years and then move on to something different and that’s a real concern because you have to know the business.

“My fear is we won’t have the experience. It needs to be an attractive option - I don’t want to get too political - but that is not necessarily the case now. Do we feel fully supported by the government? Me personally, probably not.”  

In May the NPCC lead for firearms, Deputy Chief Constable Simon Chesterman, admitted many officers are put off because they are worried they will be treated as suspects rather than officers just doing their job during post incident investigations.

He also revealed police chiefs in rural forces are considering routine arming to help improve response times in local communities.

Sgt Henley was unable to confirm whether routine arming is on the cards for Avon and Somerset officers but said the reluctance of frontline officers to carry arms could present a barrier to the proposals even if rubber-stamped by chief constables.

“Do we need more armed officers on the streets? When you look at some of the attacks, in Nice for example, it was their standard police who were routinely armed who could engage with that.

 “So there is an argument for that.

“Whether the police service as a whole would want that, that’s down to the individual officers. If we did a  survey and said do you all want to be armed I think we’d get a high proportion who wouldn’t.

“It does change the face of policing.

“There’s a social challenge for every member of the public around what do they want from their police service and understanding how things have changed. It’s not as it used to be.

“It’s a hearts and a minds thing. We have to bring the public along with us because ultimately we police with consent. We don’t run a dictatorship.”

But he added the question of routine arming doesn’t have to be a “black and white situation” and suggested officers could be trained to fire a gun but would carry firearms only during critical threat alerts or police could make greater use of military assets.   

Sgt Henley described himself as a proponent for a national firearms service.

“I’m going to make a big assumption here - the public probably does not actually care which force you belong to.

"What you are interested in is having an officer that can provide the service they need. They don’t care how we accomplish or do things - what they want is a service that makes them feel safer.”  

View On Police Oracle

 

 

[MajorDisaster + 579]

“What’s going to make the job attractive, because actually on the face of it it’s not the most attractive job unless your ego based," he said. 

 

I suspect what he really said was ...unless you're ego based, but hey, who cares?   [me actually]

[Zulu 22 + 4,571]

I can understand the reluctance. I handed in my ticket because I was disgusted at the lack of support from above. I thought that my actions might make them think a little, unsurprisingly it did not.

[Indiana Jones + 1,082]

“What’s going to make the job attractive, because actually on the face of it it’s not the most attractive job unless your ego based," he said. 
 
I suspect what he really said was ...unless you're ego based, but hey, who cares?   [me actually]

That's the first thing I noticed too.

[IrateShrike + 1,847]

The article raises some good points.

Sgt Henley modestly says that he is making a 'big assumption' but I suspect deep down he knows he is right.  The every day member of society who wants to go about their business lawfully really doesn't care if police are armed, as long as they can effectively help them when the need arises.  Innocent people who don't wish to stand in the way of the police doing their job genuinely have nothing to fear if police are armed.

[junior_7178 62]

I think before we all get a gun, lets all get a tazer and see how that works.

[IrateShrike + 1,847]

47 minutes ago, junior_7178 said:

I think before we all get a gun, lets all get a tazer and see how that works.

Taser manufacturers state that a police officer should not be equipped with Taser alone without a conventional firearm.  It should be available as an option to de-escalate from lethal to less lethal use of force.

Edited July 24, 2018 by Lone Wolf

[Growley + 2,436]

51 minutes ago, junior_7178 said:

I think before we all get a gun, lets all get a tazer and see how that works.

5 minutes ago, Lone Wolf said:

Taser manufacturers state that a police officer should not be equipped with Taser alone without a conventional firearm.  It should be available as an option to de-escalate from lethal to less lethal use of force.

 

Nobody really wants to say it, but I honestly think if you're not prepared to carry the equipment you need to deal with lethal threats, then you're not prepared to do the job of a Police officer. Equally, if somebody is not fit to be trusted with a firearm, then we should consider whether we want those people in the job.

Response officers regularly get by on a mixture of sheer luck and bravery, and frankly it's unacceptable. We should absolutely have less lethal options, and we should absolutely prefer to use them over lethal force, but we should absolutely have the ability to defend ourselves with lethal force if we need to.

[Billy Blue Tac 170]

1 hour ago, Growley said:

if you're not prepared to carry the equipment you need to deal with lethal threats, then you're not prepared to do the job of a Police officer. Equally, if somebody is not fit to be trusted with a firearm, then we should consider whether we want those people in the job.

Hmm.  There are many reasons why an officer cannot / should not be an AFO.

Off the top of head: uncorrected vision below minimum levels, some forms of colour blindness, inability to pass the training due to lack of manual dexterity, or failing re-qualification requirements due the inability to shoot straight.

None of these on their own make an officer untrustworthy, unprofessional or unfit for other (unarmed) duties.

[Ether + 1,395]

5 minutes ago, Billy Blue Tac said:

Hmm.  There are many reasons why an officer cannot / should not be an AFO.

Off the top of head: uncorrected vision below minimum levels, some forms of colour blindness, inability to pass the training due to lack of manual dexterity, or failing re-qualification requirements due the inability to shoot straight.

None of these on their own make an officer untrustworthy, unprofessional or unfit for other (unarmed) duties.

Many more reasons why officers can be armed than not. 

Modernise or die out like a dinosaur 

[Billy Blue Tac 170]

22 minutes ago, Funkywingnut said:

Many more reasons why officers can be armed than not. 

^^^

Of course there can, and I never said there wasn't.

What I said was that not being armed does not necessarily make an officer untrustworthy.

Edited July 24, 2018 by Billy Blue Tac

[Ether + 1,395]

4 minutes ago, Billy Blue Tac said:

Of course there can, and I never said there wasn't.

What I said was that not being armed does not necessarily make an officer untrustworthy.

I ageee with that. 

But not wanting to be armed isn’t sufficient, or using ‘I didn’t sign up to be armed’.  

[Billy Blue Tac 170]

18 minutes ago, Funkywingnut said:

I ageee with that. 

 

As long as we're in an agreeable mood I'll let the dinosaur quip slide.

(LOL by the way)

[Growley + 2,436]

23 hours ago, Billy Blue Tac said:

Hmm.  There are many reasons why an officer cannot / should not be an AFO.

Off the top of head: uncorrected vision below minimum levels, some forms of colour blindness, inability to pass the training due to lack of manual dexterity, or failing re-qualification requirements due the inability to shoot straight.

None of these on their own make an officer untrustworthy, unprofessional or unfit for other (unarmed) duties.

When I said "not fit to be trusted", I was aiming more at the predictable and oft repeated counter-argument of "I know PC XYZ and I wouldn't trust him with a pen, let alone a gun".

That being said, if it were up to me I'd use firearms suitability as the threshold for joining the job. We can't reasonably do anything about people already in who aren't deemed suitable to carry firearms for medical/lack of competence reasons, but we can make sure all future recruits are suitable. 

[Zulu 22 + 4,571]

On ‎24‎/‎07‎/‎2018 at 20:16, Billy Blue Tac said:

As long as we're in an agreeable mood I'll let the dinosaur quip slide.

(LOL by the way)

Yes the quip was out of order and said more about the poster.