• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

3 Jun 2017: Vehicle Hits Pedestrians on London Bridge

tomahawk6

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
62
Points
530
Armed police are on the scene.This is breaking news...

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40146916

Police are responding to reports that a van has hit a number of pedestrians on London Bridge in central London.
Witnesses have said that armed officers are understood to be at the scene after a white transit van mounted the pavement before driving into people.
The Met Police say they are dealing with an incident on the bridge and "multiple resources" are in attendance.
Transport for London said the bridge has been closed in both directions due to a "major police incident".

- mod edit to add date to thread title -
 

muskrat89

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Reaction score
18
Points
530
Three different scenes now - http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_BRITAIN_LONDON_BRIDGE_THE_LATEST?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-06-03-18-27-54

 

tomahawk6

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
62
Points
530
There are reports of citizens throwing chairs at the attackers after the unarmed police retreated. Although it didnt take long for the armed police to arrive on scene. In a situation like that you have to be ready to defend yourself until the cavalry arrives.
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
5,124
Points
1,110
Police now confirm:
- 'The' suspects (3) shot and killed by police within eight minutes of the attack beginning.
- 'Further inquiries' being made on whether there are additional suspects.
- Suspects had mock IED vests.

So it reads as if the threat is in fact stopped.
 

JWJ

New Member
Reaction score
0
Points
110
tomahawk6 said:
There are reports of citizens throwing chairs at the attackers after the unarmed police retreated. Although it didnt take long for the armed police to arrive on scene. In a situation like that you have to be ready to defend yourself until the cavalry arrives.

Not all the unarmed police retreated, many were pictured putting themselves between the knifemen who had the visible mock-Suicide vests on and civilians, despite only being armed with their batons and close range pepper spray.

Not to mention the guy who chased the attackers, throwing pint glasses at them and managed to save a few drunk girls by distracting them as they attacked the girls.
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
5,124
Points
1,110
Britain is going to need to take a hard look at whether it still makes sense for police to not all be armed. While the odds of any one individual officer ever needing to fire their weapon will be slim, it would greatly increase the likelihood of a rapid intervention with sufficient force to stop an active threat in these instances. While Britain's policing model has largely sufficed for most crime (although we have seemed armed officers increasing in number and availability), police are increasingly going to be looked to to be the security against attacks such as these. Police should never be in the business of getting into fair fights, and the only way to have an advantage over a knife is with a gun.
 

JWJ

New Member
Reaction score
0
Points
110
Brihard said:
Britain is going to need to take a hard look at whether it still makes sense for police to not all be armed. While the odds of any one individual officer ever needing to fire their weapon will be slim, it would greatly increase the likelihood of a rapid intervention with sufficient force to stop an active threat in these instances. While Britain's policing model has largely sufficed for most crime (although we have seemed armed officers increasing in number and availability), police are increasingly going to be looked to to be the security against attacks such as these. Police should never be in the business of getting into fair fights, and the only way to have an advantage over a knife is with a gun.

I don't think arming our general officers is a good move.

We are vastly improving the numbers of AFOs, and ARV units, 10x the patrol and presence. However we're not doing it rapidly enough and we started the program too late to cover this attack.

However maybe putting one AFO into every police patrol or per area/per x amount of officers would be a idea, armed with just a Glock or other sidearm incase of something like this.
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
3,680
Points
1,060
Inclined to agree with you Brihard. Think the UK really needs to take a look at the unarmed police issue. The violence in Europe and the UK is getting worse, not better.

Carbine sized  308 might  improve odds against weaponized vehicles.
 

Kat Stevens

Army.ca Fixture
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
1,468
Points
1,060
PongoCadet said:
I don't think arming our general officers is a good move.

We are vastly improving the numbers of AFOs, and ARV units, 10x the patrol and presence. However we're not doing it rapidly enough and we started the program too late to cover this attack.

However maybe putting one AFO into every police patrol or per area/per x amount of officers would be a idea, armed with just a Glock or other sidearm incase of something like this.

A Remington Defender in every car would be a big help.  When seconds count, fire support is minutes away.
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
5,124
Points
1,110
PongoCadet said:
I don't think arming our general officers is a good move.

I do, but I'm just a soldier and a cop in an urban centre with specific training for dealing with exactly this kind of active threat.

If even one police officer was in contact with these attackers before any armed officers were, and if even one civilian was injured subsequent to that contact, then that officer, if armed, could have prevented harm to the public, and should have been properly equipped to do so.

For police, the availability of firearms is simply an occupational health and safety issue. Britain, it appears, can no longer afford the luxury of waiting for armed officers to arrive on scene.


Jarnhamar said:
Carbine sized  308 might  improve odds against weaponized vehicles.

Hard to say.. Realistically nay firearm carried will need to be appropriate to the vast majority of police encounters, not specifically tailored to this threat. If the point of guns is to stop a moving vehicle, then that's a different ball game - and really it's still not a great idea.

I've looked at a bunch of these attacks now, and I walked the ground at Nice a few days after it happened there. That one was a rare exception in how long it went on, and in that case the vehicle was actually stopped by a combination of police force and by damage sustained in running so much over. In most instances, the vehicles are stopped because the drivers either crash them, or voluntarily exist to continue the attack on foot. Realistically, a rogue vehicle will probably be only effectively and quickly stopped by putting another vehicle in front of it to immobilize it. The use of firearms, then, would be to respond to the occupants, who will likely remain an active threat until stopped.
 

Kat Stevens

Army.ca Fixture
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
1,468
Points
1,060
A couple of deer slugs through a door panel does a great job of slowing a vehicle down, I'd imagine.
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
5,124
Points
1,110
Kat Stevens said:
A couple of deer slugs through a door panel does a great job of slowing a vehicle down, I'd imagine.

Only if the driver is struck an incapacitated. Good luck making that shot... Better be sure of your backstop.

Guns are a terrible option for stopping vehicles. Sometimes the terrible option is still your best one.
 

Kat Stevens

Army.ca Fixture
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
1,468
Points
1,060
I thought it was implied that through the door panel would be the most direct route to the driver's inner workings. If it's what you've got, it's what you use.
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
3,680
Points
1,060
I've stopped a gentlemen in a speeding car with some liberaly placed fmj 7.62 rounds.  Maybe not the best option in a friendly urban environment but when I think of the easy of access of vehicles combined with how destructive they are I'm leaving towards more heavy handed methods of stopping those jerks.

Cracking down on extremists and turning that PC afraid to be called racist stuff would be effective too I think.

Maybe explore more police forces switching to 300blk in their ar15s or something.
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
5,124
Points
1,110
Jarnhamar said:
I've stopped a gentlemen in a speeding car with some liberaly placed fmj 7.62 rounds.  Maybe not the best option in a friendly urban environment but when I think of the easy of access of vehicles combined with how destructive they are I'm leaving towards more heavy handed methods of stopping those jerks.

Cracking down on extremists and turning that PC afraid to be called racist stuff would be effective too I think.

Maybe explore more police forces switching to 300blk in their ar15s or something.

Yup, but that'll be rare circumstances- and I bet in your case you had a belt fed. Assume anything police are carrying will be semiautomatic and a pistol or rifle (or still potentially shotgun). Police have to be far more cognizant of their backstop than soldiers in a war zone, it's just a different legal picture, and that definitely impacts what can be procured. Is it possible to incapacitate a driver with fire? Absolutely. It's just not likely to work, and there's a host of police experience and resulting policy coming from same.

More I'd like to say on the issue of stopping vehicles, but not on these means.

Kat Stevens said:
I thought it was implied that through the door panel would be the most direct route to the driver's inner workings. If it's what you've got, it's what you use.

Sure, but hitting the driver does not inherently mean incapacitation. Unless you hit the brain/spinal cord, or they rapidly bleed out, you won't get a physical stop. Now, you may get a psychological stop- either quitting (unlikely), bailing out of the vehicle (possible) or getting distracted and crashing (more possible).

I'm not saying guns aren't a tool that can be used to stop cars. Sure they can. A screwdriver can be used as a hammer in some circumstances. I'm just saying you don't equip with guns to stop vehicles (in this context), you equip with guns to stop humans.

I think the best bet is target hardening. Configure more open roads such that there are physical barriers to driving up on sidewalks, across medians, etc. make it more likely to crash or get stuck. So we can shoot you in the face more easily.
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
3,680
Points
1,060
Great point. Yes to the belt but it was a standard length burst  :camo:

Interesting idea about making urban areas harder targets  (I love walls and fortifications) but I think the sheer scope of modifying urban centers like that would be too expensive and chaotic.  A new city might lend itself well to that design though.

Any bets on if the attackers were 'known to the police' or had suspicious neighbours afraid to speak up?

A bit of a tangent but do you think police need a heavier caliber than a 5.56 (encompassing regular work and stuff like this)?
 

JWJ

New Member
Reaction score
0
Points
110
I guess the best bet trying to take out a vehicle going at speed with the kind of rounds Armed Police carry, is the engine block. But its not a action to plan on, besides the fact its unlikely for police to respond before the vehicle crashes (Nice was a very long situation).

With regards making these areas a hard target, thats something thats been slowly going on for the last few years in the UK. Its not obvious stuff like concrete blocks or dragon teeth, but benches that are made out of concrete that go deep into the ground, metal bus stops, reinforcing street signs and making it much harder to 1. drive into pedestrian areas and 2. stay in these areas.

Obviously I'm not a expert in these areas so I'm not going to try to claim to be, I just like to research what measure are going on and how the Police/authorities respond to these incidents.

I think the creation of the CTSFOs is a good thing, for those unaware the way Armed Police works in the UK is three levels of qualification that have different jobs, the entry level being Authorised Firearm Officer (AFO) who are trained to carry rifles and sidearms, patrol in Armed Response Vehicles and respond to incidents as required. Specialist Firearms Officers (SFOs) build upon this training to conduct more specialist stuff such as raids and hostage situations etc. Now with Counter-Terrorist Specialist Firearms Officers (CTSFOs) they're building regional teams that train solely for CT incidents and responses, with much upgraded equipment and weaponry, to a extremely high level of training (training and operating with UKSF).

I think that its important to get CTSFO units rolled out to every region in the UK, as currently just London and Manchester have them I believe, with Scotland next on the list. That way theres a dedicated unit with the appropriate skills, training and equipment to deal with these incidents, in a good response time.

Jarnhamar, depending on the Police Force the firearms officers work in, they get different weapons, for example CTSFOs use the SIG MCX 5.56mm as standard, with some larger calibre rifles embedded, where as some Forces still roll with MP5s and SG550s. Although you won't find larger calibres being carried in armed response vehicles. Maybe they need some sort of anti-vehicle capability with these attacks on the rise. Prehaps using some sort of specialist 40mm projectile in their 40mm launchers?
 
Top