www.ditl.org

Police officers on patrol don't wear the gear in the picture I posted. Neither of the officers there are regular patrol officers. The picture was taken at Rockefeller Center so there was probably an event or visiting dignitary present.

The other place I've seen police with automatic weapons is GCT and the Diamond District.

IanKennedy wrote:Here you go "Robocop UK".



Obviously this isn't my picture. Just showing that our armed police can be as kitted out as yours. Ours would never be on patrol like this, there would have to be some sort of very serious event going on to merit this.

I think yours is cuter than mine.

Mikey wrote:I have never heard of actual enforcement officers who go unarmed. There are certainly sheriff's officers, who are county rather than municipal officers; but they only serve as LE in more rural areas without adequate municipal policing, in general keeping to duties more in line with executing court orders, etc. Even then, they are generally armed. The there are auxiliaries, who perform community outreach programs and the like, but are generally not in an enforcement role.

To answer the question: a LE officer swears to "protect and serve," even if not in those exact words. I would expect a police officer to perform the job of a police officer - including stopping a violent assailant from hurting a victim. The hypothetical fact of him not being equipped for the task is tantamount to him not being trained for the task, and in either case represents a failure of the system.

I don't know I just remember deep saying they had unarmed officers where he was. You would have to check with him for the details.

Not sure what an "LE" officer is. "Protect and serve" is very much an American thing, I certainly don't know of any where else using the phrase. I don't think the job of a police officer has a global definition so using it recursively is rather pointless. Of cause I expect a police officer to perform the job of a police officer, but saying that is meaningless in actually defining what they should do.

"LE" = Law Enforcement.

The actual phrase "to protect and serve" might be a local usage, but I would have to imagine that the idea of a police officer's highest calling be to serve the public trust and protect innocents from criminal activity is one that has to be relatively universal, if not one of the core reasons of police being extant at all.

Mikey wrote:"LE" = Law Enforcement.

Ah, I see. I've heard the phrase on US TV, here they're very much called police officers.

The actual phrase "to protect and serve" might be a local usage, but I would have to imagine that the idea of a police officer's highest calling be to serve the public trust and protect innocents from criminal activity is one that has to be relatively universal, if not one of the core reasons of police being extant at all.

Well, I'm not sure that the protect part it's that universal, especially historically.

Here's a reference to the roles and responsibilities of the police in the UK. This one is issued by the West Midlands police (the force in the UK that covers the central are of England, especially around Birmingham. I suspect it's pretty typical of all UK forces. I notice that the word protect isn't in the document at all.

http://www.west-midlands.police.uk/np/w ... lities.asp

IanKennedy wrote:Ah, I see. I've heard the phrase on US TV, here they're very much called police officers.

Gotcha. In my part of the States, at any rate, the term "police officer" is usually used to refer only to the enforcement operatives of a municipal or state police department - as distinct from other enforcement officers such as sheriff's officers, corrections officers, federal agency operatives, etc.

IanKennedy wrote:Well, I'm not sure that the protect part it's that universal, especially historically.

Here's a reference to the roles and responsibilities of the police in the UK. This one is issued by the West Midlands police (the force in the UK that covers the central are of England, especially around Birmingham. I suspect it's pretty typical of all UK forces. I notice that the word protect isn't in the document at all.

http://www.west-midlands.police.uk/np/w ... lities.asp

Well, I do have to admit that that's fairly alien to me.

Mikey wrote:Gotcha. In my part of the States, at any rate, the term "police officer" is usually used to refer only to the enforcement operatives of a municipal or state police department - as distinct from other enforcement officers such as sheriff's officers, corrections officers, federal agency operatives, etc.

Ah, there's the difference. There isn't really an equivalent to local laws or state laws, all laws are pretty much country wide. Thus there's no such thing as sheriffs or federal officers. The police are divided into a number of 'regional forces'. Within that those forces pretty much every aspect of the law is covered. There's also a few specialist forces for things like terrorism and organised crime. A guide to law enforcement in the UK

Sometimes forces will temporarily join together to create a task force for a given cross boarder problem. There's also national crime databases, accessible to all forces, to prevent say a murderer killing a person in each forces area and nobody noticing the connections.

We also have temporary cross-department cooperative units, and national databases; in addition, most local enforcement will cooperate with/do legwork for federal agencies.

Mikey wrote:We also have temporary cross-department cooperative units, and national databases; in addition, most local enforcement will cooperate with/do legwork for federal agencies.

Sure, I was just pointing out that there wasn't a gap due to the regional segregation of the activities.

Whilst some of our cops do carry submachine guns, they're generally converted to semi-automatic fire only precisely to avoid the "spray rounds all over" aspect.

GrahamKennedy wrote:Whilst some of our cops do carry submachine guns, they're generally converted to semi-automatic fire only precisely to avoid the "spray rounds all over" aspect.

That conversion should be done by training the operator, not crippling the tool. Do you know what you call a submachine gun that can only fire on semi-auto? A (heavy and unwieldy) pistol.

Interestingly, during the American Civil War, the Union gave a similar argument for not equipping more troops with the Spencer repeating rifle/carbine.

OK, sorry to double-pump on this, but I was considering this further. I wasn't joking about calling a semi-auto SMG a "pistol." By definition, a SMG uses a pistol-caliber cartridge; the ONLY advantages that a SMG has over a pistol is a marginally longer barrel and automatic-fire capability. The difference in barrel length between a full-sized pistol and a SMG is small enough to not provide enough difference in muzzle velocity to prefer the larger weapon over the smaller for carry use; so the only practical advantage for police use would be the ability to fire in automatic mode.

So, if we have the police armorers remove that ability, then we have NO practical advantage for the SMG over the pistol, plus a number of practical disadvantages: the SMG can't be holstered like a pistol; it is more obvious, leading to greater tension in public situations; it is heavier and more awkward to carry, especially for any length of time. Add to that the cost factor - I don't have figures available for direct-to-government sales, but retail numbers would do for a simple comparison. A typical pistol, SOTA and in use by many modern departments in the U.S., retails for anything from $500 - $1000 U.S. in popular LE calibers like 9mm, .40 S&W, .45 ACP, .357 SIG, or 10mm. A SMG in any of those popular chamberings would retail for AT LEAST $2000 - $2500. Why would you have a publicly-funded department spend up to 5x or more per piece for something that does the job more poorly? Something is not kosher with the statement that police in the UKoGBaNI use SMG's, but have them converted to semiautomatic-only fire.

Mikey wrote:OK, sorry to double-pump on this, but I was considering this further. I wasn't joking about calling a semi-auto SMG a "pistol." By definition, a SMG uses a pistol-caliber cartridge; the ONLY advantages that a SMG has over a pistol is a marginally longer barrel and automatic-fire capability. The difference in barrel length between a full-sized pistol and a SMG is small enough to not provide enough difference in muzzle velocity to prefer the larger weapon over the smaller for carry use; so the only practical advantage for police use would be the ability to fire in automatic mode.

So, if we have the police armorers remove that ability, then we have NO practical advantage for the SMG over the pistol, plus a number of practical disadvantages: the SMG can't be holstered like a pistol; it is more obvious, leading to greater tension in public situations; it is heavier and more awkward to carry, especially for any length of time. Add to that the cost factor - I don't have figures available for direct-to-government sales, but retail numbers would do for a simple comparison. A typical pistol, SOTA and in use by many modern departments in the U.S., retails for anything from $500 - $1000 U.S. in popular LE calibers like 9mm, .40 S&W, .45 ACP, .357 SIG, or 10mm. A SMG in any of those popular chamberings would retail for AT LEAST $2000 - $2500. Why would you have a publicly-funded department spend up to 5x or more per piece for something that does the job more poorly? Something is not kosher with the statement that police in the UKoGBaNI use SMG's, but have them converted to semiautomatic-only fire.

I've no idea what they do with the weapons, however, you do have to consider that the number of people with these guns is vanishingly small. I would suspect that there's only a few hundred in police use in the entire country. The modification Graham is talking about could be as simple as limiting the weapon to short bursts rather than fully automatic, rather than changing it to be completely single shot. He would know better than I about these things.

That type of mod would make more sense, though it would be kind of redundant. The trigger control group on most of these has three settings (four, if you count the mechanical safety) - single-shot, burst-fire, and full-auto. Saying that the weapon is limited to semi-auto, though, is synonymous with saying that it's limited to single-shot. In general, SMG's are seeing an increasingly small role in LE; in the U.S., most S.W.A.T. units employ the M-16/AR-15 or an equivalent .223 assault rifle to fulfill the autofire role, with 18"-bbl. 12-gauge shotguns and bolt-action rifles making up the bulk of the longarms, and a small number of local agencies use a PDW like the FN P90. The intermediate step - the SMG - increases rate of fire over a sidearm but doesn't increase ballistic performance.

All UK police weapons are semi automatic. One trigger pull, one shot. They do not have the capability of firing on automatic fire. Period. There are no fully automatic-fire weapons in police hands at all in the UK.

For those interested, the weapons used by the UK police are the LMT-Defender, basically a semi-automatic M16 version... the Glock 17 and SIG Sauer P226 pistols, the Heckler & Koch MP5SF, which is the semi auto version of the standard MP5 submachine gun (the SF means Single Fire), the Remington 870 pump action shotgun, the Heckler & Koch G3 rifle and the Heckler & Koch G36 semi-automatic carbine.

As to why they'd carry a semi auto submachine gun rather than a handgun, I couldn't say. I know it's not unusual for police to carry single shot MP5s in the US - the MP5SF was originally designed in response to an FBI request for a "9mm single fire carbine". I'd guess it's mostly a matter of range, as the longer barrel and ergonomics of the MP5 give it a range up to 200 m. The police are very concerned with not hitting the wrong thing, obviously, and pistols aren't very accurate out to those ranges. In roles like patrolling airports there may also be an element of "high visibility deterrent".