Too Hard or?

Doc

Senior Master
Joined
May 12, 2002
Messages
4,240
Reaction score
180
Location
Southern California
The Sunday Times - Britain December 04, 2005

US cop quits 'too risky' UK force
David Leppard

A TEXAN patrol officer who became the first foreigner to join the British police is to resign after three years because he says policing is too dangerous here compared with America.

Ben Johnson, a 6ft 4in former paratrooper nicknamed Slim, has written to his chief constable asking to carry a Glock 17 handgun on his routine beat in Reading.

He said officers are dying unnecessarily because they are less well equipped and trained to protect themselves and the public than their American counterparts.

“The risks required to be taken by unarmed and poorly trained British police are too great for me to continue being a police officer and I will be resigning my commission in a few weeks,” said Johnson.

“I am tired of my colleagues dying when, if they were better trained and equipped, they would have a fighting chance of survival.”

Johnson’s decision was prompted by the murder of PC Sharon Beshenivsky, a mother of three children and two step-children, who was shot during a robbery in Bradford last month. He said her death demonstrated the lack of training and equipment given to British police.

“Beshenivsky did the one thing that officers in America are trained not to do. She walked up to the front entrance of a business during an alarm call. If the incident had happened in America, she would never have done that. She would almost certainly have been alive today.”

Last week Johnson wrote to Sara Thornton, acting chief constable of Thames Valley police, asking to be armed on patrol. “If the chief authorises me to carry a pistol, then I will not be resigning,” he said. “But that is an impossibility. I now have the choice of continuing in a dangerous job, ill-trained and ill-equipped, or leaving the profession I have loved.”

Johnson, 34, served as a paratrooper in the American army before joining the police department in Garland, a Dallas suburb. Like other officers he carried a Glock 22 pistol as a sidearm, supported by a 12-bore shotgun and an AR15 semi-automatic rifle in his patrol car. In America he routinely confronted armed criminals and received 10 commendations for his bravery.

He came to Britain three years ago to live with his fiancée Louise, an IT consultant. He was able to join the Thames Valley force because of a change in regulations that lifted the bar on foreigners.

The couple are now married and Johnson has taken a short career break to look after their 18-month-old daughter Catherine. He said fatherhood had changed his perspective. “It would not be fair [to my family] to continue in a job that is being made more dangerous by a refusal to modernise,” he said.

It was an incident earlier this year that first caused Johnson to consider handing in his warrant card. He was on plainclothes CID duty when he was called to the Royal Berkshire hospital in Reading to interview a victim of domestic violence.

A woman had jumped out of a first-floor window to escape her violent boyfriend, paralysing her from the waist down. The boyfriend, a member of a drug gang, was already wanted by the police for attempted murder, after shooting someone in the back of the head in London.

Johnson and other plainclothes officers who went to the hospital were alerted that the boyfriend had telephoned to say he was coming to see her. They also received a warning that he might be armed.

According to Johnson, he wanted to arrest the man when he arrived, but was ordered by a senior officer not to do so because of the risk. The suspect escaped and it was two days before he was arrested.

“That was the first time I’d ever let someone wanted for attempted murder simply walk away from me,” said Johnson. “It went against everything I knew. I thought it was my duty to arrest these people.

“It seems that in Britain ordinary officers are instructed not to engage with dangerous criminals. But if police officers can’t engage with them, who can?” He is critical of Charles Clarke, the home secretary, who says he can see “no evidence” that arming officers would reduce the number of police fatalities. “With all respect to the home secretary, he has never answered a 999 call,” said Johnson.

Of Beshenivsky’s murder, he said: “I have been in exactly those situations on patrol in America and I have managed to arrest and disarm offenders without being harmed.”

In America, officers spend weeks learning how to cope with armed incidents. But in Britain, Johnson said, he was never shown how to handle or unload a firearm or told how to respond to an armed robbery. “Officers spend more time learning about how to process paperwork than dealing with violent situations. We are trained more like social workers than police officers.

“The training I received in Britain in dealing with armed incidents was virtually non-existent. It consisted of a 30-minute lecture from a firearms officer who said: ‘If you see the business end of a gun or anyone holding a gun . . . turn, run and get away as quickly as possible’.”

This apparent complacency was reinforced at his swearing-in ceremony when a senior Thames Valley officer told him and colleagues that they would not face the sort of dangerous incidents portrayed on The Bill, the television programme.

“I was surprised that he said we wouldn’t come into harm’s way. This went against everything I had learnt during my career,” said Johnson.

By contrast, the chief officer of Garland police department tells new recruits that it is his task to ensure they are prepared and equipped to face any threat.

Johnson accepted that America is more violent than Britain, with a gun culture contributing to a murder rate 17 times higher than here. He recognised, too, that many more police officers are murdered in America — 57 last year compared with just one here — proportionately about 11 times as many.

But he maintained that British police are far more exposed to danger when confronted with armed offenders than their US counterparts. He said he did not want all police armed — just the “first responders”, officers who, like Beshenivsky, are first on the scene of crimes. He believed this would mean arming about half of Britain’s 140,000 police.

A spokesman for Thames Valley police said: “PC Johnson is currently on a career break. These are his personal views and he did not discuss them with anyone before going to the press.”
 
This is a real no-brainer isn't it? Where firearms are concerned, cops here in the UK are no match for even the lamest of armed criminals as the above story lucidly illustrates. Relatively speaking, dustmen are better equipped than cops! A complete travesty.

The problem is - and you could perhaps better relate to it, arming all cops here in the UK [obviously we have special armed units] is as difficult a decision as removing the right to bear arms from US citizens - there are many proponents, argurments and counter-positions on both sides.

For most right-thinking folk here, cops should routinely carry firearms. Unfortunately, our society gives disproportionately large coverage to those liberals and those supposedly representing our "civil rights". We're subsequently led to believe that giving cops on the beat firearms would somehow result in random indiscriminate and uncalled for shootings. Unfortunately, while we're debating, this is exactly what the criminals are doing.

A change such as this is a major one here and no-one will take it, despite the fact that lives would be saved. Go figure.
 
Certainly an interesting article. I can't really blame this officer for leaving the force. I wonder, and perhaps someone that is from that area can answer better, but it seems to me that the people that are making the decision to carry or not to carry, have no clue as to what being an LEO is all about. Its almost as if they'd rather have a security officer than a police officer.

How can they expect to call the police for help but end up not getting that help because the situation is too dangerous?

Mike
 
MJS said:
Certainly an interesting article. I can't really blame this officer for leaving the force. I wonder, and perhaps someone that is from that area can answer better, but it seems to me that the people that are making the decision to carry or not to carry, have no clue as to what being an LEO is all about. Its almost as if they'd rather have a security officer than a police officer.

How can they expect to call the police for help but end up not getting that help because the situation is too dangerous?

Mike

No, the police themselves are the ones with a strong inclination against being habitually armed. See:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2660885.stm

"The Police Federation represents 129,000 officers up to the rank of chief inspector. In 1995, it polled its members on the issue.
"Asked whether they wanted to see the police routinely armed, 79 per cent were firmly against. But 83 per cent said there should be an increase in the number of police officers trained in the use of firearms, so they could provide armed back-up when required."



At the same time, the consensus is that police should be trained in the use of firearms. This is currently a hot issue because there were an exceptional number of police killings in the UK this past year. The numbers are so small that statistical correlation is difficult to justify.


Nevertheless, more officers died in car accidents, and policing still is a far less dangerous job than fishing:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2195847.stm
 
MartialIntent said:
This is a real no-brainer isn't it? Where firearms are concerned, cops here in the UK are no match for even the lamest of armed criminals as the above story lucidly illustrates. Relatively speaking, dustmen are better equipped than cops! A complete travesty.

The problem is - and you could perhaps better relate to it, arming all cops here in the UK [obviously we have special armed units] is as difficult a decision as removing the right to bear arms from US citizens - there are many proponents, argurments and counter-positions on both sides.

For most right-thinking folk here, cops should routinely carry firearms. Unfortunately, our society gives disproportionately large coverage to those liberals and those supposedly representing our "civil rights". We're subsequently led to believe that giving cops on the beat firearms would somehow result in random indiscriminate and uncalled for shootings. Unfortunately, while we're debating, this is exactly what the criminals are doing.

A change such as this is a major one here and no-one will take it, despite the fact that lives would be saved. Go figure.

Most British police disagree with you. Go figure.
 
eyebeams said:
No, the police themselves are the ones with a strong inclination against being habitually armed. See:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2660885.stm

"The Police Federation represents 129,000 officers up to the rank of chief inspector. In 1995, it polled its members on the issue.
"Asked whether they wanted to see the police routinely armed, 79 per cent were firmly against. But 83 per cent said there should be an increase in the number of police officers trained in the use of firearms, so they could provide armed back-up when required."



At the same time, the consensus is that police should be trained in the use of firearms. This is currently a hot issue because there were an exceptional number of police killings in the UK this past year. The numbers are so small that statistical correlation is difficult to justify.


Nevertheless, more officers died in car accidents, and policing still is a far less dangerous job than fishing:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2195847.stm

Good post. The issue is far more complicated than it might appear at first sight. Not sure how well PC Johnson researched the role he was taking on when he became a Police Officer in the UK, but I can't believe he was unaware on joining of the fact that UK Police (except Northern Ireland) do not routinely carry firearms.
Whatever you might think of UK policing he doesn't seem to have bought into the ethos of the service he joined. Taking the public stand he has done, whilst still a serving police officer, may not be doing his colleagues any favours either, as armed policing decisions are under huge public scrutiny at the moment. Probably not the most popular person in his department right now.

D
 
eyebeams said:
No, the police themselves are the ones with a strong inclination against being habitually armed. See:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2660885.stm

"The Police Federation represents 129,000 officers up to the rank of chief inspector. In 1995, it polled its members on the issue.
"Asked whether they wanted to see the police routinely armed, 79 per cent were firmly against. But 83 per cent said there should be an increase in the number of police officers trained in the use of firearms, so they could provide armed back-up when required."



At the same time, the consensus is that police should be trained in the use of firearms. This is currently a hot issue because there were an exceptional number of police killings in the UK this past year. The numbers are so small that statistical correlation is difficult to justify.


Nevertheless, more officers died in car accidents, and policing still is a far less dangerous job than fishing:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2195847.stm

Thanks for the reply and the link. I guess I just find it strange that they would not want to carry anything, considering officers here in the states are armed with a variety of things to use, ie: firearm, Taser, OC, as well as the other less lethal devices that are out there, ie: beanbag, and pepperball gun.

Mike
 
Doesn't sound like a job I'd want. My city just had a officer shot in the face when he approached a car for a traffic stop. It's a dangerous job armed or unarmed but it's rediculous to think that you'll never come across an armed criminal and as he said what sence does it make to have a sizeable police force on the streets that can't arrest a serious criminal. Letting a murderer go 'for now' just puts more inocent peoples lives at risk.
 
Hello, They are hanging on traditions of the old years ago thinking.

Today the bad guys are well arm and willing to use weapons. Traditions will get more of their officers kill. .............Aloha
 
MJS said:
How can they expect to call the police for help but end up not getting that help because the situation is too dangerous?-Mike
Good question. I don't blame the officer for quitting; I've never been an LEO, but it seems to me that the job is hard/dangerous enough as it is without giving the criminals an advantage by disarming law enforcement. Just my two-cents.
 
still learning said:
Hello, They are hanging on traditions of the old years ago thinking.

Today the bad guys are well arm and willing to use weapons. Traditions will get more of their officers kill.

Or, arming will start an arms race, as in the U.S. where criminals occasionally have armor-piercing bullets nowadays.

I would side with arming them, but I can see the other side of this argument.
 
Last week Johnson wrote to Sara Thornton, acting chief constable of Thames Valley police, asking to be armed on patrol. “If the chief authorises me to carry a pistol, then I will not be resigning,” he said. “But that is an impossibility. I now have the choice of continuing in a dangerous job, ill-trained and ill-equipped, or leaving the profession I have loved.”
.

I'm not an LEO so if he chose to quit because he didn't like the job or the personal risk, or any other reason really I wouldn't have any right to criticise whatsoever. Having said that the reasons he is quoted as giving don't quite make sense, and the publicity he seems to have sought is odd if his main concern was personal job conditions.
As far as I understand it UK Police officers spend the first 2 years walking the beat, and then depending on their aptitudes and availibility of places there is the opportunity to apply to more specialist departments or gain further specialist training. After 3 years there should, in theory at least, have been the possibility to apply to a unit that is routinely armed, of which Thames Valley, being next to the London Met force, has a range. Failing that there are other specialist forces outside of Thames Valley that recruit officers with firearms experience from other forces and are routinely armed (E.g. Civil Nuclear Constabulary, MOD Police, or if he really fancied a challenge the Police Service of Northern Ireland).
The issues he raised are very important, but something just doesn't quite add up with the story as presented in the press, and it is unusual that as a fairly junior serving officer he chose to speak out publicly in the way he did.
 
I do agree in part with the officer in the article in that the training needs to be of a higher standard in order to deal with the possibility that the bad guys may be carrying guns (although please remember it is far less likely that they would have guns here than in the US).

I do think however that he is seriously misguided if he thinks his request will be approved and has shown a fundamental lack of understanding of the approach here. I realise that the right to arm yourself is a freedom taken very seriously by US citizens, and therefore he may have difficulties in reconciling himself to the attitude of UK police and citizens alike. But the recent shooting of Mrs Beshanivsky does represent a rare occurence.

I am not naive enough to ignore the fact that gun crime on the increase in the UK, and that shootings of police officers have risen in number, but as other recent events have shown, to arm police is not a blanket solution to the problem.
 
If they want to limit when the general public can do, I can see that, but as far as LEO and Military goes, IMO, they should be armed.

Mike
 
Dan G said:
I'm not an LEO so if he chose to quit because he didn't like the job or the personal risk, or any other reason really I wouldn't have any right to criticise whatsoever. Having said that the reasons he is quoted as giving don't quite make sense, and the publicity he seems to have sought is odd if his main concern was personal job conditions.
As far as I understand it UK Police officers spend the first 2 years walking the beat, and then depending on their aptitudes and availibility of places there is the opportunity to apply to more specialist departments or gain further specialist training. After 3 years there should, in theory at least, have been the possibility to apply to a unit that is routinely armed, of which Thames Valley, being next to the London Met force, has a range. Failing that there are other specialist forces outside of Thames Valley that recruit officers with firearms experience from other forces and are routinely armed (E.g. Civil Nuclear Constabulary, MOD Police, or if he really fancied a challenge the Police Service of Northern Ireland).
The issues he raised are very important, but something just doesn't quite add up with the story as presented in the press, and it is unusual that as a fairly junior serving officer he chose to speak out publicly in the way he did.
Unfortunately that is the biggest difference between the UK Police Force and the US Police Force, what is seen as "specialized" training for firearms or being armed, is what is considered "basic" training here in all the Police academies. Anything specialized after the basic academy is what we know as "advanced" training. Just my 2 cents :)
 
Pacificshore said:
Unfortunately that is the biggest difference between the UK Police Force and the US Police Force, what is seen as "specialized" training for firearms or being armed, is what is considered "basic" training here in all the Police academies. Anything specialized after the basic academy is what we know as "advanced" training. Just my 2 cents :)

The biggest difference between the two forces is that one operates in the Uk and the other in the US. Although we are very similar in some ways, our two countries are vastly diferent in others. I think the differences in policing reflect that.
 
Shortay said:
The biggest difference between the two forces is that one operates in the Uk and the other in the US. Although we are very similar in some ways, our two countries are vastly diferent in others. I think the differences in policing reflect that.
email your Dad in the U.S.
 
Back
Top