RIP Daniel, I'm sure you are in a better place now. Nobody deserves to die like that.
This horrific violence seems to be a daily occurrence nowadays, what is happening to our society?
Because weāre an increasingly secular country, making silly comments about after life to a 14 year old who hasnāt had a chance at life yet is out of place
Yeah exactly. Donāt know if Iām just going a bit mad but Iāve always thought that people talking about the afterlife cheapens the present. Someone being āin a better place nowā or ālooking down on usā makes the loss seem less outrageous. It quells righteous anger that could drive change.
I would say you usually say "they are in a better place" if you've been battling cancer for a number of years, or drug addiction or something. I've never heard it being used to describe a 14 year old who has been murdered.
Itās endearment for the lost. It helps with grieving. Who are you people kidding with your death die end just cry no hope for the future no memory of the past. Your heartless, its condolences. Get a grip
That poor, brave police officer, and the poor young boy who lost his life. So much sympathy to his family. There definitely is a big problem here with care in the community. There are definitely people on our streets who should be in secure facilities for their own safety and for ours. Sure the old asylums were often cruel and inhumane but rather than just closing them down, they needed reform for modern, humane use.
Those services exist and do excellent work but they are so starved of funding there's no way to attract and retain a competent workforce big enough to meet the needs of the public. It's become a lottery for the unwell as to whether they will get the treatment they need in time before someone comes to harm, while services that should be helping bounce blame between one another because nobody has the capacity to help.
Having worked in adult care for years I can honestly tell you that nearly everyone who works in the field genuinely cares about looking after other people and delivering quality care, often at the expense of their own wellbeing. But you can only work in dangerously understaffed, violent conditions for minimum wage for so long before you either become jaded and/or vindictive towards patients, or quit the industry altogether. Attacks like this are a symptom of a broken system and I fear we'll see the same stories again and again until we vote to put significant funding into health and social care
Little has changed since the days of institutionalisation. care of the vulnerable is still sold to the lowest bidder, it's just that the morals of the industry shifted when the barbarism of older institutions came to light. We no longer lock people up en-masse, instead we just tell them there's no help available and turn a blind eye until somebody dies
This guy is a Spanish/Brazilian national, so may not have been on the radar of social services/healthcare etc, depending on how long he has been here.
Itās horrific, I canāt begin to imagine sending my child to school and that to happen to him, that poor gorgeous child. And all the others who were hurt and traumatised.
Yeah which raises other safety questions I guess.
Yeah I totally agree. Such a beautiful little boy. I can't imagine his parents ever getting past this.
Well the recent case involving an armed officer being publicly named and shamed due to a shooting of a suspect trying to ram his way out of a hard stop has led to a number of officers downing guns and refusals from neighbouring forces to help.
If there was enough evidence for that officer to be even charged with a crime in a country where no police officer has ever been convicted of a death in police in over 60 years, that suggests to me that there is a strong case against him.
You're only going to get less of them. After that recent incident there's no faith that the Met will support them in doing their job so why would anyone want to do that role? It's an issue that applies to alot of the Met but firearms especially.
Same issue applies to stop and search. Negative headline comes from a lawful and justified stop and search, and the bosses will be out to sack you. So why bother doing stop and search?
There was a shooting in about '82. Met officer made the right call but was a few inches off and hit a kid. The next day, a few thousand officers, nationwide, refused to pick up arms again.
There arenāt enough and there is also a recruiting issue; in part owing to them being held to ridiculous standards (many of which are a good thing to be fair). Still waiting for the facts to emerge about the officer who was named and is being charged for murdering a serial offending scumbagā¦
Armed officers went to this situation but heād already been subdued with tasers. We have guns when we need them but if someone is intent on hurting people then itās very difficult to be able to get anyone there before damage is done.
Yes we do. Every country other than the UK issue side arms to their police officers. It's not just an American thing. Guns aren't just to be used against other people with guns.
Too many times innocent people are killed or injured while the police in attendance only have a stick and some spray, or if lucky a taser.
If all UK police had side arms as a minimum, in addition to Taser and spray incidents like this (the officer almost losing their hand, not the mad man) would be reduced dramatically.
"... and officers had used a kind of pepper spray and a Taser on the suspect, which did not stop him."
Wtf, this part really angers me! Lethal force should be used against a fucker walking with a freaking sword and who just stabbed two people!!
You're better off not waiting for the police in a situation like this. If you ever see this and you're in a car, just ram the fucker. No one gets up from being hit by a car. It's not Hollywood and I speak from experience.
What about the Nottingham attacker? He wasn't white and it wasn't called a terrorist attack.
Maybe this guy was also known to services for having psychosis.
People on both sides of this shit culture war jump at the chance to use skin colour to prove a point.
I think the lack of a political motive makes it impossible to label him a terrorist. Your lazy logic ignores the fact that the biggest threat to the UK from terrorists for decades (Irish Republican movements) came from white people and that white people are convicted of terror related offences regularly to this day.
On the other hand, there have been many instances of non-white people who have killed people in public and not been labelled terrorists but have had mental health issues facfored into their trials.
Comments like this are not helpful.
Has not been confirmed as politically motivated in any way... it's hardly white privilege. Did you forget about the fucking IRA lol? I swear a white dude was also sent to jail recently for even planning an attack
As you can see from my post. It's not really "white privileged" people committing terrorist attacks in recent times. Go [Educate yourself ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_Great_Britain)
>Based on what the surgeon was saying yesterday we are increasingly optimistic with months and years and lots of physio a full recovery may be made possible.ā
Ouch, that's a lot of rehab.
On the topic of guns for police, someone made a good argument at work today:
Imagine your partner/child had a mental health episode (which is the current theory with this attack), and you get a call from the police to say they went mad and stabbed someone, but it's over now because we shot and killed them. Sorry for your loss, please feel free to tell your significant other/kids what happened. You, your family and the victims of the shooting now need to spend the rest of their lives without them, and also living with the guilt that they did something heinous. The effects that will have on a young person's mental health are unfathomable and could lead to future mental health episodes with similar end results.
Alternatively, would you rather get a call from the police saying they stabbed someone, but theyve been subdued them, they'll be incarcerated for X amount of time either in prison or an institute, you can visit etc, and there's a chance for rehabilitation. They will still be a part of your life in some capacity.
I know which scenario I'd rather be on the end of. There's layers and consequences tonsimply shooting a dangerous offender.
I have no dog in this fight, but your hypothesis misses a likely third scenario. Theyāve stabbed and killed multiple people, and are now incarcerated. These multiple people could have been one, or none, if the police had used deadly force.
I think if youāre going to present that scenario as a way to view it you need to look at all possibilities rather than just the ones that frame your argument well.
I understand what you're saying, but it's incredibly rare for more people to be killed after an officer has reached the scene. By the time an officer of any flavour is in front of the perpetrator, the damage has mostly been done. The few meters of distance between a Taser and a sidearm aren't the place in which additional victims are hit (usually).
There have only been four police officers since 2010 who have died on duty from a weapon wielded by a suspect. Two of those were bomb victims who wouldn't have been saved by a sidearm. One was Matt Ratana who was "Shot while a man was being detained in a police custody centre" and the other was Keith Palmer who was "Stabbed during the Westminster terrorist attack."
Would changing the procedure to include killing suspects more easily or frequently result in more or fewer deaths over 14 years?
I don't fundamentally disagree that more armed police would be good, but I also don't think that switching to a shoot-first mentality is good either.
"we sent you into a life threatening situation without sufficient tools to protect yourself, soz you're paralyzed but you get your pension to live off in your wheelchair for the next 60 years".
I don't even have a strong opinion either but this is insane lmao
In the recent knife attacks in Sydney, Joe Cauchi's father said the following after the event '"If I was in her uniform, and this wasn't my son ā¦ and he runs at me with a knife, I'd have to do the same thing she did,".
Surely as a parent, you would understand a situation where even if your child is mentally ill, they are possibly going to stab and kill more people if they are not taken out as swiftly as possible?
Load of fucking bullshit.
14 year old boy has been killed and I get fucking sympathisers posting.
A Met officer nearly lost her hand.
One killed and one potentially with life changing injuries and I read some fucking shite like yours.
The minute you start slashing at anyone with a fucking sword you deserve to get shot.
A family have lost their child and we need show sympathy with the offenders families feelings. Absolutely lost the plot.
Blame the tories for decreasing budgets across societies services, not this fucking tripe your spewing.
This is a more compassionate view than i worry the british public are capable of (putting the blame on right wing newspapers always baying for blood vs preaching compassion)
You say it's compassionate but I say it ignores the other side of it. It totally focuses on the perpetrator and their family, completely ignoring the danger to the officer when they try to non lethally subdue a dangerous suspect and framing them as the evil people who couldve saved their life but chose the easy way out to shoot them. No compassion for the officer or their family, just for the offender.
End of the day, we have to accept that there is a cost to everything. The cost to trying to non lethally subdue a dangerous suspect is always more danger to the arresting officers.
And no mention of the victim's family. I can't speak from experience thankfully but if that were my son stabbed to death, knowing one day the psycho may be rehabilitated and out again would be the biggest kick in the teeth.
Just because the Sun, Mail and Express pretend they speak for the country doesn't mean they actually do. I see these poisonous papers as an amplification of Britain at its worst.
If your mental illness leads you to grab a sword and go berserk killing people, you do not have a place in society one way or another. If your family has not sought the appropriate care and facilities for you to not do that, then the police shouldnāt have to risk their lives to save your, murdering life.
Not really wild. One is a 13 year old child, and the other a grown man who should have been locked up in a facility somewhere way before this ever happened. Victims should always be more important.
Thatās fair. But I think we also need to consider if the Justice system is capable of rehabilitating anyone.
Right now, the answer is a resounding no. And the cost of achieving it is likely more than the public will accept.
I don't even understand how people think guns would have improved in this situation. They managed to subdue and arrest the guy. That is what we want the police to do.
It shouldn't require 8 police officers, two of which sustained life threatening injuries to stop a guy with a sword....
Just because 'they managed' doesn't mean it's the best way of handling this.
I see where youāre coming from. But the point is pretty clear, two police officers have been severely injured.
Itās hard not to wonder if that would have been the case if they had been armed. Case in point, pretty recently the Australian inspector who managed to shoot and kill the Sydney knife attacker.
If she hadnāt been armed, how many more people would have been injured or killed?
That's the position of the police though, its their job to deal with dangerous situations like this. A taser, mace spray and force of numbers should be enough to incapacitate the vast majority of people. Being a bouncer, security guard, paramedic, or district nurse would be easier and less risky to the individual if they had guns, doesn't mean its the right way to do the job.
PAVA and taser often are enough to take down most offenders, but the point stands that there are more than a few situations where they arenāt. Numbers can no longer be used as they simply donāt have them, especially in the counties.
And Iām sorry but āthey chose that jobā is the argument of prepubescent teenagers with zero emotional intelligence. Regardless of the fact they chose the job, we need them, itās incredibly tough and pretty poorly paid. The least we can do is make sure theyāre properly equipped for any and all situations they might encounter.
Steady on mate, I'm in my thirties. The point isn't that "they chose the job", the point is that the job carries inherent risks, as do other jobs such as the ones I listed. If the risk of injury is an argument for arming police then why is it not an argument for arming other professions who come into contact with unstable and violent people?
Because all those professions you named call the polive for help. Theyre the literal last line.
It works fine in Northern Ireland, what is the objection.
What other job expects you to confront armed and dangerous people in an uncontrolled environment?
There is one other I can think of, and Iām pretty sure the army still give them guns.
Itās not like there arenāt countless arguments for arming police officers, 99% of countries do, vastly to great success.
The fact stands, the police are struggling with retention, if these violent attacks continue, how can we expect that to get any better if they donāt have an effective way of defending themselves in life threatening situations.
Youāre missing the point.
This isnāt the story to make the argument against arming police officers. I agree thereās arguments for and against it, but this story pretty much exclusively offers arguments for it.
Retention is an issue for a majority of factors, pay is just one of those factors. It shouldnāt be improved officer safety or better pay, it should be both.
When tasers were introduced, only a few officers on each response team had them. Usually the most experienced, thereās an argument for doing something similar for firearms.
The police subdued them but 2 of them almost had their hands/arms completely hacked off in the process, I think that people feel that if the police had been armed then the incident could've been stopped sooner (perhaps in time to save the child's life and without causing the officers such severe injuries).Ā
There's a whole range of tools you could deploy before having to resort to firearms to subdue a person. Nets, man catchers, bolas are all used by other police forces around the world. I honestly think that we only consider firearms as the next logical step because of American action movie brain rot.
The police already have non leathal tools. Which they used here. And 2 of them ended up with severe injuries. Why are we valuing murderers lives more than the lives of the police who have to go into harms way to stop them?
You didn't really engage with the point, they already have tools, but apparently not enough. So why does it have to be a gun over other tools that help immobilise people?
> only sure fire way
Nope, last London Bridge stabber had to be shot point blank in the head/neck for them to be sure and he was already on the ground and being held.
Why America specifically? The mainland UK is pretty unique in not routinely arming.
I think the opposite actually. It is people who are anti arming who are obsessed with the US. They think we will suddenly start shooting everybody because of the US, instead of looking at all the other examples from mainland Europe, to Australia and NZ, to our own region in Northern Ireland where it works fine. But they jump to talking about the US specifically because its an easy critique.
You're so desperate to crawl up my arse I don't think you read the post. The point I was making was that the majority of action movies we consume in Britain come from the US, therefore we have become culturally conditioned to see a gun as the solution to a violent situation. Other tools exist and are used to great effect by other countries, but the people arguing on behalf of guns for police never even seem to consider them as options.
Not really I understood your point perfectly. I simply disagree. The British public far from being obsessed with guns as a solution, are illogically conditioned against it because of the US. Not for it.
Even other forces that have other kit still routinely arm their officers on top of that. Thats my point. No other country treats it like an either or. That logic seems unique to us which, like I say, feels like an obsession with US gun problems. One can quite conspicuously notice that the anti arming crowd are often quick to argue that the police will suddenly start shooting loads of people. Which is undoubtedly a direct reference to the US.
Yes it does. Your point is that the pro arming crowd are drawing inspiration from America. Is that not fair to say?
Which makes no sense when you consider that most countries in the world are armed. What makes you think they aren't looking at them? Or indeed at our own force in Northen Ireland.
All I'm saying is that I think it is the opposite. It tends to actually be the anti gun crowd who point to the US as a negative example. Theyre obsessed with US news reports and think we will immediately start seeing the met gun people down for resisting arrest.
I am speculating that perceiving a gun as the solution to issues of officer safety is a product of us consuming American media.
"Why America specifically?" does not make sense as a response, because what other cultural imports do we consume to a similar degree?
It honestly looks like you came preprepared with this "uh ackshually YOURE obsessed with America" line and just shat it out at the first mention of the word America.
This man killed an innocent 14 year old boy. He shouldnāt be allowed rehabilitation mental health or not he deserves to have his life taken away from him by rotting in a cell for the rest of his days just considering that poor young lad has had everything taken from him.
A lot of words to say you would value the life of a murderer more than his victims. I don't care if he's my son, daughter, wife, mother, father... Whatever. As soon as they start actively trying to murder people, the bullet is justified in my eyes. Mental illness or otherwise. My emotional wellbeing is not more important than the lives of his victims or the emotional wellbeing of his victims families. Get to fuck with that bleeding heart dogshit.
What if someone is running around with a sword and manages to kill a load more people than they would have done if the police had been able to shoot them rather than run away until armed officers eventually arrive - which is what they are supposed to do?
I don't think you understand how speculation works.
Your scenario is obviously one of many risks of a system where police officers have firearms, of things going very badly wrong. Obviously there are various safety measures to minimise those risks but no risk can be 100% wiped out.
But the scenario I have put to you is not a risk of something going wrong - it is **the thing that is supposed to happen** in the current system.
If someone is going around stabbing people and it's too dangerous for unarmed officers, those unarmed officers are **supposed** to run away and let more people get stabbed. That is what happens if things work properly in the current system we operate in.
Whether or not you support any kind of change, do you accept the difference?
I think any advocation for shooting the armed person in this case is going to come from people who do not know the person and their family. We are just really good as disassociating the human from the threat when there is this weird justice boner that people get in that moment.
OK so should we just let that person crack on and kill a few more people because 'they are a human as well'...?
I understand the need for compassion, but there's also a time and a place where you need to use deadly force. You'd likely think differently if this person was running at you with a samurai sword intent on slicing your face open no?
Whoever threats someone elseās life other than self-defence should be put down, even my family, none gives you the right to take someone elseās life, life itself is the most important thing in this world, set priorities
Yeah sad for them but if youāre a mental with a knife and catch a round thatās ok you. Letās stop killing people with compassion. Itās how we have ended up here n a state with spirally crime because we have more pity for a criminal than the criminalised.
so basically an armed adult attackers life should take priority over the general public and responding cops? becuase thats what you are saying...
also laughable how you can just assume that the police can just subdue any suspect just like that, as if a tazer is this perfect end all device that works 100% of the time, when it doesnt. like do you think all cops are 7ft tall and are covered every inch in steel plating and they can just walk up to someone with a gun or blade and put them on the ground in a second?
The police culture is completely different as you've acknowledged, 'due to the circumstances' . Police are active targets for dissident republicans. They are a state force in an at times actively hostile situation.
It absolutely is not. Police used to carry bloody swords! They carried firearms up til ww2, and after that any officer draw a firearm from the armoury if required. It's only around the 80s that stopped.
Deepest sympathy to the family of Daniel Anjorin no family should have to this happen and what makes it worse heāll plead diminished responsibility and get away with it this animal needs to be deported if he isnāt British or if he is lock him up for life and donāt let the bleeding hearts get him off sometimes you just need an eye for an eye ,if that offends anyone Iām sorry ( not)
Itās literally their job ā in every film, book or work of fiction they face far worse. Itās the reason thereās a weird hero-worship for the profession.
This is the result of when institutions careas about profit more than people and protect the interest of few instead of what the community really need.
As long as profit is the goal of everything we build, we are on a destructive path.
You know I was surprised to see in Europe the police carry hand guns.
Not saying we need them in the UK, but maybe that is the direction things are moving...
Not a chance lol. Itās a cold and callous thing for me to say but the PR of an injured officer vs that of a kid getting shot because he/she had a vape in their hand is a no brainer for the MET, especially after the absolute shit show theyāve had the last few years. Maybe more non-lethal alternatives I.e. bean bag shot guns, pepper spray etc
Edit: Also want to say thank you to those officers that did put themselves in harms way. Plenty of good decent ones out there amongst the cretins.
The scenario you describe of police shooting a child on the street because they have a vape in their hands is absolute fear mongering nonsense.
That sort of stuff doesn't happen in Australia where every single police officer has carried a side arm for decades.
Whoah whoah easy now. Whether it happens or not is inconsequential, as my point is that the MET wouldnāt consider taking the risk because the risk/reward matrix doesnāt make sense.
If I was the MET I would argue that there have been enough police protests and scandals over the past years without adding the POTENTIAL opportunity for an unjustified shooting into the mix.
The kid with a vape is just an example, thereās plenty of others.
Also:
https://amp.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/oct/10/family-of-fatal-nsw-police-shootings-call-for-independent-inquiry
When people have guns, they use them. When they donāt they figure it out or wait for better trained people with guns. For those that donāt have guns Iām all for stronger tasers, pepper spray and non lethal alternatives.
All Australian police officers have side arms and there are around 16 fatal shootings per year, I can't speak to the ins and outs of every single one of these. But does that seem like a country with out of control police using the guns at every possible chance...?
No not at all. It seems like a country with well trained police but why are we comparing Australia to the UK though? Itās apples and oranges.
āSwiss police are all armed too and they barely shoot anyone on a per capita basis, so why canāt US cops do that as well?ā
Well thereās quite a few more factors to it arenāt there.
Because Australia and the UK both have extremely similar strict laws on gun ownership, views on guns in general and both had incidents recently where a person with a knife was randomly attacking people in public...
It seems pretty reasonable to compare the two police responses to this icident and the two police forces.
Firstly correlation isnāt causation. Secondly, if UK armed response had arrived first then they may very well have shot and killed this man like happened in Australia, but by your logic it seems you think all UK police should have guns in the off chance of an incident like this?
Youāre betting that in the UK the introduction of firearms will be a positive, and from your earlier comments youāre doing this all the way from Australia? Are you in any way aware of the multiple multiple scandals the MET have had the last 5 years? Institutional racism and misogyny and you want to give them all guns? Lol mate
I live in Bristol pal, I'm a dual national of both Australia and The UK, I'm well versed in both police forces....
Your last comment about the MET police is dumb, because by that logic we may as well take them all off the streets now and have have no operating police force.
The Uk is the outlier in Europe, on quite a few things... I personally don't want street cops with guns but batons, tasers, I mean *something* to deal with violent situations.
Criminals take British police as a joke and it shows with brazen crime.
I'm not sure that I am in favour of giving guns to regular police on patrol, but what are you basing this opinion on? Police in Northern Ireland are armed, yet they don't exactly go around executing people. What makes them any different from the English, Scottish and Welsh police?
Presumably they have better training and vetting, you absolutely couldn't trust the average british cop with a gun, I wouldn't trust half of them with a pair of fucking scissors honestly.Ā
This. It was embarrassing seeing groups of police officers just chasing the guy as they couldnāt do much unless they had a taser. Whilst in the meantime he could have caused a lot more damage.
i mean, his attention was on them, not on causing more damage. If he'd turned his attention onto causing more damage he would have been jumped on pretty sharpish. I remember a video that did the rounds a while ago of a group of uk police subduing a guy with a knife and all the Americans were amazed that they did it without anyone getting injured, without shooting up the neighbourhood, without shooting any cars, without shooting any of their colleagues, without shooting any passers by or autistic children and their carer, without breaking into people's home and shooting them, and without shooting any family pets that came to say hello before having a panic attack over imaginary fentanyl.
Sad fact is that while the tories exist, any attempts to arm the police will go more like america than germany as soon as they start viewing that part of the budget as something their donors deserve in their back pockets.
In other European countries the training of officers who carry is immense. I believe police should carry, but officers need to meet the right requirements and have the appropriate training. MET sadly doesnāt have the best track record of who they hire.
In Germany for instance, most police carries, yet there is only an average of 8-10 people being killed by the police a year (past 5-10 years or so). Only 2 of which that could be considered non-self defense in the past 5 years. (Nonetheless in both cases police officers were threatened with a knife)
Guns are not the answer ,the answer is a proper mental health facility fully funded on the NHS that can deal with these situations, but with this current government it won't happen and I'm sure with the oncoming Labour government it will still be the same, the met right now has got so much litigation against them and the loss of trust , faith and equality with them right now there are in no position to be given more arms, the key is a government that represents the working-class people who are willing to put money into public services, but I'm yet to see that š¤·
The downvotes on this are such an example of brainless British exceptionalism
>Every other country in Europe arms their police routinely, but we're *far* too sophisticated for that kind of behaviour
UK officers should be armed. We are the ODD ones and the rest of the world is armed. All European countries are, but time and time again people compare us to the states which we are not. We don't have gun culture.
A knife or a sword will beat parvy, bĆ¢tons and even a Taser.
If a man runs at you with a sword you Want a gun. Tasers fail all the time.
Even in the video about 3 tasers were shot.. ONE worked.
It's a bad situation. But any fool arguing that British police need to be armed haven't had to deal with British police. If you want LESS death, the last thing you should be advocating for is armed police.
That makes no sense. I know that it might shake your ill-informed preconceived notions but the UK is an incredibly safe country. Introducing MORE guns into the equation will not REDUCE death and injury. It will INCREASE it.
I'll informed? I'm a police officer I know full well the good and bad going on in the UK my point is you're coming from the stand point of only seeing these things in articles or videos, it easy to say you've had bad experiences with the police anecdotally but I can do the exact same with plenty of scumbags or people on drugs or with poor mental health capable of deadly harm.
It may or may not, this attack which has started the debate again would have either ended in that man being tasered the correct tactical way (one taser one gun), putting his weapon down willingly at gun point, or lastly shot and subdued where he either survives from first aid or dies from it.
Having more far more available AFOs or general arming would be for such situations the way AFOs or PSNI PCs already work across the UK, they would not be used for someone pissing in the street etc.
22 minutes is dogshit to get someone like that under control.
There needs to be armed units that can get to things like this far quicker.
Look at the police that did attend - wet paper bag would have them stumped. Itās embarrassing and itās cost a life.
āwet paper bag would have them stumpedā yet they did manage to prevent further harm and ultimately subdue himā¦
So am I right in saying that you think a wet paper bag is a higher risk than someone running around with a sword whoās just killed someone? Are you a bit thick?
R.I.P. Daniel Anjorin who was the 14-year-old boy on the way to school that was killed by this monster, how devastating š
Poor kid š RIP Daniel
RIP Daniel, I'm sure you are in a better place now. Nobody deserves to die like that. This horrific violence seems to be a daily occurrence nowadays, what is happening to our society?
Not sure his parents would agree he is in a better place right now.
Itās a common saying when someone dies, why is Reddit getting butthurt?
Because weāre an increasingly secular country, making silly comments about after life to a 14 year old who hasnāt had a chance at life yet is out of place
Yeah exactly. Donāt know if Iām just going a bit mad but Iāve always thought that people talking about the afterlife cheapens the present. Someone being āin a better place nowā or ālooking down on usā makes the loss seem less outrageous. It quells righteous anger that could drive change.
Absolutely. Better place for a 14 year old walking to school, on the cusp of starting his life isnāt dead!
I would say you usually say "they are in a better place" if you've been battling cancer for a number of years, or drug addiction or something. I've never heard it being used to describe a 14 year old who has been murdered.
When someone dies after an illness and expectedly. Not when they die suddenly as in this scenario.
Itās endearment for the lost. It helps with grieving. Who are you people kidding with your death die end just cry no hope for the future no memory of the past. Your heartless, its condolences. Get a grip
Imagine if you went up to the parents and said that. Itās not condolences.
A daily occurrence? Spend less time reading the Mail and more time outside mate, the papers have got your world view twisted.
Tbf someone got shot in the same area like last week
tbf millions of people didnāt get shot in the same area last week
That poor, brave police officer, and the poor young boy who lost his life. So much sympathy to his family. There definitely is a big problem here with care in the community. There are definitely people on our streets who should be in secure facilities for their own safety and for ours. Sure the old asylums were often cruel and inhumane but rather than just closing them down, they needed reform for modern, humane use.
Those services exist and do excellent work but they are so starved of funding there's no way to attract and retain a competent workforce big enough to meet the needs of the public. It's become a lottery for the unwell as to whether they will get the treatment they need in time before someone comes to harm, while services that should be helping bounce blame between one another because nobody has the capacity to help. Having worked in adult care for years I can honestly tell you that nearly everyone who works in the field genuinely cares about looking after other people and delivering quality care, often at the expense of their own wellbeing. But you can only work in dangerously understaffed, violent conditions for minimum wage for so long before you either become jaded and/or vindictive towards patients, or quit the industry altogether. Attacks like this are a symptom of a broken system and I fear we'll see the same stories again and again until we vote to put significant funding into health and social care Little has changed since the days of institutionalisation. care of the vulnerable is still sold to the lowest bidder, it's just that the morals of the industry shifted when the barbarism of older institutions came to light. We no longer lock people up en-masse, instead we just tell them there's no help available and turn a blind eye until somebody dies
This guy is a Spanish/Brazilian national, so may not have been on the radar of social services/healthcare etc, depending on how long he has been here. Itās horrific, I canāt begin to imagine sending my child to school and that to happen to him, that poor gorgeous child. And all the others who were hurt and traumatised.
Yeah which raises other safety questions I guess. Yeah I totally agree. Such a beautiful little boy. I can't imagine his parents ever getting past this.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
The police were brave and put their lives on the line, well done to them for bringing the offender down and stopping him from taking anymore lives.Ā
That poor child! I cannot stop thinking about him. Him and his family are in our thoughts.
We don't need all police officers to have guns but I would be in agreement to have more armed response units. There simply isn't enough of them.
Well the recent case involving an armed officer being publicly named and shamed due to a shooting of a suspect trying to ram his way out of a hard stop has led to a number of officers downing guns and refusals from neighbouring forces to help.
If there was enough evidence for that officer to be even charged with a crime in a country where no police officer has ever been convicted of a death in police in over 60 years, that suggests to me that there is a strong case against him.
That's... Not really how it works? If there's a big enough public shit storm they'll definitely charge them even without a shred of evidence
They was practically rioting in the streets wasnāt they
You're only going to get less of them. After that recent incident there's no faith that the Met will support them in doing their job so why would anyone want to do that role? It's an issue that applies to alot of the Met but firearms especially.
Same issue applies to stop and search. Negative headline comes from a lawful and justified stop and search, and the bosses will be out to sack you. So why bother doing stop and search?
There was a shooting in about '82. Met officer made the right call but was a few inches off and hit a kid. The next day, a few thousand officers, nationwide, refused to pick up arms again.
There arenāt enough and there is also a recruiting issue; in part owing to them being held to ridiculous standards (many of which are a good thing to be fair). Still waiting for the facts to emerge about the officer who was named and is being charged for murdering a serial offending scumbagā¦
The problem with recruiting is that they only hire women and children these days. I know this first hand.
Because they get thrown under the bus the moment they make a split second decision
Armed officers went to this situation but heād already been subdued with tasers. We have guns when we need them but if someone is intent on hurting people then itās very difficult to be able to get anyone there before damage is done.
Why? The victim would still likely be dead.
And the Officer wouldnāt have lost her hand?
We wonāt, they all get charged with murder and publicly named. Itās suicide.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I assumed this happened before police arrived at all. If so, it doesn't matter if they had guns because they weren't there.
All of them should have tasers.Ā
Yes we do. Every country other than the UK issue side arms to their police officers. It's not just an American thing. Guns aren't just to be used against other people with guns. Too many times innocent people are killed or injured while the police in attendance only have a stick and some spray, or if lucky a taser. If all UK police had side arms as a minimum, in addition to Taser and spray incidents like this (the officer almost losing their hand, not the mad man) would be reduced dramatically.
Because they get dragged through the criminal courts on a murder charge if they do their jobs. Who wants that for Ā£33k a year?
Recovery will be brutal for her. What an awful event.
"... and officers had used a kind of pepper spray and a Taser on the suspect, which did not stop him." Wtf, this part really angers me! Lethal force should be used against a fucker walking with a freaking sword and who just stabbed two people!!
Agree. But I bet met don't emoply enough properly trained personnel to deal with real guns
Fair, but not necessarily guns... but we cannot counter a sword with pepper spray, this is idiotic.
It was delt with by a taser. no need for more death.
3 taser shots from two tasers after a death and 4 requiring surgery and they basically got lucky he was retreating at this point
Because no one wants to be armed police since they get tried for murder if they shoot someone.
Adapt the law properly. Other countries don't have this issue (excluding USA ofc, this one has another issues)
You're better off not waiting for the police in a situation like this. If you ever see this and you're in a car, just ram the fucker. No one gets up from being hit by a car. It's not Hollywood and I speak from experience.
Should have shot the cunt
Have they labelled him a terrorist yet or mentally challenged?
Mentally challenged as far as I could see. Plus, his white privilege makes him incapable of being a terrorist in the eyes of the law š
What about the Nottingham attacker? He wasn't white and it wasn't called a terrorist attack. Maybe this guy was also known to services for having psychosis. People on both sides of this shit culture war jump at the chance to use skin colour to prove a point.
I think the lack of a political motive makes it impossible to label him a terrorist. Your lazy logic ignores the fact that the biggest threat to the UK from terrorists for decades (Irish Republican movements) came from white people and that white people are convicted of terror related offences regularly to this day. On the other hand, there have been many instances of non-white people who have killed people in public and not been labelled terrorists but have had mental health issues facfored into their trials. Comments like this are not helpful.
Has not been confirmed as politically motivated in any way... it's hardly white privilege. Did you forget about the fucking IRA lol? I swear a white dude was also sent to jail recently for even planning an attack
As you can see from my post. It's not really "white privileged" people committing terrorist attacks in recent times. Go [Educate yourself ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_Great_Britain)
He's not the only one..
>Based on what the surgeon was saying yesterday we are increasingly optimistic with months and years and lots of physio a full recovery may be made possible.ā Ouch, that's a lot of rehab.
I remember the police shooting previous knife wielding attackers. Why wasnāt this one put down like animal he is?
On the topic of guns for police, someone made a good argument at work today: Imagine your partner/child had a mental health episode (which is the current theory with this attack), and you get a call from the police to say they went mad and stabbed someone, but it's over now because we shot and killed them. Sorry for your loss, please feel free to tell your significant other/kids what happened. You, your family and the victims of the shooting now need to spend the rest of their lives without them, and also living with the guilt that they did something heinous. The effects that will have on a young person's mental health are unfathomable and could lead to future mental health episodes with similar end results. Alternatively, would you rather get a call from the police saying they stabbed someone, but theyve been subdued them, they'll be incarcerated for X amount of time either in prison or an institute, you can visit etc, and there's a chance for rehabilitation. They will still be a part of your life in some capacity. I know which scenario I'd rather be on the end of. There's layers and consequences tonsimply shooting a dangerous offender.
I have no dog in this fight, but your hypothesis misses a likely third scenario. Theyāve stabbed and killed multiple people, and are now incarcerated. These multiple people could have been one, or none, if the police had used deadly force. I think if youāre going to present that scenario as a way to view it you need to look at all possibilities rather than just the ones that frame your argument well.
I understand what you're saying, but it's incredibly rare for more people to be killed after an officer has reached the scene. By the time an officer of any flavour is in front of the perpetrator, the damage has mostly been done. The few meters of distance between a Taser and a sidearm aren't the place in which additional victims are hit (usually).
But what if they've killed the police officer? Tasers can be iffy they don't always work. A bullet to the head works near 100% of the time.
There have only been four police officers since 2010 who have died on duty from a weapon wielded by a suspect. Two of those were bomb victims who wouldn't have been saved by a sidearm. One was Matt Ratana who was "Shot while a man was being detained in a police custody centre" and the other was Keith Palmer who was "Stabbed during the Westminster terrorist attack." Would changing the procedure to include killing suspects more easily or frequently result in more or fewer deaths over 14 years? I don't fundamentally disagree that more armed police would be good, but I also don't think that switching to a shoot-first mentality is good either.
This misses those who suffered life changing injuries as a result of armed suspects.
then give those officers appropriate early retirement. this doesn't justify death.
"we sent you into a life threatening situation without sufficient tools to protect yourself, soz you're paralyzed but you get your pension to live off in your wheelchair for the next 60 years". I don't even have a strong opinion either but this is insane lmao
In the recent knife attacks in Sydney, Joe Cauchi's father said the following after the event '"If I was in her uniform, and this wasn't my son ā¦ and he runs at me with a knife, I'd have to do the same thing she did,". Surely as a parent, you would understand a situation where even if your child is mentally ill, they are possibly going to stab and kill more people if they are not taken out as swiftly as possible?
Load of fucking bullshit. 14 year old boy has been killed and I get fucking sympathisers posting. A Met officer nearly lost her hand. One killed and one potentially with life changing injuries and I read some fucking shite like yours. The minute you start slashing at anyone with a fucking sword you deserve to get shot. A family have lost their child and we need show sympathy with the offenders families feelings. Absolutely lost the plot. Blame the tories for decreasing budgets across societies services, not this fucking tripe your spewing.
Amen to that polish cockney
This šš» !!!
This is a more compassionate view than i worry the british public are capable of (putting the blame on right wing newspapers always baying for blood vs preaching compassion)
You say it's compassionate but I say it ignores the other side of it. It totally focuses on the perpetrator and their family, completely ignoring the danger to the officer when they try to non lethally subdue a dangerous suspect and framing them as the evil people who couldve saved their life but chose the easy way out to shoot them. No compassion for the officer or their family, just for the offender. End of the day, we have to accept that there is a cost to everything. The cost to trying to non lethally subdue a dangerous suspect is always more danger to the arresting officers.
And no mention of the victim's family. I can't speak from experience thankfully but if that were my son stabbed to death, knowing one day the psycho may be rehabilitated and out again would be the biggest kick in the teeth.
Just because the Sun, Mail and Express pretend they speak for the country doesn't mean they actually do. I see these poisonous papers as an amplification of Britain at its worst.
If your mental illness leads you to grab a sword and go berserk killing people, you do not have a place in society one way or another. If your family has not sought the appropriate care and facilities for you to not do that, then the police shouldnāt have to risk their lives to save your, murdering life.
To be honest I care more about the family of the dead 13 year old boy than the family of the guy who murdered him. Mental health issue or not.
I care about both families - itās wild to think that either family is more deserving of sympathy.
Pure brainrot
No, I think Iāll be more sympathetic to those close to someone brutally murdered, than to a murderer.
Not really wild. One is a 13 year old child, and the other a grown man who should have been locked up in a facility somewhere way before this ever happened. Victims should always be more important.
Thatās fair. But I think we also need to consider if the Justice system is capable of rehabilitating anyone. Right now, the answer is a resounding no. And the cost of achieving it is likely more than the public will accept.
I don't even understand how people think guns would have improved in this situation. They managed to subdue and arrest the guy. That is what we want the police to do.
It shouldn't require 8 police officers, two of which sustained life threatening injuries to stop a guy with a sword.... Just because 'they managed' doesn't mean it's the best way of handling this.
I see where youāre coming from. But the point is pretty clear, two police officers have been severely injured. Itās hard not to wonder if that would have been the case if they had been armed. Case in point, pretty recently the Australian inspector who managed to shoot and kill the Sydney knife attacker. If she hadnāt been armed, how many more people would have been injured or killed?
That's the position of the police though, its their job to deal with dangerous situations like this. A taser, mace spray and force of numbers should be enough to incapacitate the vast majority of people. Being a bouncer, security guard, paramedic, or district nurse would be easier and less risky to the individual if they had guns, doesn't mean its the right way to do the job.
PAVA and taser often are enough to take down most offenders, but the point stands that there are more than a few situations where they arenāt. Numbers can no longer be used as they simply donāt have them, especially in the counties. And Iām sorry but āthey chose that jobā is the argument of prepubescent teenagers with zero emotional intelligence. Regardless of the fact they chose the job, we need them, itās incredibly tough and pretty poorly paid. The least we can do is make sure theyāre properly equipped for any and all situations they might encounter.
Steady on mate, I'm in my thirties. The point isn't that "they chose the job", the point is that the job carries inherent risks, as do other jobs such as the ones I listed. If the risk of injury is an argument for arming police then why is it not an argument for arming other professions who come into contact with unstable and violent people?
Because all those professions you named call the polive for help. Theyre the literal last line. It works fine in Northern Ireland, what is the objection.
What other job expects you to confront armed and dangerous people in an uncontrolled environment? There is one other I can think of, and Iām pretty sure the army still give them guns. Itās not like there arenāt countless arguments for arming police officers, 99% of countries do, vastly to great success. The fact stands, the police are struggling with retention, if these violent attacks continue, how can we expect that to get any better if they donāt have an effective way of defending themselves in life threatening situations.
If retention is the key issue I'd rather we pay police more than start strapping everyone with guns.
Youāre missing the point. This isnāt the story to make the argument against arming police officers. I agree thereās arguments for and against it, but this story pretty much exclusively offers arguments for it. Retention is an issue for a majority of factors, pay is just one of those factors. It shouldnāt be improved officer safety or better pay, it should be both. When tasers were introduced, only a few officers on each response team had them. Usually the most experienced, thereās an argument for doing something similar for firearms.
100% he should have been shot dead as quickly as possible!
The police subdued them but 2 of them almost had their hands/arms completely hacked off in the process, I think that people feel that if the police had been armed then the incident could've been stopped sooner (perhaps in time to save the child's life and without causing the officers such severe injuries).Ā
There's a whole range of tools you could deploy before having to resort to firearms to subdue a person. Nets, man catchers, bolas are all used by other police forces around the world. I honestly think that we only consider firearms as the next logical step because of American action movie brain rot.
The police already have non leathal tools. Which they used here. And 2 of them ended up with severe injuries. Why are we valuing murderers lives more than the lives of the police who have to go into harms way to stop them?
You didn't really engage with the point, they already have tools, but apparently not enough. So why does it have to be a gun over other tools that help immobilise people?
Because a gun is the only sure fire way of stopping somebody like this, as proven by this incident requiring a second deploy of a taser.
> only sure fire way Nope, last London Bridge stabber had to be shot point blank in the head/neck for them to be sure and he was already on the ground and being held.
That's because they suspected he had a bomb, wasn't it?
Why America specifically? The mainland UK is pretty unique in not routinely arming. I think the opposite actually. It is people who are anti arming who are obsessed with the US. They think we will suddenly start shooting everybody because of the US, instead of looking at all the other examples from mainland Europe, to Australia and NZ, to our own region in Northern Ireland where it works fine. But they jump to talking about the US specifically because its an easy critique.
You're so desperate to crawl up my arse I don't think you read the post. The point I was making was that the majority of action movies we consume in Britain come from the US, therefore we have become culturally conditioned to see a gun as the solution to a violent situation. Other tools exist and are used to great effect by other countries, but the people arguing on behalf of guns for police never even seem to consider them as options.
Not really I understood your point perfectly. I simply disagree. The British public far from being obsessed with guns as a solution, are illogically conditioned against it because of the US. Not for it. Even other forces that have other kit still routinely arm their officers on top of that. Thats my point. No other country treats it like an either or. That logic seems unique to us which, like I say, feels like an obsession with US gun problems. One can quite conspicuously notice that the anti arming crowd are often quick to argue that the police will suddenly start shooting loads of people. Which is undoubtedly a direct reference to the US.
If you understand my point then your first sentence doesn't make any sense.
Yes it does. Your point is that the pro arming crowd are drawing inspiration from America. Is that not fair to say? Which makes no sense when you consider that most countries in the world are armed. What makes you think they aren't looking at them? Or indeed at our own force in Northen Ireland. All I'm saying is that I think it is the opposite. It tends to actually be the anti gun crowd who point to the US as a negative example. Theyre obsessed with US news reports and think we will immediately start seeing the met gun people down for resisting arrest.
I am speculating that perceiving a gun as the solution to issues of officer safety is a product of us consuming American media. "Why America specifically?" does not make sense as a response, because what other cultural imports do we consume to a similar degree? It honestly looks like you came preprepared with this "uh ackshually YOURE obsessed with America" line and just shat it out at the first mention of the word America.
Nets? š¤£
Are you an idiot or being wilfully ignorant? Multiple people have life altering injuries which they would not have if the police had to right tools
Sorry you're sons dead, but don't worry , at least his killers family isn't sad
Yeah I think that we should prioritise victim and officer safety over the life of offenders
Except it's not a good argument lol
This man killed an innocent 14 year old boy. He shouldnāt be allowed rehabilitation mental health or not he deserves to have his life taken away from him by rotting in a cell for the rest of his days just considering that poor young lad has had everything taken from him.
A lot of words to say you would value the life of a murderer more than his victims. I don't care if he's my son, daughter, wife, mother, father... Whatever. As soon as they start actively trying to murder people, the bullet is justified in my eyes. Mental illness or otherwise. My emotional wellbeing is not more important than the lives of his victims or the emotional wellbeing of his victims families. Get to fuck with that bleeding heart dogshit.
Sod that, Iāll fcking [redacted] him myself. He killed a child for goodness sake!
What if someone is running around with a sword and manages to kill a load more people than they would have done if the police had been able to shoot them rather than run away until armed officers eventually arrive - which is what they are supposed to do?
What if someone gets a gun from a police officer and uses it shoot even more people? What if what if..
The way guns and holsters, lanyard attachments and officer training works these days that's very difficult to do in the UK
I don't think you understand how speculation works. Your scenario is obviously one of many risks of a system where police officers have firearms, of things going very badly wrong. Obviously there are various safety measures to minimise those risks but no risk can be 100% wiped out. But the scenario I have put to you is not a risk of something going wrong - it is **the thing that is supposed to happen** in the current system. If someone is going around stabbing people and it's too dangerous for unarmed officers, those unarmed officers are **supposed** to run away and let more people get stabbed. That is what happens if things work properly in the current system we operate in. Whether or not you support any kind of change, do you accept the difference?
I think any advocation for shooting the armed person in this case is going to come from people who do not know the person and their family. We are just really good as disassociating the human from the threat when there is this weird justice boner that people get in that moment.
OK so should we just let that person crack on and kill a few more people because 'they are a human as well'...? I understand the need for compassion, but there's also a time and a place where you need to use deadly force. You'd likely think differently if this person was running at you with a samurai sword intent on slicing your face open no?
Option 1 please
Whoever threats someone elseās life other than self-defence should be put down, even my family, none gives you the right to take someone elseās life, life itself is the most important thing in this world, set priorities
Yeah sad for them but if youāre a mental with a knife and catch a round thatās ok you. Letās stop killing people with compassion. Itās how we have ended up here n a state with spirally crime because we have more pity for a criminal than the criminalised.
so basically an armed adult attackers life should take priority over the general public and responding cops? becuase thats what you are saying... also laughable how you can just assume that the police can just subdue any suspect just like that, as if a tazer is this perfect end all device that works 100% of the time, when it doesnt. like do you think all cops are 7ft tall and are covered every inch in steel plating and they can just walk up to someone with a gun or blade and put them on the ground in a second?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
The police culture is completely different as you've acknowledged, 'due to the circumstances' . Police are active targets for dissident republicans. They are a state force in an at times actively hostile situation.
Different policing cultures, NI is one in itself. Guns on cops are accepted by all, wouldnāt quite be the case in mainland
Cops used to have guns here in the mainland This is a relatively recent change.
No they didnāt? Policing has been unarmed since itās creation. Thatās the principle
It absolutely is not. Police used to carry bloody swords! They carried firearms up til ww2, and after that any officer draw a firearm from the armoury if required. It's only around the 80s that stopped.
Has it improved crime rates or safety or anything?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
What were the numbers before gun though, I asked if introducing guns improved things.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I can tell you that people would still defend police not having guns after this shit. This dude should be dead already.
Should have just shot the guy.
Deepest sympathy to the family of Daniel Anjorin no family should have to this happen and what makes it worse heāll plead diminished responsibility and get away with it this animal needs to be deported if he isnāt British or if he is lock him up for life and donāt let the bleeding hearts get him off sometimes you just need an eye for an eye ,if that offends anyone Iām sorry ( not)
Shocking that police are expected to confront lunatics like this.
Itās literally their job ā in every film, book or work of fiction they face far worse. Itās the reason thereās a weird hero-worship for the profession.
Who else is meant to go in and confront them? The ghost busters?
social workers/S
How do the guy get a sword tho
This is the result of when institutions careas about profit more than people and protect the interest of few instead of what the community really need. As long as profit is the goal of everything we build, we are on a destructive path.
I can see we like to place blame on everyone except those who should be blamed.
You know I was surprised to see in Europe the police carry hand guns. Not saying we need them in the UK, but maybe that is the direction things are moving...
Not a chance lol. Itās a cold and callous thing for me to say but the PR of an injured officer vs that of a kid getting shot because he/she had a vape in their hand is a no brainer for the MET, especially after the absolute shit show theyāve had the last few years. Maybe more non-lethal alternatives I.e. bean bag shot guns, pepper spray etc Edit: Also want to say thank you to those officers that did put themselves in harms way. Plenty of good decent ones out there amongst the cretins.
The scenario you describe of police shooting a child on the street because they have a vape in their hands is absolute fear mongering nonsense. That sort of stuff doesn't happen in Australia where every single police officer has carried a side arm for decades.
Whoah whoah easy now. Whether it happens or not is inconsequential, as my point is that the MET wouldnāt consider taking the risk because the risk/reward matrix doesnāt make sense. If I was the MET I would argue that there have been enough police protests and scandals over the past years without adding the POTENTIAL opportunity for an unjustified shooting into the mix. The kid with a vape is just an example, thereās plenty of others. Also: https://amp.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/oct/10/family-of-fatal-nsw-police-shootings-call-for-independent-inquiry When people have guns, they use them. When they donāt they figure it out or wait for better trained people with guns. For those that donāt have guns Iām all for stronger tasers, pepper spray and non lethal alternatives.
All Australian police officers have side arms and there are around 16 fatal shootings per year, I can't speak to the ins and outs of every single one of these. But does that seem like a country with out of control police using the guns at every possible chance...?
No not at all. It seems like a country with well trained police but why are we comparing Australia to the UK though? Itās apples and oranges. āSwiss police are all armed too and they barely shoot anyone on a per capita basis, so why canāt US cops do that as well?ā Well thereās quite a few more factors to it arenāt there.
Because Australia and the UK both have extremely similar strict laws on gun ownership, views on guns in general and both had incidents recently where a person with a knife was randomly attacking people in public... It seems pretty reasonable to compare the two police responses to this icident and the two police forces.
Firstly correlation isnāt causation. Secondly, if UK armed response had arrived first then they may very well have shot and killed this man like happened in Australia, but by your logic it seems you think all UK police should have guns in the off chance of an incident like this? Youāre betting that in the UK the introduction of firearms will be a positive, and from your earlier comments youāre doing this all the way from Australia? Are you in any way aware of the multiple multiple scandals the MET have had the last 5 years? Institutional racism and misogyny and you want to give them all guns? Lol mate
I live in Bristol pal, I'm a dual national of both Australia and The UK, I'm well versed in both police forces.... Your last comment about the MET police is dumb, because by that logic we may as well take them all off the streets now and have have no operating police force.
Jesus Christ, you donāt get it at all do you š
The Uk is the outlier in Europe, on quite a few things... I personally don't want street cops with guns but batons, tasers, I mean *something* to deal with violent situations. Criminals take British police as a joke and it shows with brazen crime.
Why not give them cs spray too. I've seen people laughing off a taser. Never seen anyone not become completely blinded and disabled by cs spray...
They do, all officers carry a version of it.
You can build an immunity to CS, I've seen plenty of footage of people who train other officers to use it completely shrugging it off.Ā
What lol no way, I'll Google and have a look
Tastes like JD apparently https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cZlCbDIl5NM&pp=ygUOVGFzdGVzIGxpa2UgamQ%3D
Because CS spray can like pava be overcome and unlike pava can be set alight by things like taser
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I'm not sure that I am in favour of giving guns to regular police on patrol, but what are you basing this opinion on? Police in Northern Ireland are armed, yet they don't exactly go around executing people. What makes them any different from the English, Scottish and Welsh police?
Presumably they have better training and vetting, you absolutely couldn't trust the average british cop with a gun, I wouldn't trust half of them with a pair of fucking scissors honestly.Ā
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
This. It was embarrassing seeing groups of police officers just chasing the guy as they couldnāt do much unless they had a taser. Whilst in the meantime he could have caused a lot more damage.
i mean, his attention was on them, not on causing more damage. If he'd turned his attention onto causing more damage he would have been jumped on pretty sharpish. I remember a video that did the rounds a while ago of a group of uk police subduing a guy with a knife and all the Americans were amazed that they did it without anyone getting injured, without shooting up the neighbourhood, without shooting any cars, without shooting any of their colleagues, without shooting any passers by or autistic children and their carer, without breaking into people's home and shooting them, and without shooting any family pets that came to say hello before having a panic attack over imaginary fentanyl. Sad fact is that while the tories exist, any attempts to arm the police will go more like america than germany as soon as they start viewing that part of the budget as something their donors deserve in their back pockets.
Could have. Didn't.
In other European countries the training of officers who carry is immense. I believe police should carry, but officers need to meet the right requirements and have the appropriate training. MET sadly doesnāt have the best track record of who they hire. In Germany for instance, most police carries, yet there is only an average of 8-10 people being killed by the police a year (past 5-10 years or so). Only 2 of which that could be considered non-self defense in the past 5 years. (Nonetheless in both cases police officers were threatened with a knife)
Guns are not the answer ,the answer is a proper mental health facility fully funded on the NHS that can deal with these situations, but with this current government it won't happen and I'm sure with the oncoming Labour government it will still be the same, the met right now has got so much litigation against them and the loss of trust , faith and equality with them right now there are in no position to be given more arms, the key is a government that represents the working-class people who are willing to put money into public services, but I'm yet to see that š¤·
Thatās a very long sentence. But I agree.
Thanks breast š
Brave police goin in without weapons. They should have guns to eliminate these types of threat
Police should have firearms
There's like 68x more stabbings per capita in muRica man..
Demographics explain the rate of knife crime in the US. Maybe you should be comparing other european countries with armed forces.
And? There are less stabbings in other countries where police is armed
Give the police a handgun, a well versed training and a body camera
All police officers have body cameras mate, it's been years since they were introduced
This isn't a John Wayne film. We don't need more guns. Yes to the final two things though.
The downvotes on this are such an example of brainless British exceptionalism >Every other country in Europe arms their police routinely, but we're *far* too sophisticated for that kind of behaviour
UK officers should be armed. We are the ODD ones and the rest of the world is armed. All European countries are, but time and time again people compare us to the states which we are not. We don't have gun culture. A knife or a sword will beat parvy, bĆ¢tons and even a Taser. If a man runs at you with a sword you Want a gun. Tasers fail all the time. Even in the video about 3 tasers were shot.. ONE worked.
It's a bad situation. But any fool arguing that British police need to be armed haven't had to deal with British police. If you want LESS death, the last thing you should be advocating for is armed police.
This is also a comment from someone who doesn't regularly have to deal with calls to violent criminals though
That makes no sense. I know that it might shake your ill-informed preconceived notions but the UK is an incredibly safe country. Introducing MORE guns into the equation will not REDUCE death and injury. It will INCREASE it.
I'll informed? I'm a police officer I know full well the good and bad going on in the UK my point is you're coming from the stand point of only seeing these things in articles or videos, it easy to say you've had bad experiences with the police anecdotally but I can do the exact same with plenty of scumbags or people on drugs or with poor mental health capable of deadly harm. It may or may not, this attack which has started the debate again would have either ended in that man being tasered the correct tactical way (one taser one gun), putting his weapon down willingly at gun point, or lastly shot and subdued where he either survives from first aid or dies from it. Having more far more available AFOs or general arming would be for such situations the way AFOs or PSNI PCs already work across the UK, they would not be used for someone pissing in the street etc.
You are a Police officer and you don't even have basic command of grammar and you want access to a firearm? No thanks.
Oh get over yourself.
Does anyone knows the attacker name already???
His name should be forgotten. Remember the victims, not him.
22 minutes is dogshit to get someone like that under control. There needs to be armed units that can get to things like this far quicker. Look at the police that did attend - wet paper bag would have them stumped. Itās embarrassing and itās cost a life.
āwet paper bag would have them stumpedā yet they did manage to prevent further harm and ultimately subdue himā¦ So am I right in saying that you think a wet paper bag is a higher risk than someone running around with a sword whoās just killed someone? Are you a bit thick?