2 NYPD cops shot, general cop discussion

[The Nihilistic view]

By your standards Hiroshima and Nagasaki are not major incidents as without the means of spreading the information rapidly most of the world would not have known they had occurred. So yeah, pretty silly set of standards to hold.

You seem to not understand the criteria. I am allowing for all pre modern forms of mass media. Like telegraph and the like. Even newspapers. What matters is that we are talking about media where the collection, analysis and distribution of information is slow and costly. This allows things to filter away the further you are from an event.

Like take for example a random murder. The local newspaper will certainly report it. A county level one might or might not. A national level one won't bother with it because it has actual news about world events and such and no one wants to read about a random redneck offing his wife. Compare that to massive bombing raids, even ignoring the nuclear attacks. Even without any form of modern mass media (as would actually been the case during WW2 for the most part) the world would have heard of those events within weeks. Because it would have filtered out far less.

Modern media by comparison does not filter. What used to be a set of thesis nailed to a local church door that will only be read by people of that town is now a post on facebook for millions of people around the world to see. So minor local issues suddenly become world events not because they matter enough to report but because they can.

Then yes, in the UK a police killing would be front page of the national newspapers then as now.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

By your standards Hiroshima and Nagasaki are not major incidents as without the means of spreading the information rapidly most of the world would not have known they had occurred. So yeah, pretty silly set of standards to hold.

You seem to not understand the criteria. I am allowing for all pre modern forms of mass media. Like telegraph and the like. Even newspapers. What matters is that we are talking about media where the collection, analysis and distribution of information is slow and costly. This allows things to filter away the further you are from an event.

Like take for example a random murder. The local newspaper will certainly report it. A county level one might or might not. A national level one won't bother with it because it has actual news about world events and such and no one wants to read about a random redneck offing his wife. Compare that to massive bombing raids, even ignoring the nuclear attacks. Even without any form of modern mass media (as would actually been the case during WW2 for the most part) the world would have heard of those events within weeks. Because it would have filtered out far less.

Modern media by comparison does not filter. What used to be a set of thesis nailed to a local church door that will only be read by people of that town is now a post on facebook for millions of people around the world to see. So minor local issues suddenly become world events not because they matter enough to report but because they can.

Of course it's important. It's not just the deaths. It's also the abuse of authority, the unjustified beatings and assaults, the unnecessary escalation of force, the harassment of people doing nothing more than walking down the street, the false arrests, and how these violations of the public trust are rarely if ever addressed through the legal system.

Think about it though. Let's say that the ratio of killings to other abuses is 1 to 100. That means you get 100'000 various abuses per year. On a population of millions that's still of dubious importance. If this was happening within certain small concentrated areas or something, like say a city of 2 million than sure. 100K would be awful. But if it's distributed around a country the size of yours than the average person really has no large chance of encountering it.

Don't get me wrong. I am from Europe so I do believe in having very high standards for your police forces. But I think that's an issue of public morality that can't well be reinforced by statistics that frankly don't rise to the occasion. In this particular case, I just see a huge amount of people angry or scared over something that according to the numbers they have almost 0% chance of meeting.

Right, so you missed the entire point of my post, which is that the killings are just the tip of the iceberg, and speak to a larger issue of police officers being held accountable for their actions.

[Purpelia]

Right, so you missed the entire point of my post, which is that the killings are just the tip of the iceberg, and speak to a larger issue of police officers being held accountable for their actions.

My point is that you really should not be focusing on said "tip" if you want to convince anyone this is actually an issue.

[Janshah]

Like take for example a random murder. The local newspaper will certainly report it. A county level one might or might not. A national level one won't bother with it because it has actual news about world events and such and no one wants to read about a random redneck offing his wife. Compare that to massive bombing raids, even ignoring the nuclear attacks. Even without any form of modern mass media (as would actually been the case during WW2 for the most part) the world would have heard of those events within weeks. Because it would have filtered out far less.

Then yes, in the UK a police killing would be front page of the national newspapers then as now.

And in my country, if a person were shot dead by a police officer or otherwise died while in custody, it would not only make the national headlines, it would also stay there for several days amid raging debate on how this could have happened and whether it could have been prevented. Also, there wouldn't be a question of whether the police officer was going to have to justify the case before a judge.. over here, protocol requires an investigation into every incident where a police weapon is fired, even if it were a warning shot in the air at no risk of hitting anyone.

[The Nihilistic view]

Then yes, in the UK a police killing would be front page of the national newspapers then as now.

And in my country, if a person were shot dead by a police officer or otherwise died while in custody, it would not only make the national headlines, it would also stay there for several days amid raging debate on how this could have happened and whether it could have been prevented. Also, there wouldn't be a question of whether the police officer was going to have to justify the case before a judge.. over here, protocol requires an investigation into every incident where a police weapon is fired, even if it were a warning shot in the air at no risk of hitting anyone.

Yeah, that's pretty much what we have. Every shot having to be accounted for and justified in the investigation afterwards.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Right, so you missed the entire point of my post, which is that the killings are just the tip of the iceberg, and speak to a larger issue of police officers being held accountable for their actions.

My point is that you really should not be focusing on said "tip" if you want to convince anyone this is actually an issue.

But that's just it: Nobody can focus on the whole issue. You have to use especially egregious examples, and show how they're symbolic of a larger problem. The protesters have been remarkably successful in this, since we're now having a national conversation on racial profiling and police accountability that would have been difficult to drum up interest in even a year ago.

[Fartsniffage]

You seem to not understand the criteria. I am allowing for all pre modern forms of mass media. Like telegraph and the like. Even newspapers. What matters is that we are talking about media where the collection, analysis and distribution of information is slow and costly. This allows things to filter away the further you are from an event.

Like take for example a random murder. The local newspaper will certainly report it. A county level one might or might not. A national level one won't bother with it because it has actual news about world events and such and no one wants to read about a random redneck offing his wife. Compare that to massive bombing raids, even ignoring the nuclear attacks. Even without any form of modern mass media (as would actually been the case during WW2 for the most part) the world would have heard of those events within weeks. Because it would have filtered out far less.

Modern media by comparison does not filter. What used to be a set of thesis nailed to a local church door that will only be read by people of that town is now a post on facebook for millions of people around the world to see. So minor local issues suddenly become world events not because they matter enough to report but because they can.

Then yes, in the UK a police killing would be front page of the national newspapers then as now.

I'm not so sure.....

This happened today. Lets see what the headlines look like tomorrow.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

My point is that you really should not be focusing on said "tip" if you want to convince anyone this is actually an issue.

But that's just it: Nobody can focus on the whole issue. You have to use especially egregious examples, and show how they're symbolic of a larger problem. The protesters have been remarkably successful in this, since we're now having a national conversation on racial profiling and police accountability that would have been difficult to drum up interest in even a year ago.

I'm not so sure that's a good thing. I'm all for police accountability and ending racial profiling but this whole thing seems to have been at the root of this "racial profiling = killed for being black" rhetoric where false equivalences arise/false conclusions are drawn from true premises that we so often see now.

I strongly believe that all funding that may be directed towards this issue should go towards mass deployment of always-on body cameras with anti-tamper features/constant backup and the necessary infrastructure.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

But that's just it: Nobody can focus on the whole issue. You have to use especially egregious examples, and show how they're symbolic of a larger problem. The protesters have been remarkably successful in this, since we're now having a national conversation on racial profiling and police accountability that would have been difficult to drum up interest in even a year ago.

I'm not so sure that's a good thing. I'm all for police accountability and ending racial profiling but this whole thing seems to have been at the root of this "racial profiling = killed for being black" rhetoric where false equivalences arise/false conclusions are drawn from true premises that we so often see now.

I strongly believe that all funding that may be directed towards this issue should go towards mass deployment of always-on body cameras with anti-tamper features/constant backup and the necessary infrastructure.

How about training in de-escalation and appropriate use of force, as well as independent investigations and prosecutions (which is to say, not the local D.A.'s office) of potential police misconduct and alleged inappropriate use of force?

[The Nihilistic view]

Then yes, in the UK a police killing would be front page of the national newspapers then as now.

I'm not so sure.....

This happened today. Lets see what the headlines look like tomorrow.

I am willing to bet it will on some, the use of tasers is an extremely controversial subject here so it would be a big headline to run that would capture readers. Though unfortunately the Glasgow dustbin lorry incident might be the main story for most. But it will be in the papers as a minimum.

Anyway we will find out in the early hours when the BBC put up their daily front page overview of the nationals.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Then yes, in the UK a police killing would be front page of the national newspapers then as now.

I'm not so sure.....

This happened today. Lets see what the headlines look like tomorrow.

The Brits being unreasonable as usual.

Tasers are the *sole* alternative we have today to guns for half-serious ranged use. Pepper spray does not offer the required range nor reliability needed for being a standard method of dealing with anything more than your typical combative drunk or non-compliant suspect.

Technology is rapidly advancing in this field to offer increased safety for both officers AND offenders - the newest Tasers do no blindly put out a default amount of power when used ; rather, they constantly monitor how much of that energy is actually arching through the suspect's body (which can be influenced by myriad factors like clothing, the actual nature of their tissue, and so on ) and making necessary adjustments many times every second to deliver a constant level of energy high enough to be effective yet low enough to be non-lethal.

Yet here we have people telling us "Taser use should be curbed" - what exactly are the cops supposed to resort to then? Their old slapjacks? *facepalm*

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

I'm not so sure that's a good thing. I'm all for police accountability and ending racial profiling but this whole thing seems to have been at the root of this "racial profiling = killed for being black" rhetoric where false equivalences arise/false conclusions are drawn from true premises that we so often see now.

I strongly believe that all funding that may be directed towards this issue should go towards mass deployment of always-on body cameras with anti-tamper features/constant backup and the necessary infrastructure.

How about training in de-escalation and appropriate use of force, as well as independent investigations and prosecutions (which is to say, not the local D.A.'s office) of potential police misconduct and alleged inappropriate use of force?

I don't really believe in de-escalation that much, yes it should be taught but not be the focus ; better results will be had if we put the money in the cameras and target the legislation at accountability.

As far as independent prosecution is concerned, we *could* have had that, if only teh ebul libertarian private prosecution (it's not a new concept btw) had not been literally banned in many jurisdictions or simply vanished in the rest for whatever reason.

United States[edit]
In colonial America, because of Dutch (and possibly French) practice and the expansion of the office of attorney general, public officials came to dominate the prosecution of crimes. However, privately funded prosecutors constituted a significant element of the state criminal justice system throughout the nineteenth century.[20][21]

The right to private prosecution in federal cases was removed following the 1981 Supreme Court decision in Leeke v. Timmerman, affirming an earlier decision in Linda R. S. v. Richard D. However, a federal prosecutor may appoint a private attorney to prosecute a case.[22] Elsewhere, private prosecution is governed by state laws.

Colorado[edit]
In 1974, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that private prosecutions were improper and prejudicial to the defendant.[23]

Massachusetts[edit]
Private prosecutions in Massachusetts were declared void in 1849 and formally outlawed in 1855.[24]

Michigan[edit]
Michigan banned private prosecutions in 1875.[24]

Minnesota[edit]
The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled in 1977 in State ex rel. Wild v. Otis that a private citizen does not have a right to privately prosecute an alleged crime.[25]

Missouri[edit]
The right to private prosecution in Missouri was removed in 1976 following the decision in State v. Harrington.[26][27]

New Hampshire[edit]
New Hampshire allows private prosecution of any crime that does not carry incarceration as a possible penalty. However, prosecutors have the right to dismiss private criminal charges.[28][27]

New York[edit]
In 2002, the New York Court of Appeals ruled in Kampfer v. Vonderheide that private prosecutions violated the defendant's due process rights.[29]

North Carolina[edit]
Private prosecutors were used in North Carolina as late as 1975.[30] The court ruled in State v. Best in 1974 that an elected prosecutor must be in charge of all prosecutions.[31]

Ohio[edit]
Ohio state law allows private citizens to file an affidavit alleging a crime.[32] However, the actual prosecution is limited to the state.[28]

Pennsylvania[edit]
Private prosecutions in Pennsylvania require approval from a state prosecutor.[28]

Rhode Island[edit]
In 2001, the Rhode Island Supreme Court ruled in Diane S. Cronan ex rel. State v. John J. Cronan that a private citizen could file criminal complaints for misdemeanors. However, prosecution of felonies remains limited to the state. Private prosecutors also cannot seek penalties of greater than one year of incarceration or a fine of greater than $1,000.[33]

South Carolina[edit]
The right was removed from South Carolina law in the nineteenth century.[34]

Virginia[edit]
The use of a private prosecutor was incorporated into the common law of Virginia and is still permitted there.[14]

Wisconsin[edit]
Private prosecutions in Wisconsin were outlawed following the decision of Biemel v. State in 1855.[35] In 1890, the court ruled that a private attorney can assist in a prosecution as long as there is no conflict of interest.[23]

[The Nihilistic view]

I'm not so sure.....

This happened today. Lets see what the headlines look like tomorrow.

The Brits being unreasonable as usual.

Tasers are the *sole* alternative we have today to guns for half-serious ranged use. Pepper spray does not offer the required range nor reliability needed for being a standard method of dealing with anything more than your typical combative drunk or non-compliant suspect.

Technology is rapidly advancing in this field to offer increased safety for both officers AND offenders - the newest Tasers do no blindly put out a default amount of power when used ; rather, they constantly monitor how much of that energy is actually arching through the suspect's body (which can be influenced by myriad factors like clothing, the actual nature of their tissue, and so on ) and making necessary adjustments many times every second to deliver a constant level of energy high enough to be effective yet low enough to be non-lethal.

Yet here we have people telling us "Taser use should be curbed" - what exactly are the cops supposed to resort to then? Their old slapjacks? *facepalm*

Americans not giving a shit about police killings as usual.


Don't you just love sweeping bullshit statements?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

How about training in de-escalation and appropriate use of force, as well as independent investigations and prosecutions (which is to say, not the local D.A.'s office) of potential police misconduct and alleged inappropriate use of force?

I don't really believe in de-escalation that much, yes it should be taught but not be the focus ; better results will be had if we put the money in the cameras and target the legislation at accountability.

As far as independent prosecution is concerned, we *could* have had that, if only teh ebul libertarian private prosecution (it's not a new concept btw) had not been literally banned in many jurisdictions or simply vanished in the rest for whatever reason.

United States[edit]
In colonial America, because of Dutch (and possibly French) practice and the expansion of the office of attorney general, public officials came to dominate the prosecution of crimes. However, privately funded prosecutors constituted a significant element of the state criminal justice system throughout the nineteenth century.[20][21]

The right to private prosecution in federal cases was removed following the 1981 Supreme Court decision in Leeke v. Timmerman, affirming an earlier decision in Linda R. S. v. Richard D. However, a federal prosecutor may appoint a private attorney to prosecute a case.[22] Elsewhere, private prosecution is governed by state laws.

Colorado[edit]
In 1974, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that private prosecutions were improper and prejudicial to the defendant.[23]

Massachusetts[edit]
Private prosecutions in Massachusetts were declared void in 1849 and formally outlawed in 1855.[24]

Michigan[edit]
Michigan banned private prosecutions in 1875.[24]

Minnesota[edit]
The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled in 1977 in State ex rel. Wild v. Otis that a private citizen does not have a right to privately prosecute an alleged crime.[25]

Missouri[edit]
The right to private prosecution in Missouri was removed in 1976 following the decision in State v. Harrington.[26][27]

New Hampshire[edit]
New Hampshire allows private prosecution of any crime that does not carry incarceration as a possible penalty. However, prosecutors have the right to dismiss private criminal charges.[28][27]

New York[edit]
In 2002, the New York Court of Appeals ruled in Kampfer v. Vonderheide that private prosecutions violated the defendant's due process rights.[29]

North Carolina[edit]
Private prosecutors were used in North Carolina as late as 1975.[30] The court ruled in State v. Best in 1974 that an elected prosecutor must be in charge of all prosecutions.[31]

Ohio[edit]
Ohio state law allows private citizens to file an affidavit alleging a crime.[32] However, the actual prosecution is limited to the state.[28]

Pennsylvania[edit]
Private prosecutions in Pennsylvania require approval from a state prosecutor.[28]

Rhode Island[edit]
In 2001, the Rhode Island Supreme Court ruled in Diane S. Cronan ex rel. State v. John J. Cronan that a private citizen could file criminal complaints for misdemeanors. However, prosecution of felonies remains limited to the state. Private prosecutors also cannot seek penalties of greater than one year of incarceration or a fine of greater than $1,000.[33]

South Carolina[edit]
The right was removed from South Carolina law in the nineteenth century.[34]

Virginia[edit]
The use of a private prosecutor was incorporated into the common law of Virginia and is still permitted there.[14]

Wisconsin[edit]
Private prosecutions in Wisconsin were outlawed following the decision of Biemel v. State in 1855.[35] In 1890, the court ruled that a private attorney can assist in a prosecution as long as there is no conflict of interest.[23]

Of course. Let's put a profit motive into the equation. That should solve everything.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

The Brits being unreasonable as usual.

Tasers are the *sole* alternative we have today to guns for half-serious ranged use. Pepper spray does not offer the required range nor reliability needed for being a standard method of dealing with anything more than your typical combative drunk or non-compliant suspect.

Technology is rapidly advancing in this field to offer increased safety for both officers AND offenders - the newest Tasers do no blindly put out a default amount of power when used ; rather, they constantly monitor how much of that energy is actually arching through the suspect's body (which can be influenced by myriad factors like clothing, the actual nature of their tissue, and so on ) and making necessary adjustments many times every second to deliver a constant level of energy high enough to be effective yet low enough to be non-lethal.

Yet here we have people telling us "Taser use should be curbed" - what exactly are the cops supposed to resort to then? Their old slapjacks? *facepalm*

Americans not giving a shit about police killings as usual.


Don't you just love sweeping bullshit statements?

Do most Brits get their panties in a bunch when merely hearing the word "gun" in the context of general use by their own police (not specialized units like armed response), let alone private civilians?

Yes, you'd think so, since not many people seem to be bothered by the status quo.

Will a considerable percentage of their population get their panties in a bunch when merely hearing the word "taser" in the context of general use by their own police if this campaign of "Tasers are bad!!! stop taser use!!!" goes on? I wouldn't say it's far fetched.

So yeah, I'd say the concept of self-defense in the context of policing is not widely understood by the British populace and the need for effective tools for cops to do their jobs has and is being downplayed.

I hope I'll be proven wrong, though, I really do.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

I don't really believe in de-escalation that much, yes it should be taught but not be the focus ; better results will be had if we put the money in the cameras and target the legislation at accountability.

As far as independent prosecution is concerned, we *could* have had that, if only teh ebul libertarian private prosecution (it's not a new concept btw) had not been literally banned in many jurisdictions or simply vanished in the rest for whatever reason.

Of course. Let's put a profit motive into the equation. That should solve everything.

Of course. Let's put a profit motive into legal representation in criminal cases. That should solve everything.
.
.
.
.
.
Owait

[Imperializt Russia]

Americans not giving a shit about police killings as usual.


Don't you just love sweeping bullshit statements?

Do most Brits get their panties in a bunch when merely hearing the word "gun" in the context of general use by their own police (not specialized units like armed response), let alone private civilians?

Yes, you'd think so, since not many people seem to be bothered by the status quo.

Will a considerable percentage of their population get their panties in a bunch when merely hearing the word "taser" in the context of general use by their own police if this campaign of "Tasers are bad!!! stop taser use!!!" goes on? I wouldn't say it's far fetched.

So yeah, I'd say the concept of self-defense in the context of policing is not widely understood by the British populace and the need for effective tools for cops to do their jobs has and is being downplayed.

I hope I'll be proven wrong, though, I really do.

Polls have showed the public generally favour having regularly armed police patrols on beat.
The police are hugely against the idea, according to polls of the police union.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Do most Brits get their panties in a bunch when merely hearing the word "gun" in the context of general use by their own police (not specialized units like armed response), let alone private civilians?

Yes, you'd think so, since not many people seem to be bothered by the status quo.

Will a considerable percentage of their population get their panties in a bunch when merely hearing the word "taser" in the context of general use by their own police if this campaign of "Tasers are bad!!! stop taser use!!!" goes on? I wouldn't say it's far fetched.

So yeah, I'd say the concept of self-defense in the context of policing is not widely understood by the British populace and the need for effective tools for cops to do their jobs has and is being downplayed.

I hope I'll be proven wrong, though, I really do.

Polls have showed the public generally favour having regularly armed police patrols on beat.
The police are hugely against the idea, according to polls of the police union.

orly.

Why aren't they doing something about it then? You never hear of it in the news. Rising education fees this, whatever that, but where is the civic effort towards getting this thing they supposedly want?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Of course. Let's put a profit motive into the equation. That should solve everything.

Of course. Let's put a profit motive into legal representation in criminal cases. That should solve everything.
.
.
.
.
.
Owait

I'm not thrilled with that, either.

[The Nihilistic view]

Americans not giving a shit about police killings as usual.


Don't you just love sweeping bullshit statements?

Do most Brits get their panties in a bunch when merely hearing the word "gun" in the context of general use by their own police (not specialized units like armed response), let alone private civilians?

Yes, you'd think so, since not many people seem to be bothered by the status quo.

Will a considerable percentage of their population get their panties in a bunch when merely hearing the word "taser" in the context of general use by their own police if this campaign of "Tasers are bad!!! stop taser use!!!" goes on? I wouldn't say it's far fetched.

So yeah, I'd say the concept of self-defense in the context of policing is not widely understood by the British populace and the need for effective tools for cops to do their jobs has and is being downplayed.

I hope I'll be proven wrong, though, I really do.

The police don't want to have firearms by a very large majority. If they don't wan't to be routinely armed I support their decision. They don't even carry tasers routinely.

[Imperializt Russia]

Polls have showed the public generally favour having regularly armed police patrols on beat.
The police are hugely against the idea, according to polls of the police union.

orly.

Why aren't they doing something about it then? You never hear of it in the news. Rising education fees this, whatever that, but where is the civic effort towards getting this thing they supposedly want?

What?

The public want more armed officers and for armed officers to be a more regular sight as patrol officers than specialist firearms teams. They believe this will improve not only public safety, but officer safety too. These polls are usually given to the public whenever officers are murdered in the line of duty.
The police, infinitely more qualified than the general public on what would make them and the public safer, disagree and believe it would either make them and the public less safe (by encouraging criminals to arm themselves more), or not significantly better safety to make it not worthwhile.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Of course. Let's put a profit motive into legal representation in criminal cases. That should solve everything.
.
.
.
.
.
Owait

I'm not thrilled with that, either.

My point is, contrary to what popular belief may be among certain political/ideological/economic demographics, money doesn't automatically turn everything into shit and corrupt every virgin soul when thrown into the equation - so much so that paid legal representation including in criminal cases remains an option in pretty much every corner of the globe as far as I'm aware of.

Is there a possibility that a prosecutor or plaintiff/claimant might, for example, attempt to offer the paid defense attorney more money than they're being paid by the defendant in order to sabotage their case? Surely, and yet, for whatever reason, this hasn't ended paid legal representation in the striking majority of countries (there are no countries that I'm aware of that ban it actually) .

[The Nihilistic view]

Do most Brits get their panties in a bunch when merely hearing the word "gun" in the context of general use by their own police (not specialized units like armed response), let alone private civilians?

Yes, you'd think so, since not many people seem to be bothered by the status quo.

Will a considerable percentage of their population get their panties in a bunch when merely hearing the word "taser" in the context of general use by their own police if this campaign of "Tasers are bad!!! stop taser use!!!" goes on? I wouldn't say it's far fetched.

So yeah, I'd say the concept of self-defense in the context of policing is not widely understood by the British populace and the need for effective tools for cops to do their jobs has and is being downplayed.

I hope I'll be proven wrong, though, I really do.

Polls have showed the public generally favour having regularly armed police patrols on beat.
The police are hugely against the idea, according to polls of the police union.

As far as I am aware the public is split pretty much 50-50. It's not an issue that seems to come up that much and the latest article I could find that cites a poll is a 2012 article and a 2004 poll.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19641398

But it's 47% favour arming the police and 48% are against. A majority support more armed patrols but not for all officers to be armed.

Also worth noting is 82% of the police don't want to be armed according to the last time the police were asked about it in 2006.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

orly.

Why aren't they doing something about it then? You never hear of it in the news. Rising education fees this, whatever that, but where is the civic effort towards getting this thing they supposedly want?

What?

The public want more armed officers and for armed officers to be a more regular sight as patrol officers than specialist firearms teams. They believe this will improve not only public safety, but officer safety too. These polls are usually given to the public whenever officers are murdered in the line of duty.
The police, infinitely more qualified than the general public on what would make them and the public safer, disagree and believe it would either make them and the public less safe (by encouraging criminals to arm themselves more), or not significantly better safety to make it not worthwhile.

I don't understand what you didn't understand from my post. Was I not clear enough?

The public want more armed officers and for armed officers to be a more regular sight as patrol officers than specialist firearms teams. They believe this will improve not only public safety, but officer safety too. These polls are usually given to the public whenever officers are murdered in the line of duty.

Why aren't they doing something about it then? You never hear of it in the news. Rising education fees this, whatever that, but where is the civic effort towards getting this thing they supposedly want?

[The Nihilistic view]

Polls have showed the public generally favour having regularly armed police patrols on beat.
The police are hugely against the idea, according to polls of the police union.

As far as I am aware the public is split pretty much 50-50. It's not an issue that seems to come up that much and the latest article I could find that cites a poll is a 2012 article and a 2004 poll.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19641398

But it's 47% favour arming the police and 48% are against. A majority support more armed patrols but not for all officers to be armed.

Also worth noting is 82% of the police don't want to be armed according to the last time the police were asked about it in 2006.

orly.

Why aren't they doing something about it then? You never hear of it in the news. Rising education fees this, whatever that, but where is the civic effort towards getting this thing they supposedly want?

What?

The public want more armed officers and for armed officers to be a more regular sight as patrol officers than specialist firearms teams. They believe this will improve not only public safety, but officer safety too. These polls are usually given to the public whenever officers are murdered in the line of duty.
The police, infinitely more qualified than the general public on what would make them and the public safer, disagree and believe it would either make them and the public less safe (by encouraging criminals to arm themselves more), or not significantly better safety to make it not worthwhile.

That is also a very good point. Most polls and articles are often done after a police officer is killed or seriously injured. How much that would effect a poll I don't know but I would guess it would have an effect on those who are not staunchly decided on the issue one way or the other.