Possible goof, or explained in a missing scene?

It is my understanding that, in the nineteenth century, London police were generally armed but that, by the 1930s, a policeman carried a firearm only pursuant to a Sergeant's approval and with proper training, which was uncommon.

Notwithstanding the Inspector's rather poor aim and mulitple stray shots in the presence of many innocent civilians, perhaps he was considered properly trained and thus had been issued a firearm. I did not notice any other police with firearams.

The Police have certain men authorized to carry weapons in very dangerous situations. They have special training. In 1911 Latvian Revolutionaries carried out a jewel robbery to finance their activities in London. Several police officers went to where they thought the gang might be and were mowed down in a hail of bullets. The gang was more heavily armed than the police department who had to send for old pistols from storage.

Winston Churchill went to the scene and called for the Scots Guards. A bullet went through his hat from the revolutionaires. It became known as the Siege of Sidney Street and was made into a movie later. Hitchcock also used the siege in his first version of The Man Who Knew Too Much. The Scots Guards joined the police using rifles.

Only two members of the gang died at the scene. The building caught fire and they wouldn't come out and perhaps committed suicide. Churchill got criticism from political enemies who complained that he refused to let the fire brigade fight the fire. At least they weren't shot at by die hard terrorists.

The two responders above have missed your point. Regardless of the realites of whether the English police of the time actually carried arms and under what circumstances, in the film George Snaders' character clearly says they do not carry guns, and then, without explanation, he draws a pistol and begins firing away at the "Ripper." Counts as a bona-fide goof in my book.

Cheerio!

Fighting for Truth, Justice, and making it the American way.