20th January 2023
There is an old adage: those who want to have power are the ones who should be disqualified from having power.
Similarly, those police officers who want to be armed should be the ones who perhaps should not even be police officers.
This thought is prompted by the examples first of Wayne Couzens and now David Carrick, both of whom were keen to have the status of being able to have a gun.
Neither Couzens nor Carrick, as far as we know, misused a firearm.
But both seemed desperate to have the status of being able to have a gun and perhaps to boast about it, to themselves and others.
And that was a danger sign.
Of course, there is a necessity to have armed police: that is an unfortunate feature of the modern age.
A civilian and entirely unarmed police force belong to a golden age – an age which probably never existed.
But.
The question is not whether some police are armed, but about how armed police are selected.
And it would seem those who put themselves forward, so that they would not only have the legal right to inflict coercive force on others, but also be able to inflict lethal force, are the constables who should perhaps be thrown out of the police altogether.
Only perhaps the police officers who are chosen by others – their superiors and peers – to have guns should be the constables who are reluctant to be armed.
And if this approach is adopted then the ‘vetting’ process would be a lot easier:
“Do you want to have a gun? You do? You’re dismissed.”
**
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.
Having worked around armed officers in the Met, there are certainly quite a few who are after status, etc. The majority, though, are simply attracted by the fact that they get paid more for doing the job without having to rise through the ranks. Whether or not there was a gun safe in their car, most of their work was day to day drudgery, so you can understand that they might as well get the best pay for it.
My biggest concern was the number of “accidental discharges” of a weapon. It seemed to me only a matter of time before a member of the public was “involved” in one. I hope the fact that that hasn’t happened is a reflection of better training and discipline since I left (more than 10 years ago, so it might be).
Not just accidental discharges but mistaken identities or shooting first and asking questions afterwards.
It is a popular misconception that the French Foreign Legion will recruit, let alone put a gun into the hands of someone whom Omar Sharif’s Major Grau in the film The Night of the Generals describes as a small entrepreneur in the business of murder.
“Traditionally, the Legion was willing to turn a blind eye to recruits who had misunderstandings with the law in their own countries – unless, of course, it involved murder (and other serious crimes). But the Legion insisted on knowing why recruits wanted to be legionnaires and any criminal past was a crucial factor in that.”
Voices of the Foreign Legion: The French Foreign Legion in Its Own Words, Adrian D Gilbert.
A soldier needs to be disciplined and focus his or her aggression on command.
If we are putting guns into the hands of civilians who do not meet those requirements then we are surely asking for trouble.
This is a very relevant debate in Northern Ireland lately, for reasons that are entirely different to England and Wales
Spot on!
Love that DAG is advocating the same argument as The Thin Blue Line: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=k7ThhuIUll8
Conversely see Catch 22, Joseph Heller:
“‘You mean there’s a catch?’
‘Sure there’s a catch,’ Doc Daneeka replied. ‘Catch-22. Anyone who wants to get out of combat duty isn’t really crazy.’
There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one’s own safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn’t, but if he was sane, he had to fly them. If he flew them, he was crazy and didn’t have to; but if he didn’t want to, he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.”
Or before even asking if they want to apply just say “You talkin’ to me?”, and if they smoothly complete Travis Bickle’s monologue with a fervid glint in their eye then you can skip the rest of the interview.
These two appalling cases do suggest a link between willingness to do armed duty and a desire for power that is, I believe, often a part of sex offending. At the same time, those selected for armed responsibility need to be emotionally capable of using them lethally in highly uncertain situations. Separating out those capable of doing that from those who seek out the work to feed such a desire cannot be easy. I would guess, moreover, that the very profession of police officer (or other positions of authority – the priesthood, for example) may well appeal to those who feel the need for roles that give authority by their nature, without the need to earn it in personal performance. It would be interesting to know to what extent such considerations are taken into account in recruitment to such professions. Certainly recruitment – and ongoing management- need to get better at it.
If you are at the wrong end of a weapon and a police officer is at the other, would you prefer said officer to be the one who hates guns or the one who enjoys squeezing triggers?
I’ve always found it remarkable how people had not considered this question before I asked. Maybe they also never considered the real threat of the phrase ‘mistaken identity’.
Wouldn’t it quickly become apparent that to get a gun, such officers would just have to deny wanting one?
As a former firearms authorised officer, I took my responsibility seriously in order to perform the role I was assigned. I did not overtly ‘seek’ to be armed, it was a concomitant requirement. I was vetted and trained. And frequently re-trained. If I was unsure about a colleague I was able and encouraged to speak out. Yes, there will always be a minimum danger of rogue, unsuitable applicants. But there is a danger of rogue elements in society that I would not have wished to face without the ‘overwhelming force’ option at our disposal to prevent shooting – which is the main aim of UK policing. Armed or otherwise we were trained to de-escalate and resolve without firing. Shootings are the exception we hear about, not the rule we don’t. The public need to understand that to prevent harm to any individual and minimise injury, what can look like excess force is actually the safest way to secure a successful outcome. The doctrine of minimum necessary force was real to us. The exaggeration of film and careful editing of news video can make it appear otherwise. I and the vast majority of colleagues, had no time for abusers of power in general. I am always supportive of proven officer convictions for abuse of authority. If only we could see the rigour used to convict police (and military) being pursued to bring some rogue, corrupt, irresponsible politicians to justice too.
If I may say so, a very sensible reply. I would just add that maybe an officer should have firearms authority removed permanently once there are the slightest signs of unsuitability including any bragging about being authorised.
Reminds me of the episode in ‘The Thin Blue Line’ where Rowan Atkinson playing the role of a uniformed police inspector in charge of a suburban local police station turns down all applicants for a gun license on the grounds that anyone who applies for a gun license in such an area is clearly not a fit candidate to own a gun.
We should remember that Tasers are also firearms/guns and there are more officers carrying Tasers than there are Authorised Firearms Officers. Tasers are classified as less lethal and the vetting for carrying them is not as stringent as for AFO’s. And there is a consistent pressure for them to be classified as Personal Protection Equipment, not least by the Police Federation. Were that to happen they would become standard issue just like batons and handcuffs. We are in danger of drifting into issuing firearms to all officers as standard equipment. We are progressively militarising the police.
These officers were members of the Diplomatic Protection service. Presumably, they accompanied political figures and members of the Royal Family to their public and private engagements. It raises a question as to what the officers accompanying, say, Prince Andrew, or Boris Johnson, saw, and who, if anybody, they reported it to. Perhaps there are other factors which contribute to the selection of members of this particular service.
I believe the Royals are covered by the Royalty Protection Group (RPG) as opposed to the Diplomatic Protection Group (DPG). One might expect high level VIP protection training in either case, plus additional interpersonal skills. I am unsure how the shambling, inept, and very high profile figure of Boris Johnson was able to evade his protection to escape to Lebedev’s Castle in Italy for his own allegedly alcohol-fuelled soiree free of all diplomatic oversight. It is a mystery, and one hard to square with training and devotion to duty. One might be led to suspect other factors were involved, which should have been investigated and in the public domain. A Foreign Secretary holding private meetings with ex-KGB related persons is a failure of DPG and National Security, surely? It’s not just firearms suitability that is at stake here.
Look across the Atlantic and be very frightened.
Well put, 100% agreed
Rather difficult, how do you select police to carry a gun. The ‘tap on the shoulder’ may make the recipient feel pressured into accepting. With the risk they may not be able to pull the trigger when required. The usual advertise and pick those who come forward may well deliver many good candidates – and a few wrong-uns.
Assuming we need some police with guns then selection and monitoring would seem key. Some form of regular psychological testing may look a good idea. Except it sends the message ‘they gave me a shooter but don’t trust me’. Something that is effective but more subtle seems needed.
The two wrong’uns noted were both in the diplomatic protection service. To my mind volunteering for this is a warning sign – or a dumping ground. In reality no one is going to take a bullet for some politico or diplomat. The reality is a low risk job with a gun handy and you might have to take a pop at a terrorist one day. Easy job with a bit of faux status – time to mark the personnel file for close tabs.
Back in the real world of drug dealers etc we have to have brave men and women who will go up against these folk. They very likely will have some kind of camaraderie. Our systems should encourage and steer that. When (not if) things go wrong we will have to live with the fact that people do make mistakes. At such times the press and others will be baying for blood. Our systems must have a clearly just response – but it had better be good because we laid the foundations for that mistake. Hanging people out to dry on either side is not good enough.
Where does this leave the armed forces?
Difference is that they do not have a community policing role.
I have always assumed that fire-arms are issued to authorised officers on the occasions when they are deemed to be required, not routinely carried, even in a safe in a car, as implied above.
If a method of objective assessment is both possible and desirable, all recruits could be obliged to undergo it, rather than apply for the authorisation. And unless the unit to which they are assigned carries an obligation to put themselves between a routinely protected person and lethal danger, the authorisation to use a fire-arm should not be accompanied by an enhancement of salary.
In ‘my time’ as an AFO, firearms were issued for specified purpose or operation with a clear start and finish. I was also one of those rapid response officers on traffic with ‘a locked case of guns in the boot’. Some officers, like the Atomic Energy security forces and Forces personnel guarding military bases are permanently armed with automatic weapons. Being armed is part of the job, as it is in the DPG and RPG. Assignment to any AFO or armed specified role (like major airport security) always required psychological assessment and extensive training as I mentioned before. No system dealing with humans is ever 100% secure. I do not have reliable current figures, but the UK’s record of untoward incidents was always positive, I think. This speaks to the nature of UK officers and the regulations in effect. There is always more to be done, but I remain hopeful that despite some high profile and dramatic failings, the overall picture is secure. Not secure enough for complacency – but within relatively safe parameters. Given the greater prevalence of police driving incidents involving public injury, one might have wondered equally about driving attitudinal training. Giving officers ‘blues and twos’ and response status is an adrenaline rush, I remember! And exhausting.