An unarmed resisting person will generally be tackled and restrained without pointing a gun at them even if one is "present" - there are quite strict procedures against escalation that seem to be missing or ignored in USA.
More fun is toss a flash grenade into the hospital room, rush in with shields and body armor after beating a hole through the wall with a battering ram, throw the guy on the floor and shout "Stop Resisting" while beating the heck out of him and shocking him with tasers, burn down 2 adjacent hospital rooms, terrify the staff, shoot the bing machine because it is causing you to fear for your life, then find out it was the other hospital on the other side of town and have a high speed chase over to that hospital running red lights and causing three fatal accidents along the way, repeat the whole process with no consequences whatsoever then high five each other and recount the salient details all the way back to the station.
"Brash no-nonsense cop and his partner buck the system to bring down the bad guys! Preferably in body bags. Starring Michael K. Williams as hospital bad guy #1. Available on Showtime starting February 23'rd"
In the UK, the criminals ~never have a gun (and less crime occurs), so it makes sense that the police wouldn't need guns either.
In the US, normal citizens are often legally armed, and criminals are very often illegally armed.
It would make no sense to tell an officer "you can't carry a gun" when both average citizens and the criminals have guns. While the UK undoubtedly has a fine model for itself, it can't be extrapolated to a country where gun ownership is so common.
It's a fairly common occurrence in the US for the highway patrol to pull over a driver for speeding, the driver has a firearm, the police issue a speeding citation and everyone goes on their way.
How does that require the police to be armed? Do you think it likely that typical motorists would be willing to shoot a police officer in order to avoid a traffic citation? Or that the infinitesimal minority crazy enough to do that are going to be deterred if the police are armed as well?
Ordinary police officers don't need firearms because ordinary police officers are not especially likely to have anyone try to shoot at them.
The situation is different if they're executing a warrant on a meth lab, but exceptional situations are exceptional and routine situations are not.
Likewise, I wouldn't issue police equipment based on the extremely common case where a policeman doesn't need a vest nor a gun all day and, in fact, on the majority of days doesn't even need their set of handcuffs.
Or to put it another way, aren't you arguing that all civilians should carry firearms as well? After all, there could be a mugger, or a rapist, or a grizzly bear. Better to have it and not need it, right?
Meanwhile, cops are murdering people with impunity at a rate of about 10x the former.
"Police" is a subculture of anti-society though and behavior and for some reason we keep giving them guns.
I don't like it; but it's not helpful to shout blame. Have to understand where we are, to drive any change.
I don't think this thread demonstrates anti-police thought in general. I think it demonstrates anti-police abuse of power/double standards/hypocrisy and other undesirable issues. It's certainly not littered with people chanting "ACAB!".
I was struck recently, when I saw The Gentlemen (a film about marijuana empires in the UK). Even the crime lords were very averse to carrying guns because it was so illegal. People here always counter with "but the criminals will find ways to get them anyway", but I don't think that's a valid argument.
Anyway, it lines up with the statistics: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-44053904
> In England and Wales in 2016-17, there were 31 fatal shootings - or one for every 1.9 million people.
> In the US, in contrast, there were 11,000 murders or manslaughters involving a firearm or one death for every 30,000 people.
I think most people don't care whether they are going to be killed by a gun or by some other means.
The current system teaches them to be terrified, criminal psychopaths with no understanding of human beings or deescalation. Giving them a gun is not protection, it's culpable negligence.
The people we are letting become cops in America are the exact people who should a) never be handed a weapon and b) never be given authority.
I'm all for fewer guns in general, but is it really feasible that cops don't have guns when everyone else has them?
Many officers armed with the expectation they might need to actually shoot somebody, not just act as a deterrent have Glocks, because a pistol is the right tool for this job, and they may have also been trained to use a military-style shotgun. But that's about as far as it goes.
If the bad guys have a rocket launcher, in the UK the expectation is that this is now a problem for the Army, not some nutjob with a badge who thinks Judge Dredd is a role model rather than a satire.
Also, the lack of cooperation in poorer neighborhoods is largely due to respect for, or fear of, the criminals.
There's a lot more layers here - this 'shift' would require tons of slain officers, a lack of respect for the law, so on and so forth.
While I agree officers should do their best to serve the community, disarming them in dangerous areas isn't necessary to accomplish it.
In the US, every second person has a gun, and think they 'have the right to shoot people' for a host of arbitrary reasons.
Meaning the cops pretty much have to have guns in the US.
Similarly, I think the issue of police aggression is 90% about culture and not about constitutional issues.