our position
More and more we hear reports of U.S. citizens being shot and killed by law enforcement officers. Repeatedly, the deadly force action is justified with a statement from law enforcement that the officer followed procedure. Inevitably, the victim made some sort of movement or lunged or disobeyed orders that resulted in the officer feeling threatened. Removing the firearm from the officer’s belt will reduce the confrontational behavior of officers and allow additional time to access situations, resulting in fewer deaths and increased officer protection due to a more collaborative police effort .
We are advocating that police forces curtail their initial use of deadly force when dealing with the public. Deadly force should be available to police when the need arises, but only after non-lethal remedies have been exhausted.
At first glance, your reaction to Disarm The Police.Com may be that the police will be left defenseless and at risk of attack by criminals. But, we believe, the opposite is true. An unarmed police officer is less of a threat to the public than an armed officer, which in itself reduces threats to the officer and encourages participation by the public through increased communication.
According to the FBI, in 50% of murders of American police officers, the officers did not have time to even draw their gun. This is because the initiative always lies with the attacker; they can strike first before the officer can react. Simply arming officers doesn't protect them. If anything, arming front-line officers increases their risk.
All major police forces in Europe, as well as the US, Canada and Australia routinely carry firearms, says Prof Peter Waddington in the United Kingdom. The exceptions are Britain, the Irish Republic, Norway and New Zealand. In Norway officers carry arms in their cars but not on their person.
The Garda Siochana (Guardian of the Peace) is the national police force in Ireland.
The first Garda Commissioner stated that: “The Garda Siochana will succeed not by force of arms or numbers, but on their moral authority as servants of the people.”
Irish scholar Robert Nielson puts this into perspective, “Ireland’s police are reliant on the consent of the people to be effective. This cannot come from intimidation and coercion but only from genuine support. An unarmed force removes the barriers between them and the community and creates greater trust among both sides. People should not view those who protect them with fear. This respect is part of the reason why Ireland is relatively peaceful and our police are greatly respected”.
When Englishman Robert Peel started the 'New Police' in England, the idea of disarming front line officers faced profound and widespread hostility. Peel and his colleagues realized that the police could not defeat the mass of the population by force. Policing by consent was the only option, consent was grudgingly offered by the lower social classes. That was why he consciously decided that the 'bobbies' should be unarmed. Even the truncheon ( billy club) should be hidden away, to appear less offensive.
New Zealand has adopted an armed response model similar to Britain, says the International Law Enforcement Forum. There was considerable debate there in 2010 when two officers were shot, and commissioner Peter Marshall stated: "International experience shows that making firearms more accessible to police raises certain risks that are very difficult to control."
These considerations include:
All U.S. police forces have directives and procedures that dictate the appropriate use of deadly force. The basic current precursors to the use of deadly force are given in the following example:
An officer may use deadly force:
1. When it appears to be necessary to defend himself or another person from what the officer believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly force; or
2. To affect an arrest or prevent the escape of a person in custody who, theofficer believes, is attempting to escape by means of a deadly force; or
3. To affect an arrest or prevent the escape of a person in custody who indicates that he presents an imminent threat of death or serious physical injury to others unless apprehended.
As you can see, the decision to use deadly force in the U.S. is largely left up to whether the officer feels threatened. We are continually learning more and more about the human brain and we know that the rational brain and the emotional brain work together. The decision to act is much more than a rational process of sorting out incoming information, as we tend to believe when analyzing behavior in a given incident. Scientists are discovering that expectations, past experiences, prior outcomes, genetic makeup, and previous injury all play an important role in determining our decision making and ultimate action.
In other words, many things come into play that lead to an officer feeling threatened in a given situation. The officer’s interpretation of the situation may also be influenced by the brain’s need to satisfy certain chemical responses previously established from past experiences like military combat or shooting range practice.
We are advocating that police forces curtail their initial use of deadly force when dealing with the public. Deadly force should be available to police when the need arises, but only after non-lethal remedies have been exhausted.
At first glance, your reaction to Disarm The Police.Com may be that the police will be left defenseless and at risk of attack by criminals. But, we believe, the opposite is true. An unarmed police officer is less of a threat to the public than an armed officer, which in itself reduces threats to the officer and encourages participation by the public through increased communication.
According to the FBI, in 50% of murders of American police officers, the officers did not have time to even draw their gun. This is because the initiative always lies with the attacker; they can strike first before the officer can react. Simply arming officers doesn't protect them. If anything, arming front-line officers increases their risk.
All major police forces in Europe, as well as the US, Canada and Australia routinely carry firearms, says Prof Peter Waddington in the United Kingdom. The exceptions are Britain, the Irish Republic, Norway and New Zealand. In Norway officers carry arms in their cars but not on their person.
The Garda Siochana (Guardian of the Peace) is the national police force in Ireland.
The first Garda Commissioner stated that: “The Garda Siochana will succeed not by force of arms or numbers, but on their moral authority as servants of the people.”
Irish scholar Robert Nielson puts this into perspective, “Ireland’s police are reliant on the consent of the people to be effective. This cannot come from intimidation and coercion but only from genuine support. An unarmed force removes the barriers between them and the community and creates greater trust among both sides. People should not view those who protect them with fear. This respect is part of the reason why Ireland is relatively peaceful and our police are greatly respected”.
When Englishman Robert Peel started the 'New Police' in England, the idea of disarming front line officers faced profound and widespread hostility. Peel and his colleagues realized that the police could not defeat the mass of the population by force. Policing by consent was the only option, consent was grudgingly offered by the lower social classes. That was why he consciously decided that the 'bobbies' should be unarmed. Even the truncheon ( billy club) should be hidden away, to appear less offensive.
New Zealand has adopted an armed response model similar to Britain, says the International Law Enforcement Forum. There was considerable debate there in 2010 when two officers were shot, and commissioner Peter Marshall stated: "International experience shows that making firearms more accessible to police raises certain risks that are very difficult to control."
These considerations include:
- Risk of police having weapons taken from them
- Risk of greater use of weapons against the public and/or offenders
- Ambush can never be controlled, whether or not officers are armed
All U.S. police forces have directives and procedures that dictate the appropriate use of deadly force. The basic current precursors to the use of deadly force are given in the following example:
An officer may use deadly force:
1. When it appears to be necessary to defend himself or another person from what the officer believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly force; or
2. To affect an arrest or prevent the escape of a person in custody who, theofficer believes, is attempting to escape by means of a deadly force; or
3. To affect an arrest or prevent the escape of a person in custody who indicates that he presents an imminent threat of death or serious physical injury to others unless apprehended.
As you can see, the decision to use deadly force in the U.S. is largely left up to whether the officer feels threatened. We are continually learning more and more about the human brain and we know that the rational brain and the emotional brain work together. The decision to act is much more than a rational process of sorting out incoming information, as we tend to believe when analyzing behavior in a given incident. Scientists are discovering that expectations, past experiences, prior outcomes, genetic makeup, and previous injury all play an important role in determining our decision making and ultimate action.
In other words, many things come into play that lead to an officer feeling threatened in a given situation. The officer’s interpretation of the situation may also be influenced by the brain’s need to satisfy certain chemical responses previously established from past experiences like military combat or shooting range practice.