What freedoms do we give up to arm all police?
Checks and balances protect democracy but are hard to claw back if lost, says Neil Mclennan
After the Manchester terror attack Police Scotland tweeted an image of the Chief Constable with two armed policemen and two civilians. ‘Armed police’ said the hashtag.
This debate in Scotland has been challenging for those seeking ‘to improve the safety and wellbeing of people, places and communities in Scotland.’ The force had its knuckles rapped before for deploying officers to routine calls and ‘gun-toting cops’ purchasing ‘pieces’ for lunch.
Just over 100 years ago, a man in Sarajevo changed the face of Europe forever –a political assassination resulting from rampant nationalism which we now see re-emerging across the world alongside religious fundamentalism. A few years after Franz Ferdinand’s assassination, trigger-happy guards sparked similar transformational events in Russia. A nervous finger on the trigger lit the socio-economic tinder box.
Some issues prevail today: disruptive forces internationally, food banks and aspects of democratic, civilised society hanging together by a thread.
The high regard the police are held in is to be commended and encouraged as they run towards incidents the majority of us would run from. The role of armed police is unenviable, with every call needing split second decisions and superior judgement amidst chaotic circumstances. The same is true of peacekeeping soldiers walking tightropes in danger zones across the world.
However, hopefully we will not see camouflaged men on our streets again any time soon. It is a mark of the decline of other systems of protection when this is required.
Some have jumped to knee jerk reactions about arming all police. The debate, of course, is very different in most parts of Scotland compared to that of inner city Manchester, London and maybe even Glasgow.
However, the Glasgow Airport and Westminster attacks had armed officers in the vicinity. Even this could not stop an attacker from causing carnage in a split second. In America, the number of shootings on police which are carried out with the officer’s own firearm gives another consideration.
Can we increase the number of armed response vehicles specially trained and quick to respond? Can we increase beat bobbies who gather intelligence and support communities? Can we ensure our intelligence services are equipped to adequately assess threats and neutralise where necessary? Surely this is more palatable than seeing weapons carried on our streets as a matter of course. Studies into police effectiveness show that trust and presence are central in the public’s desires. Deeper questions need to be asked of authorities and our individual tolerances. Checks and balances are needed as protectors of democracy. They are hard to claw back once sacrificed.
Protection and maintaining freedoms are hard to balance. What freedoms can we give up on to protect other freedoms, if any? ● Neil Mclennan is a former head of History and now leadership programme director at University of Aberdeen.