TO ARM THE POLICE WHEN POLICE KILLING VERDICTS INDICATE SUPER EFFICIENCY OR OBFUSCATION

In 1936 only on the authorisation of a sergeant with good reasons could police officers be issued with a firearm.  Since that time of course authorisation has been tightened.  A recent survey of unknown origin or accuracy indicated that the vast majority of police officers do not wish to be routinely armed. To my knowledge no such survey has ever produced a different result.  But the consequences of this are not necessarily in line with what the public wants.    This most important aspect of our overall justice system is coming under increasing strains and all in just a few weeks. The conclusions  provided by the recent  inquest into the shooting dead of Mark Duggan, namely that he was lawfully killed, have offered as many questions as answers. Last month after the Paris massacres the Met Chief pleaded to be allowed to train and appoint more armed officers in London. Less than two weeks ago an apparently unarmed man was shot dead by police in Wood Green.  In a rare action  the shooter has been arrested by the Independent Police Complaints Commission and interviewed under caution. This has provoked considerable anger from a former Met Police Commissioner who was quickly elevated to the House of Lords upon his retirement.  Current Met Chief Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe is also none too happy at the actions of the IPCC whose 2014 document Deaths During or Following Police Contact 2013/14 offers interesting numbers when compared to the number of those police officers actually convicted.  Like many such comparisons there appear to be two general conclusions:- our police are super efficient in their use of lethal force or there is bias and obfuscation on a grand scale.