Quote Originally Posted by blue matt View Post
the mistakes were made from the top down, not just the guys who took the shots, i am sure you must have read the report

since that fatal day the procedure's for taking the shot have changed ( surprised you have read about it )

you mention weaker officers, the rules of combat could be set fairly easy, a guy is coming towards you with a knife, take the shot, a guy with a knife is stabbing someone, give the warning and then if they do not stop, take the shot

the more technical stuff, as in the case of Jean de Menzies would still be carried out by specialist teams, you appear ( i guess on purpose ) be confusing the two, a specialist FA officers and a armed Police Officer just using his gun for protection and to stop terrorist activities, once again, body cams will tell us the story and the police will learn from that
I think you're missing the point (perhaps on purpose) that arming all police officers is a turning point, there's no going back once it's done. So the gun is just there for protection and to stop terrorists - how many times will an average officer come across a terrorist? None of the police officers I know have ever been in a situation where they have needed a gun for protection.

You talk about someone being stabbed with a knife - I'm sure you remember (perhaps you forgot on purpose) the 'you ain't no muslim bruv' incident. The police successfully tasered him. Didn't need a gun. Otherwise, yesterday's terrorist attacked with a car. Arming officers isn't going to stop that exceedingly rare occurence.

If anything, the fact that the guy resorted to using a car and a knife rather than a bomb and an automatic is a testament to the good work done by our intelligence services. That's our best weapon, prevention, not chasing after them with a gun after the event.