of course firearms are a last resort.. but they are also used in proportion to the prevailing threat. if the threat is a terrorist with a potential bomb then they wont be shooting his shins. it will be lights-out and a bonus if he lives.
Note to self-preservationists: If a copper tells you to stop, don't jump over the fucking turnstile...
The usage of firearms by the police is covered by statute (such as the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and Human Rights Act 1998), policy (such as the Home Office Code of Practice on Police use of Firearms and Less Lethal Weapons and the ACPO Manual of Guidance on Police Use of Firearms) and common law. AFOs may only carry firearms when authorised by an "appropriate authorising officer".[SUP][16][/SUP] The appropriate authorising officer must be of the rank of Inspector or higher.[SUP][17][/SUP] When working atairports, nuclear sites, on Protection Duties and deployed in Armed Response Vehicles in certain areas, 'Standing Authority' is granted to carry personal sidearms.[SUP][18][/SUP] All members of the Police Service of Northern Ireland have authority to carry a personal issue handgun as a matter of routine.[SUP][19][/SUP] In all forces, usage of other weapons such as semi-automatic carbines requires further training and authorisation. Semi-automatic carbines are stored in a locked armoury which is situated in the boot of an Armed Response Vehicle. Equipping of semi-automatic carbines rests on a judgment of the AFO.[SUP][3][/SUP] United Kingdom law allows the use of "reasonable force" in order to make an arrest or prevent a crime[SUP][20][/SUP][SUP][21][/SUP] or to defend one's self.[SUP][22][/SUP] However, if the force used is fatal, then the European Convention of Human Rights only allows "the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary".[SUP][23][/SUP] Firearms officers may therefore only discharge their weapons "to stop an imminent threat to life".[SUP][24][/SUP] ACPO policy states that "use" of a firearm includes both pointing it at a person and discharging it (whether accidentally, negligently or on purpose).[SUP][25][/SUP] As with all use of force in England and Wales, the onus is on the individual officer to justify their actions in court.[SUP][26][/SUP]
The Times published a legal briefing on Aug. 18th 2005 (1), describing Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 which puts responsibility on the individual officer unless the incident has not been completely managed, and requires that he has a defence of “such force as is reasonable or necessary in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or a suspected offender” Reasonable force can be used in self-defence or the defence of another and the onus is on the prosecution to disprove this defence before the officer can be guilty of murder. In a trial it is necessary to decide whether the officer may have honestly believed that it was necessary to defend himself or another person, as well as whether the force used was reasonable in the circumstances. - See more at: Hollow point bullets and police rules of engagement - ThePrisma.co.uk | ThePrisma.co.uk The Police are governed by the ACPO Manual of Guidance on the Police Use of Firearms, which has been updated several times, most recently in 2010. These guidelines are not all in the public domain, an unknown proportion are reserved for Police use only.The introduction of the remainder, called the Public Facing part, states that the guidelines are not mandatory, which introduces another element of uncertainty.After stating that lethal force is only used as a last resort, Section 2:44 governing the discharge of firearms, states that the primary purpose is to prevent immediate threat to life. “In most cases”, it says, “this is achieved by aiming at the central body mass”. This is very likely to result in the death of the target when the chest is aimed at with hollow-point rounds.- See more at: Hollow point bullets and police rules of engagement - ThePrisma.co.uk | ThePrisma.co.uk Armed police tactics are also designed to be intelligence-led, as in the case of Jean De Menezes, and this is another reason for public concern. A police officer is required to act in a dangerous fast-moving situation, based on what he thinks he sees in front of him and simultaneously to take into account intelligence information being relayed in real time that may conflict with his on-the-spot assessment.This seems like a recipe for fatal mistakes.- See more at: Hollow point bullets and police rules of engagement - ThePrisma.co.uk | ThePrisma.co.uk
So let's look at this. 1. Reasonable force to prevent a crime, i.e. a suicide bomber about to detonate a device. Is it reasonable to ask him nicely not to, or to neutralise the threat immediately? 2. Firearms officers may therefore only discharge their weapons "to stop an imminent threat to life", I would say a suicide bomber ticks this box nicely. 3. As with all use of force in England and Wales, the onus is on the individual officer to justify their actions in court, which they did. So, was the force reasonable? Undoubtedly yes, when you have a suspected suicide bomber sat on a tube, with a rucksack, surrounded by members of the public, your options are somewhat limited. Was it proportionate? Again yes. No one wants to take a life, but in these circumstances you have little option. Was it necessary? Again yes. All the intel led them to believe he was a suicide bomber. The thought of another bomb being detonated on a crowded tube train dictated this action. Op Kratos, now re-named, is/was a necessary evil. Of course it's sad that in this case an innocent man died, but do you really think the guys set out to kill someone for the fun of it. Not taking away anything from the pain felt by the family of the deceased, but the lives of all security personnel were also turned upside down by this event. Mistakes will be made, we are all human. But the option of sitting back and doing nothing doesn't bear thinking about. You should be thankful that there are people trained and willing to put their lives at risk to keep the public safe. Would you fancy chasing a suspected suicide bomber onto a train when you know his sole intention is to detonate his device? I would imagine it focuses the mind. Lastly, don't believe everything you read on Wikipedia.
If you quoted this to question shots to the the head, an injured man can still detonate a device, a dead man can't. They made sure he was no longer a threat.
"You should be thankful that there are people trained and willing to put their lives at risk to keep the public safe." And YOU should be thankful that there are people who have spent 33 years of their life in the Armed forces doing exactly that...
My understanding of the particular case, (and it was a few years ago, so I can't pretend to be up to date) was that the bloke was under surveillance in his flat. None of the surveillance team had a firearm. They watched him leave the flat and head to the Tube. He wasn't intercepted. He then goes into the Tube and some policeman tells him not to, which he stupidly ignored. They follow him on to the train and shoot him dead. The cock up was that if they thought they should be intercepting him in the first place, there should have been someone in the team capable of doing so. Once he'd got on to a train, the options were somewhat limited. If they thought he was such a threat that he needed to be intercepted, why didn't an armed response team break down his door in his flat before he got anywhere near a Tube? Questioning what happened on the Tube is not really addressing the issue. The police (or whoever they were) let themselves be put in a corner where there was no other option than lethal force.
its all great all sat here comfy cosy being able to pick fault with the police tasked with the imminent decision that had to be made at that fatal time... Why didn't they intercept him here or there etc. what if they were waiting to discover other accomplices if they existed etc... i for one have never been in such a difficult split decision so i find it hard to criticise anyone who has.
Why was the guy already under surveillance before the tube bombings? Yer average innocent punter doesn't normally warrant police scrutiny, so we can safely assume that he was, at least potentially, a wrong'un. And, personally, if someone shouted "Stop, armed police!" at me, I'd hit the deck quicker than Didier Drogba, not vault a turnstile and try to outrun the bullets... Fact is the police had a major terrorist attack on their hands, a potential for hundreds of lives to be lost, and a known suspect in a tube station who resisted arrest. Quite frankly I'm surprised there was anything left of him to identify; there certainly wouldn't have been had I been at the business end of the rifle that day.
Bingo. Just like the marines who killed that guy in afhgan field, hindsight from the comfort of our sofa is an easy way to tell the experts what they should have done
As I've said before, it's a fair point, but then you give up the right to criticise MPs, members of government - in fact pretty much everyone. You are not in their shoes, so you aren't in a position to comment. There you go, you've just condemned your life to be run by "experts" and "professionals" who know better than you. There are no public enquiries to be had, they were always doing the best they could and can in no way be criticised. And you can give up making comments as you look at the footy or Moto GP. You're not on the field or track so what do you know about sport at that level?
