Real Policing

This morning I participated in an on-air debate for BBC Radio Five Live regarding officer safety.  There was an overwhelming sense from serving officers and members of the public that the routine arming of all police officers would be an inappropriate and excessive response.  However, the nature of the problem has clearly changed.  Any course of action ought to be considered in the light of the recent high profile deaths of police officers in the line of duty.  Indeed, it is no longer firearms officers who are called to incidents only to be confronted with a knife or firearm.  Response officers are attending incidents which initially appear to be routine but are ending in tragedy.  In the case of PC Sharon Beshenivsky, she attended an alarm activation at a travel agents only to be confronted by a gunman.  PC Ricky Gray attended a domestic incident and was again confronted by a gunman.  Yesterday, PC Jonathan Henry attended an incident of an altercation in the town centre and was confronted by a man in possession of a knife.  

The crucial factor in two of these incidents is that they were initially considered to be routine by virtue of the fact that there was no specific mention of a weapon.  In such circumstances a firearms response would not be justified.  Another common factor is that the risk became apparent only after the officers had arrived.  In each case the only means of protection at their disposal was a baton and incapacitant spray which, in light of the three recent incidents, is proving to be inadequate.  Unless there is specific mention of a firearm or knife being used a firearms unit would not be expected to attend an incident which would then be resourced by response officers.  But what if the risk is initially unknown?  What if the risk only comes to light after initial police attendance?  Where does that leave the response officer who is confronted with a weapon upon arrival at the incident?  Are they to hope that someone else will call up for a firearms unit and that the offender doesn’t shoot or stab them before firearms officers arrive?  Yesterday’s incident could have also occurred as the result of a stop-check or stop search.

The answer does not necessarily lie in increased attendance of firearms officers unless they are to be expected to accompany response officers to routine incidents.  Their limited numbers render this option unfeasible.  Yet, the risk is no longer confined to firearms officers as life threatening incidents are in fact evolving out of what are, ostensibly, routine incidents and response officers have less at their disposal with which to protect themselves.  I am not in any way calling for the blanket arming of officers with guns as the only suitable response.  However, there is clearly a need for better protective measures to be put in place to ensure the safety of officers attending routine jobs only to be confronted by a drunken, drugged or psychologically impaired offender armed with a potentially lethal weapon and a positive mental attitude for violence.  There can be no doubt that what we want or don’t want in terms of our own ideals must be weighed against the practical demands of both officer and public safety.