Talk about illogical. If you aren’t going to meet any resistance from an unarmed police, why not carry a weapon and gain the upper hand?
To avoid harsh sentencing if caught.
Because guns are not readily available.
Because there is no need.
IANA psychologist.
The U.S. National Park Service didn’t require backcountry Rangers to carry a firearm until 1989. And even then, it was like pulling teeth to get some of those guys to play ball. Even 20 years ago, I knew front country Rangers who hardly ever wore their vests. Here’s an excellent PBS documentary made almost 30 years ago exploring the evolution of law enforcement in the NPS (this is the 25th anniversary DVD reissue; it’s not a crappy VHS rip):
:dubious: As this is General Questions can we have the evidence behind this last statement? My understanding was that actual use of firearms by British police was actually very rare. See this news piece from 2014.
I don’t think he meant resupply in the middle of a firefight. I think he was just referring to the ease of ordering one standard round in bigger batches, rather than three or five or 10 or whatever. Economy of scale and all that.
This is an article in the Scotsman newspaper stating that armed police units in Scotland can and do, indeed, carry out normal police duties while armed.
This in answer to JezzaOZ’s claim that they didn’t.
It’s interesting to note that in a number of countries, the first organized, uniformed police forces were (and still are) called *gendarmerie *which literally means (in French): armed men.
An article from the June 29, 1870 New York Times implies that the police were routinely armed at the time. Public domain:
[INDENT]Pistol Practice by the Police
We have already had occasion to commend Superindendent JOURDAN for the intelligence and energy he displayes in the performance of his duties. The last order issued by him is another proof of his competency. It directs patrolmen to report such defects in the roadway as tend to injure horses and vehicles, or to collect water in standing pools…
We trust, however, that the Superintendent will not pause here in his effort to improve the efficiency of the force. It might be made useful to begin by giving them lessons in pistol shooting. If it is part of a patrolman's duty to shoot all unruly dogs on his beat, it is just as well that he should be able to achieve that object without maiming all the bipeds in the neighborhood. Otherwise, if Officer WOOD, who on Monday made Officer OSTROM the target and victim of his awkwardness, is to be allowed to shoot policemen indiscriminately, he may soon acquire a reputation as manshooter which we do not suppose that he covets. Officer WOOD's pistol practice ought to be suspended until he has attained some degree of proficiency in the shooting gallery. A course of lessons to the marksmen of the force will diminish the dangers of the streets, and promote the efficiency of the Police force.[/INDENT]
The snark is strong in this one.
- If it is part of a patrolman’s duty to shoot all unruly dogs on his beat, it is just as well that he should be able to achieve that object without maiming all the bipeds in the neighborhood.*
Can’t argue with that:)
I wonder though if that sentence was merely hyperbole or whether a New York policeman in 1870 would indeed shoot dogs on a more regular basis.
Combing through the New York Times’ archives reveals some of the evolution of police practices. Also the evolution in reporting. I’ll quote them in chronological order and at length as copyright has expired. More at the NYT website (sub req). Please note these are anecdotes and relate only tangentially to the OP.
May 21, 1855: They appear to be quoting a periodical published in Indiana.
[indent]Gang of Murderers Loose- Attempt to Murder Witnesses
*From the Lafayette Journal, May 12 *
Since the murder of Cephas Farenbaugh, and the positive testimony of the old man and his surviving son, implicating the persons under arrest with the crime, fears have been entertained that an attempt would be made by the friends of the accused, whose desperate character is understood about here, to put them out of the way. The were accordingly advised to remove from the insecure cabin where the murder was committed to a small house near the lock, in the immediate neighborhood of Mr. Holmes, Mr. Wolf and other friends. [/indent] Dr. Watson is not mentioned. 
[indent] Acting upon this advice, they took up their residence at the lock on Saturday, when at 11 1/2 o’clock the family were awakened by a furious attempt to break open the door. It appeared to proceed from a party of men using axes, but so securely had the door been barricaded in anticipation of an attack, that it successfully resisted the assault until the neighbors, alarmed by a daughter who had escaped through a back window, together with some canal boatmen, who fortunately happened to be within hearing, came up and put the scoundrels to flight. No pursuit was made, nor was the intelligence communicated to the officers until after daylight. Had news of the outrage been promptly brought to them, the would doubtless have intercepted the return of the villains, and effected their arrests.[/indent] Journalists like to maintain good relations with the police, who are sources of much of their material.
[indent]The Farenbaughs were armed–the old man with a double barreled gun, the son with a pistol-a six shooter we believe-- and would have made a desperate defense if the door had been forced open… [/indent] The article expresses outrage that a man would be murdered during a robbery, then have the family attacked so they won’t testify against the murderer.
[indent]We are not means the apologist of Lynch law or mob violence, but if ever there was a time, when resort ot a more summary process for meting out justice to offenders than the ordinary course of law, was justifiable, it has about come. [/indent] Wow. Parse that one. The paper is calling for extra-judicial steps without quite saying so. They continue: [indent] There exists in our midst an organized band of thieves, counterfeiters and murderers, who have acquired such a degree of boldness and effrontery from the facility with which they have escaped punishment, that the lives and property of none of us are secure. With their ill-gotten gains, by which they command the professional skill of unscrupulous attorneys, they laugh at the law and defy justice, and go on in their evil courses with increasing impunities. Let them beware; they may be taught sooner than is agreeable that the halter is not an “imaginary line” nor Jack Ketch altogether a creature of fable. [/indent] A halter is a headgear used for livestock: the author appears to be alluding to a hanging. Jack Ketch was an infamous executioner (d. 1686)
Ok, from that I conclude that the police were not the only enforcers of justice in Indiana back in 1855. Furthermore, note that 2 guns weren’t considered to be a reliable defense against a gang of 7 men armed with axes but probably also unmentioned firearms. The murder was committed with a gun after all, according to the gravesite link. Indeed, the daughter decided to take her chances by climbing out of a window: she even cut herself on broken glass.
I have a few more articles (low grade ore) if there is interest.
Interesting. Certainly halter was another common word for a noose — for animals it wasn’t a headgear, but went around the neck of cattle or horses etc. for pulling stuff like carts or ploughs.
Further articles would be good…
The next article from July 12, 1855 publishes the verdict of the Coroner’s Jury for investigation of the death of John Robbins during the Portland Rum Riot (Maine).
Background: Maine had banned alcohol a few years back and the Irish immigrant community was annoyed: they interpreted it as a thinly veiled racist attack on their culture. Recall that races were delineated along national lines at the time: there was a Swedish race, an Irish race, etc. Neal Dow was a leading prohibitionist and mayor of Portland. As Mayor he was storing $40,000 ($2014) of medicinal alcohol for distribution to pharmacists and doctors; a faction of the public was dubious and angry.
The crowd grew to 1000-3000. Portland had cops. That day, there was also a militia headed by Mayor Dow, possibly without basis in law. John Robbins was shot dead by a musket ball after Dow ordered his men to fire.
The coroner’s jury was made of 6 “Good and lawful” men. Here is an excerpt from their report: [indent]…John Robbins came to his death at Portland, on the sidewalk on Congress-street, in front of the store occupied by the city of Portland, for the sale of intoxicating liquors… [/indent] No mention of medicinals or other such nonsense, indicating either candor or political bias on the part of the jurors. [indent]…firing and discharge was part of a volley of musketry… by the order and command of Neal Dow, Mayor of said city, discharged muskets loaded with ball cartridges… [/indent] Interesting that they are not using rifles. Not surprising though as the Minie rifle dates from about 1849, only a few years earlier.
[indent]And the Jury find that the said precept was one unauthorized by any existing law of this State, and wholly void… [/indent] There was a relevant Militia act passed in 1844, but it had been repealed in 1848. The jury discussed preparations by the local cops: [indent]…as early as 6 o’clock in the evening the City Marshal’s apprehensions were so far excited that, for his own protection, he procured a revolver, five barrels of which he loaded with ball cartridges; that he advised others of the police to arm themselves in like manner… [/indent] Huh. So it seems the cops had access to pistols, but that use wasn’t ordinary or typical, at least in Portland, Maine (pop. 21,000). I assume the use of ball cartridges implies that these weren’t bullets in the modern sense: the precursor to the cartridge was the Minie ball, invented only a few years earlier. And ball cartridges preceded the Minie ball.
That’s how I understand it. Gun enthusiasts are invited to add clarification and corrections to terminology. Could the revolver take more than one type of ammunition? Or is the article only alluding to the trouble of actually loading a black powder firearm? [indent]Between 6 and 7 o’clock in the evening, the Marshal ordered those of the Police who could procure pistols readily, to get them and go into the City Store when it became night, to protect the liqurs in the store, which were claimed as city property, from an anticipated attack. [/indent] Mayor Dow and the city alderman had been arguing about this liquor, because its purchase had not been authorized by the legislature. So that might explain some of the ambiguous description. Anyway I surmise that cops were not routinely issued weaponry, but that some though not all had access to pistols, which were primitive by today’s standards. [indent]Accordingly seven of the policemen, most of them armed with revolvers, stationed themselves inside of the store, where they were joined at about 8 1/4 o’clock, by the City Marshal and one of his two Deputies, who remained within the building until after the crowd was dispersed. [/indent] Most of the 7 policemen had revolvers. Not all. (Example of revolver handgun of the era: it uses black powder and lead balls.)
The jury maintains that the cops had things under control, calling up a militia was unnecessary as well as illegal, that a rash and illegal order to fire was issued, and that John Robbins died of Felony and not mischance or accident. [indent] But whether such homicide, committed under circumstances aforesaid, constitutes the crime of murder, or manslaughter only, the jury are not able to decide, and therefore leave that question to be determined by the appropriate Law Tribunal of the State. [/indent] Mayor Dow, known as the “Napoleon of Temperance”, would be prosecuted for improperly acquiring the alcohol. He would be acquitted, but the whole sorry mess would become a contributing factor to the end of prohibition in Maine the following year. There is no record in wikipedia of any further legal acts against him connected with the death of John Robbins.
The jurors’ surnames were Dow, Nutter, Bailey, Emerson, Reed, Plumer and Smith. None of those names are particularly Irish, AFAIK, FWIW.
L believe “ball ammunition” refers to a cartridge firing a single projectile, whether it beround or bullet shaped.
So ball ammunition would contrast with that fired from a shotgun? Pistols don’t typically fire bird shot or salt after all (do they?). Here’s the quote again: [INDENT]…as early as 6 o’clock in the evening the City Marshal’s apprehensions were so far excited that, for his own protection, he procured a revolver, five barrels of which he loaded with ball cartridges; that he advised others of the police to arm themselves in like manner… [/INDENT] I see that today ball cartridge does refer to modern bullets. And contrary to my claims, there exist references to Minie ball cartridges.
Perhaps the author was stressing that the guns had been loaded, as readying a pistol wasn’t as straightforward as it is today. Comments? Am I still wrong?
My current hypothesis is that some (not all) 1855 cops had access to firearms though they didn’t carry them around routinely. And part of the reason was due to the relative primitiveness of the weapons at the time, though they had advanced considerably in the preceding 50 years.
Ball differentiated from a shot or blank load in musket days. Ball was a single large projectile. Shot was several smaller projectiles. A blank was nothing but powder and wadding. Ball and shot were sometimes combined. Google “buck and ball” for details.
In modern military parlance, ball is your basic fmj bullet load. AP, tracers, and other specialty rounds are not ball ammo despite being a single projectile.
Ball = full metal jacket, used by military. Normally refers to 9mm or .45 ammo.
.22 comes in shot (snake shot; generally all you can find these days!). Or some pistols like the Taurus Judge are meant to use .410 shot.
Above I reviewed one article from 1870 and two from 1855. Now skip ahead to July 19, 1873. The Civil War has started and ended and the US is awash with rifles. Rifles impart a spin on the projectile, allowing greater range. Muskets had a range of about 50 yards; the Minie rifles during the Civil War had a range of 300 yards and greater power.
General Abram Duryee was Commissioner of the NYPD. He wanted to organize a brigade of police who would be armed with breech loaders. It sounds a little like a SWAT team, except he had riot control in mind. General Duryee argued the following:
[indent]Arming the Police
The Plan Submitted By Gen. Duryee-- The Requisition to the Governor
…No city or municipality is safe against the occurrence of circumstances requiring a resort to military power to suppress violent proceedings. …In the Metropolitan district there are likely to be frequent occasions for resort to the military force. [/indent] I’ll say. There were draft riots in 1863 and sectarian riots in 1870-71. There would be the Panic of 1873 later that year and a riot among the unemployed in Tompkins Square the following January.
[indent] The process of notifying and mustering the National Guard is quite too slow for such exigencies and is calculated to increase the excitement and panic incident to such occasions, and to aggravate the danger of collisions. Calling out the military force is attended with great expense. It is a serious interruption of the business avocations of the members of the corp. The citizen soldier ought to be relieved as far as is consistent with the public welfare from the hard duty of using fire-arms upon a citizen mob. These and other considerations combine in support of the suggestion that a brigade of the police force, say 500 in number (of the existing force) be organized in military form…
It is only necessary to refer to the records of the draft riots in 1863. If a police brigade had been organized at that time and fully up to the drill and discipline of a military organization, the City would no doubt have saved over $1,000,000 and public and private property protected.
Irresponsible, armed, military bodies accustomed to drill and acting under command of desperate men are a perpetual menace… [/indent] As I see it, this continues the trend of centering sole responsibility for law and order on the cops. Such responsibility was shared some 20 years prior.
The general requisitioned the following, subject to the Governor’s approval:
[indent]800 Remington breech-loading rifles, calibre 50
800 tompions [ plug for the muzzle of a gun to keep out dust and moisture]
100 holster revolvers and holsters
150 infantry swords and knots
150 infantry belts
10 drums
10 bugles [/indent] Brackets mine.