Should The Police Routinely Carry Guns?

[Chopper the ex Copper]

TGR is exactly right. One shoots a bad mofo in order that the human rights (sec 2 echr) of the innocent are protected. The state, or in this hypothetical case their representatives the Dibble, are lawfully bound to protect that right and must do nothing by action or inaction to infringe it. The echr makes no reference has to how that is done, and other sections of the act enable each state's own domestic legal system manage that. Provided it can be justified, a single round, double tap, PR 24 round the head, or even running them over in a car are all equally legal. It's justification by means of necessity and proportionality the makes the use of deadly force legal in such circumstances. There is no law the makes the firing of two rounds in immediate succession at the same target specifically illegal.

 

[TGR]

Thanks for replying for me, saved me a bit of time typing.

Richard

 

[KDM]

Re:

So despite TGR claiming double tap is illegal under echr and for me asking for proof of direct mention of relation, there is none so the claim was false. That's all I needed to know. Cheers.

 

[TGR]

FYI - shots must be aimed and fired singlely to achieve an objective. The use of force, by whatever means, must be proportionate, lawful, subject to scrutiny and appropriate. Firing a second shot is not legal UNLESS the threat still exists and the aforementioned statements still exist. Chopper explained it well and i did not think it would have to be clarified.

An example, in a situation where use of a firearm can be lawfully justified - an officer shoots the person who is creating the threat. The shot hits the person in the foot, so the threat does not change (in this scenario) as the person is still a threat. Another shot may be fired to stop the threat.

EACH shot must be justified - once the threat is removed, no further shots may be fired and the police officer must then take steps to assist the person they shot - first aid etc.

'Double tap' is not legal as it does not take account of the result of the first shot.

Happy now?

EDIT - there seems to be a load of info on the net - search for use of force echr. Here is one link which gives some insight -

http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Life_ENG.pdf

Richard

 

[KDM]

I did read the pdf you kindly supplied, However I am still unable to find any direct refference to double tap as you claimed there was

If you are speaking to him ask him to justify the 'double tap'. I am not sure you will get away with that now.

Richard

Your obvious reason is not legal, it does not comply with Human Rights legislation - hence my 'obvious question'.

Richard

I am afraid until you can show direct refference to double tap within the echr articles then your implication and vague distortive implication cannot be accepted as the direct fact you had tried to imply it was.

As you still allude to scaremongering there is very little you have to say for me that is worth reading.

The police almost always only draw firearms when there is a percieved life threat,They have to ask a supervising officer for permission to do so and that officer has to be able to show required criteria was met. Every use has to be documented, every bullet discharged has to be justified. The events of people actually recieving a bullet at all in the U.K. are so rare that when they do happen some try and purport it as an everyday occurence as if we were a fully armed American police service when most rational thinking non anti police with an agenda people know just how rare this event is.

I'm okay with arming them but with tazers and still remain with the current set up re armed response units. Given the rarity that those end in tears I am unlikely to change my mind based on alarmist and incorrect claims.

 

[TGR]

I did not claim that there was a direct reference to 'double tap' - the fact of the matter is that only one shot can be fired at a time. I think i explained why. Use of all shots must be justified - each and every one; as does each and every strike with a baton or other Use of Force. Failure to provide the justification MAY leave a person - police or public open to an appropriate charge eg AOABH.

Historically 'double tap' was used but, since the inception of the ECHR, it cannot be used legally. I may be having difficulty explaining this or, perhaps, you are not grasping the issue. ALL Use of Force is subject to the conditions mentioned in the pdf document - necessary, proportionate, lawful and subject to scrutiny.

I have not been implying anything, the legislation is as clear, well as clear as legislation normally is, and use of a 'double tap' is definitely illegal for the reasons mentioned. Use of TWO SHOTS is not illegal provided that there is justification for the second shot.Use of 100 shots may not be illegal - providing the justification is there. <<< I hope that makes sense.

Regarding this -

"The police almost always only draw firearms when there is a percieved life threat,They have to ask a supervising officer for permission to do so and that officer has to be able to show required criteria was met. Every use has to be documented, every bullet discharged has to be justified. The events of people actually recieving a bullet at all in the U.K. are so rare that when they do happen some try and purport it as an everyday occurence as if we were a fully armed American police service when most rational thinking non anti police with an agenda people know just how rare this event is."

Drawing a firearm refers to removing a sidearm from it's holster and this can be done by an officer when they perceive a threat. They DO NOT need permission to do it. I do not have any idea where you got this info from but it is wrong and does not make sense at all.

Drawing a firearm must be reported, as does any use of one - except during training.

I am unsure of your point in the second part of the paragraph. Firearm incidents, of which there are many varieties, are reasonably rare in the broad scheme of things in the UK but they occur daily and in the vast majority of cases, they do not make the news. Comparison with the USA is somewhat unfair as, from the little i know, there are a large number of privately held firearms in some states and I have seen armed security guards. No one here has mentioned security guards - that would be a different discussion.

Please indicate the alarmist claims and incorrect claims - i seem to have missed them.

Richard

 

[Ian Raleigh]

Jesus this thread is turning out like the gunfight at the ok corral! Interesting reading though.

 

[joe careless]

Re:

Simple answer is no, having worked in a environment where to carrying, training and the use of firearm weapons was part of the course the thought that there would be more of them in the UK outside of highly selected individuals worries me deeply. I also firmly believe that 'soft air' guns also need to come under firearm regs.

 

[Ian Raleigh]

Am I correct in thinking most coppers have a taser ? I remember watching on the tv were this female officer got
her taser gun out and tasered a bloke just for spitting at the floor & swearing! I think every copper in the UK
would want to fire their gun just to see what its like, which could well be bad for the public!
A bit like buying a food blender! You've just got to try it out :facepalm:

 

[dyna-ti]

No
They asked for tasers
"Tasers will only be used in extreme or exceptional circumstances" they promised.

Use is now routine and its deployed as a tool to make the member of the public do exactly what they say when they say it. Actual firing of this torture device is just under 2000 per year but the rapidly increasing trend is for it to be drawn as a first move. This obviously allows the policeman to control the situation through fear.

Foopahs include- Mistaking a blind mans white stick for a samurai sword and tasering him and recently threatening to taser a patient who was in a hospital bed at the time. Use against the disabled, children in fact anything goes when theres no comeback.

And by the way, air rifles are NOT firearms.