Thread: Question to UK Members

A few weeks ago in the City of Milwaukee a 25 year old man died in police custody in the back of a police vehicle. The police say they arrested him without incident but witnesses have told his mother that they saw the police beating him upon apprehending him.

Aside from police shooting with no injuries resulting to suspects, a police shooting just left a suspect in critical condition (same as I was).

I understand police shootings can be justified and I also appreciate the police function in a stressful occupation. I'm not anti-police.

However, I'm wondering how professional law enforcement in the UK handle resisting, aggressive civilians when trying to apprehend them? My understanding (maybe I'm wrong) is that most police in the UK don't carry firearms and that the UK has as bad a culture of drunken pub fighting men, if not worse, as that of the United States, that resist arrest.

In the comments area of this article I post under the handle: BloodOnTheClaw.

Officer shoots suspect - JSOnline



(Background info: I could not resists making replies as I'm fed up with "suburbanites" in safe neighborhoods who in all paranoia "need" guns to protect them from the home invasion that will never happen to them, standing in judgement of inner-city Milwaukee residents that *will* likely encounter several violent encounters in their life time. Furthermore, they reduce - in language - all of us to simple labels lacking any complex human qualities as people. There are always racial overtones. The City of Brookfield for example is far safer than the City of London and Brookfield is almost exclusively white with lots of upper-class citizens, and many if not most there inhabitants seem to literally hate Milwaukee and its large, dark population. They have opinions of how the largely white police force of Milwaukee should be gunning down Milwaukeens and bringing the population into a timid, docile state. If one of their (Brookfield's) daughters ever moved wrong and was shot through the chest by a cop they would raise holy hell about the injustice to a free people)

Everything said... the police officer that shot this guy in the story above was likely justified under law in my opinion, given it could be argued in defense of property (one reason deadly force can be justified).

But I'm interested in how force is used in a "First World" and civilized nation like England and the rest of the UK? Maybe I'm misinformed on things or not, or maybe I draw wrong assumptions too quickly. But I want to improve my critical thinking on this issue of force a little better. Those outside the United States might help with that whether they agree with me or not.

Greater Manchester police are notoriously brutal. I have seen some use very unreasonable force on a few occasions. This force wasn't aimed towards drunken brawlers either.

The majority of police in the UK don't carry guns and the ones that do tend to operate in areas where there are lots of crime. That said, I know of raids where officers have turned up with guns for seemingly no reason (i.e. where they are not at danger from attack).

I would say most people in the UK are against the police carrying guns. I am for sure.

Just as an FYI: I don't think military personnel should be able to shoot or kill anyone without question either. Just because someone is in a military uniform does not mean that fear can't overcome them and they respond to rashly with deadly force - or worse yet, some in military uniform can even at times be guilty of war crimes.

Or are English citizens just more passive towards their police and rarely offer resistance or brandish weapons?

It's not that we are more passive towards the police, it's just that the culture of carrying weapons is just not that big in the UK.

In America it is a constitutional right to carry arms. Here it is not. Most people in the UK (as I said above) abhor the idea of carrying weapons as it would create more problems than it's worth. Residents don't need to defend themselves from the state (this can normally be done without violence) or gangs (as gang violence is nearly always self-contained) so the idea of themselves or the police carrying weapons is the next level of fear that no-one wants.

In areas where there are gang violence, the police may carry weapons out of 'defense'. I personally think this is a poor idea and will only serve to aggrivate the situation.

The media often bring a lot of emphasis to an occasion when a suspect is shot by the police. It's nearly always viewed in a negative way to the police officer. I remember when the police attacked a man during a riot for no apparent reason, and the man soon after died of a heart attack (the man turned out to be walking home from work in London, and not a member of the riot). This was absolutely huge in the media, and is still often referenced today.

That said, I know instances of police brutality in the UK. A local man in our village is known for being quite quirky, and in his 20s he was involved with drugs. At 40, I strongly believe him when he says he is sober, and yet his house was recently raided in a drugs raid. They brought firearms and had German Shepherd's outside, as well as the police being very unceremonious in how they handled his things. This isn't brutality, but it's an example of the police force being willing enough to use the violence at their disposal in small situations.

I'm thankful that the police in the UK are notoriously less 'brutal' as in places like Spain, though. I can say from experience that often pub-fights are left up to the barman, and the police turn a blind eye if - for example - a landlord threatens a man who is starting a fight with a baseball bat or blunt instrument.

Originally Posted by Amber Leaf

It's not that we are more passive towards the police, it's just that the culture of carrying weapons is just not that big in the UK.

In America it is a constitutional right to carry arms. Here it is not. Most people in the UK (as I said above) abhor the idea of carrying weapons as it would create more problems than it's worth. Residents don't need to defend themselves from the state (this can normally be done without violence) or gangs (as gang violence is nearly always self-contained) so the idea of themselves or the police carrying weapons is the next level of fear that no-one wants.

In areas where there are gang violence, the police may carry weapons out of 'defense'. I personally think this is a poor idea and will only serve to aggrivate the situation.

Thanks for the replies, Amber, I appreciate it, however, I think I might be making myself misunderstood.

Lets put gangs - narcotics, bikers, or organized criminals - aside. Few American gang members or even mafia members would resist or physically fight uniformed members of any U.S. police force.

And carrying firearms is not a constitutional right in the U.S. - Wisconsin is just now passing the concealed weapons (firearms) law. I think this will leave Illinois as the only state in the land where this is illegal.

But so I'm better understood: "weapons" can be knives, sticks, or any object you can use to harm someone. Certainly there are more than a few citizens of the UK that carry weapons that the police encounter when they are arresting individuals. And I'll have to assume that police in the UK frequently encounter both armed and unarmed individuals that resist them during arrest? Yes?

Does pepper spray become the first line of defense?

Police baton?

Police operating in pairs or more?

Tasers?






Does American police carrying firearms automatically put them in a catch 22 regarding using or not using them given an unarmed or armed suspect disarming an officer always remains a possibility?

Originally Posted by Nick

The media often bring a lot of emphasis to an occasion when a suspect is shot by the police. It's nearly always viewed in a negative way to the police officer. I remember when the police attacked a man during a riot for no apparent reason, and the man soon after died of a heart attack (the man turned out to be walking home from work in London, and not a member of the riot). This was absolutely huge in the media, and is still often referenced today.

That said, I know instances of police brutality in the UK. A local man in our village is known for being quite quirky, and in his 20s he was involved with drugs. At 40, I strongly believe him when he says he is sober, and yet his house was recently raided in a drugs raid. They brought firearms and had German Shepherd's outside, as well as the police being very unceremonious in how they handled his things. This isn't brutality, but it's an example of the police force being willing enough to use the violence at their disposal in small situations.

I'm thankful that the police in the UK are notoriously less 'brutal' as in places like Spain, though. I can say from experience that often pub-fights are left up to the barman, and the police turn a blind eye if - for example - a landlord threatens a man who is starting a fight with a baseball bat or blunt instrument.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying the police in the UK turn a blind eye to bar fights and leave it to the pub's bouncer to administer all violence?

I'm still not being told how UK police subdue bat wielding suspects during the times they will arrest them? The police in the UK do arrest people right? From the police incident reports I read I had my hands cuffed immediately after I was shot multiple times and laid on the floor. So, I'm assuming even bat wielders in the UK get cuffs slapped around their wrists from time to time in the UK. How is this done without the use of firearms by the police? Or do they wait for a rapid response unit with firearms to show up and employ deadly force to end the threat?

to protect them from the home invasion that will never happen to them

You cannot make this assumption.

I haven´t had that much experience with the police. I know a few decent, moral people who are police officers but unfortunately, I know a few ****heads aswell, racist ones at that, which is a problem in a nation where statistically, in a decade or so, Muslims could be the strongest religion (apparently).

Before I went on holiday though, while working an overnight shift at McDonalds, a patrol car comes through, orders two meals and pays. Then, they get a call about an incident in a town around 2 miles away. They ask me how long it will take and I tell them about 5 minutes, seeing as we cook fresh at night. They look at eachother and one of them says that they probably won´t even be able to come back for it and lose out, so they decide to wait. I was a bit taken back, and for the rest of the night wondered whether or not that 5 minutes could have been the difference between a brutal beating or something more.

Overall, I´m against our police having guns. I understand the argument that it creates a fear in criminals, but as discussed it conjures a gun culture that Writ understandably dislikes.

I am Irish but our police force do not carry guns either and only recently (like two years or so) did the police force here get pepper spray.

To give you an idea of the difference between your police carrying guns and shooting a suspect and our police carrying guns and shooting someone:

There was a case a few years ago where a man shot at the gardai (police), twice, before police shot him. (It may have been a stand off situation, can't remeber full details atm)
There was huge, huge outcry over how terrible it was the man was killed, with no concern that the gaurds there could have been themselves killed.

Experts were brought in from america to give a ruling about what happened and whether or not the gardai were right to shoot him and the gardai were told they were wrong.
Why were they wrong? they were told they should have shot him as soon as they saw the gun and before the suspect himself could fire at anyone.

as far as subdoing someone goes, the gardai have batons which can be used to subdo someone along with the obvious, hand to hand combat.

Originally Posted by Foxee

You cannot make this assumption.

Eh... yes I can, Foxee. At least to a reasonable degree of odds.

And I understand anything can happen anywhere and people in the best areas of any town in any nation on earth can be struck by tragedy and merciless home invaders. However, part of my comment is retaliatory. I don't know how many times I've heard or even been told that, "It's only about the people you hang around..." B.S. If you're young (40's and younger), black, male and live in a central city area you will encounter violence or the threat of several times in your life. You don't have to do anything but breath and be alive. Yet, from judicial benches be the person Democrat or Republican, and from public opinion in general, we should never have an alertness backed by rage, nor strap firearms illegally and concealed on our person. Regardless of the fact we actually live where it "jumps off."

Yet, I have to listen to people from the likes of Waukesha County complain about their "logical" fears of personal attacks from criminals, government troops and police robbing them of their rights if they don't own a small armory in their homes. Whats more they want guns with concealed carry permits to take as they drive into and from the City of Milwaukee were their high income jobs are at. They have anger too - at Democrats often. What makes their anger or pass or fears any more righteous then ours?

Mind you, small towns and rural areas of Wisconsin that are populated mainly by working class, white, Republicans don't have the same pompous, self righteous, racist cultural attitudes as counties around Milwaukee like Waukesha with its City of Brookfield. I have fond memories of my experience and time in the small town of Tomah, Wisconsin for example. On the other hand Waukesha and Milwaukee have political tensions. And that's between white Democrats in Milwaukee and white Republicans in Waukesha. Then there are the racial tensions between the two cities. It's not uncommon to find it implied that Milwaukee's problem is that it has too many dark people. Certain labels are often used to overlap racial reference to black males too. It seems increasingly common to use the term "criminal" to infer a reduction to all black males in Milwaukee by some of these people. I'm from here so I understand the culture and what's being suggested behind some of the comments. Ergo, people having gotten pissed off in that jsonline thread that I gave a tiny biographical description of myself as a former Marine awarded combat ribbons for the Middle East, someone with college education, and rather than merely reducible to a cowardly criminal that preys on the weak, a man that has cut his teeth in the boxing ring and protects himself (no police protecting me) as he walks the same streets these people from Waukesha fear to travel down without a concealed firearm.

Now, I acknowledge there are career criminals in Milwaukee or in any city. I have no beef with Milwaukee cops shooting me or anyone else that shots at them or even attacks them with a knife (which is a deadly weapon). I wouldn't even suggest cops be grilled to death over every shooting they're involved in. But I do think the normal procedure of investigating each police shooting should logically stay in place.

In my own case - not remembering anything but trying to piece things together from written reports, what I'm told, and my own inquisitiveness - I've found contradiction in the police incident reports. In one I'm attacking the officer with a knife, in every other, including the officer in question own testimony, the knife remained on the table. There is another contradiction as well I prefer not to mention at this point. And the homicide detectives in their incident reports investigated this as an "attempted homicide of an officer" all the while knowing I was unarmed. Language itself can be used to construct a depiction of a suspect that helps protect an institution (in this case police department).

And I'm not suggesting the Milwaukee police are bad people. I also hold no grudge against the cop that shot me. I understand I placed him in a stressful and scary situation. Since I'm a sinful person and probably inclined to be a corrupt cop I would have shot someone like me probably on GP anyways. But best believe that means with a badge around my neck I'd probably pull some smart___ from Waukesha out of his car driving through Milwaukee, and kick his ribs in. But if I can't - or other civilians - just shoot other civilians merely out of fear, then even cops shouldn't just be given that pass.

I mean how do you beat the claim, "I thought I saw [fill in weapon] in his [or her] hand"? You can't. It's a bullet proof came.

Originally Posted by Tom

Overall, I´m against our police having guns... but as discussed it conjures a gun culture that Writ understandably dislikes.

Not quite, Tom.

I'm actually pro concealed carry for firearms. I'm also not really against shooting people. Prior to being shot there are a lot of people (civilians from the "hood") I wouldn't mind have gunning down. But I don't own a gun today (I used to own several firearms and drive with a 9mm Glock, round chambered, laying openly across my lap) and shooting anyone risks me prison time. You can get over 30 years in prison killing someone up here in Wisconsin. I don't have 30 years of my life just to give up.

My issue is more with some getting a pass I can't. Which inspires me to no vision or idea of being "just" and "fair." So far as everything teaches me might makes right. It's better to reign with a big stick, to be in the right clique, than to come begging as a nobody with an empty cup.

And to be frank, I can't speak for everyone shot by a cop, but I know in my case I was never shot by a criminal. In fact, according to both the police incident report and my parents, I was limping, bleeding from the lip and forehead, from apparently an altercation I had out in town just prior to me being shot by the police.

Originally Posted by ProcrastinationStation

I am Irish but our police force do not carry guns either and only recently (like two years or so) did the police force here get pepper spray.

To give you an idea of the difference between your police carrying guns and shooting a suspect and our police carrying guns and shooting someone:

There was a case a few years ago where a man shot at the gardai (police), twice, before police shot him. (It may have been a stand off situation, can't remeber full details atm)
There was huge, huge outcry over how terrible it was the man was killed, with no concern that the gaurds there could have been themselves killed.

This reminds me of an incident my uncle that was once a Milwaukee cop told me.

They stopped a 17 year old who had stolen a car and created a chase by police. One officer just married, who never wore a vest for close to a decade, had for the first time worn one that day at the urging of his new bride. In a struggle with the 17 year old the 17 year old took the officers gun from and fired into his chest (vest). The resat of the police opened fire, shooting over 30 some bullets, but only striking the 17 year old 8 times . The 17 year old died.

Experts were brought in from america to give a ruling about what happened and whether or not the gardai were right to shoot him and the gardai were told they were wrong.
Why were they wrong? they were told they should have shot him as soon as they saw the gun and before the suspect himself could fire at anyone.

as far as subdoing someone goes, the gardai have batons which can be used to subdo someone along with the obvious, hand to hand combat.

Gracias. That's more the information I was looking for. Still kind of vague info but better than nothing. Thanks again.

Well, never been in a situation where I have need be stopped by the gardai, nor have I seen someone have the crap beaten outta them. In riots they've used water cannons, but from what I have been told by others, batons/hand to hand seems to be the usual.

Giving specific ecamples I know of one person who was responding to a domestic dispute, knocked on the door and had a hurley stick smash through the glass and hit them in the face/head, in that case it was hand to hand, arrest them. Another time they were stabbed with a needle by a junkie (it might have been that they threw blood at the person, I was young at the time not memory not 100%). Dunno how they dealt with that at the time, do know they had to wait for the AIDS test and all that (negative). Another time they were stabbed in the eye with a stalleto (sp) shoe by a drunk woman when the man she was with was pulled over for drunk driving, she was arrested as well, but I don't think any force was used because she gave up fairly quick after that/someone probably grabbed her from behind and put her in hand cuffs.

I don't really know how to be more specific than that. I mean, there are only so many ways you can hit someone with a baton/fist. As far as i know, its a case of fight until they give up then slap some hand cuffs on them and bring them in.

And I'll have to assume that police in the UK frequently encounter both armed and unarmed individuals that resist them during arrest? Yes?

It is a rare situation where the police will encounter someone resisting with a dangerous weapon. The majority of violent incidents will happen where there has been drinking or someone disagrees with the police restraint. Normally this type of situation can be resolved by an amount of physical force on behalf of the police (not that physical force is always needed, i.e. in the case of Ian Tompkinson). Pepper spray and batons are only meant to be used in situations where an officer is under attack but an officer might see a physical attack where there is actually just a verbal attack.

Most people in the UK aren't stupid enough to start physical attacks on the police because they have the force of batons, pepper spray, tazers and in the rare case; guns.

Also, the majority of people don't carry guns. It IS only people involved in gang style dealings that do.

Lets put gangs - narcotics, bikers, or organized criminals - aside

Indeed. And instead actually focus on the smaller locallised gangs that actually are there on the street risking all to get by and support the networks of organised criminals that don't ever need to be involved in dealings on street level.

People involved in dangerous criminal activities are at risk from both the police and other criminals and vigilante types. A lot of crime involving these people takes place between criminal and criminal rather than criminal and police. Guns, knives, knuckle dusters, batons, tazers etc... all get used. The police claim to arm themselves so they are protected from these weapons. Most people carrying these weapons would not dare use them against the police as they would receive a much harsher sentence than just owning up to having them.

Police in this country are armed just in case. It's rare for the police to be attacked by someone carrying weapons for the reasons above and if they are started on by someone without a weapon then they can normally restrain without physical force.

The media makes the situation out to be a lot worse than what it is which in turn leads to policies where the police are allowed to carry more dangerous weapons than before.

There have been numerous occasions where the police have been found to use unnessesary force. Giving them guns when, I would say under 3% of, people carry them put the police in a power situation where if they turned nasty, not many people would be able to protect themselves.