They need to be able to use those resources... not merely have them available only if a certain obligation is fulfilled. In order for the government to meet those rights they have to provide hand outs to those who are unable to obtain those resources otherwise.Originally Posted by BobF64
If that situation were to be changed the riots we currently see now will be nothing in comparison.
The best solution is to reduce any possible reason for people to riot, not give them more.
Up to a point, yes. But while it's a good idea to reduce, as far as possible, reasons to riot, it's also incumbent on governments to protect everybody else from those that already have rioted, and punish them for it.
As has been said, laws can be changed. It's not always easy, especially if you do something that another law, like the HRA says is unlawful .... unless you change or abolish that too, and that might mean EU treaty changes.
Judges sure have what politicians regard as a highly irritating habit of telling they can't legally do what they just did, and the HRA is often the reason why they can't do it.
And what was the reason for these riots? Some dude with a gun being shot by police?
Some dude who, according to the news reports I saw, is openly known to be a major player in the gang culture, with a significant record to boot. And this is a shame why exactly?
Ah yes, the 4 little words that are the root cause of the majority of the worlds problems:-
"Something must be done"
Even so, it's no justification for shooting him. What may be justification, though, is the events on the ground at the time. If the armed police acted within their authority, given the specific circumstances, then it was justified. If not, it wasn't. And essentially, that comes down to them having a reasonable belief that there was a serious and imminent threat to life, and that the last resort was necessary.
So all that can be done at this point is a thorough and independent investigation to get as close as we can to the facts of what actually happened in that incident.
The "reasons" for the riots to begin and the "reasons" for them to continue are more than likely different, however, a common thread that is evident throughout these events is that people feel they are hard done by.
I don't believe rioting is an acceptable reaction, nor do I believe excessive Policing is a suitable solution; Both actions only feed one another until one overwhelms the other... it hardly ever has a positive result.
If these problems are to be addressed properly the community has to be made part of the decision process.
Indeed. Sometimes it's best to do nothing. The problem here is that the politicians must pander to voters. Including idiot voters.
"In a perfect world... spammers would get caught, go to jail, and share a cell with many men who have enlarged their penises, taken Viagra and are looking for a new relationship."
My point exactly. Unfortunately, Saracen - as ever the voice of reason - has pointed out that there still has to be a justification even if they happen to be the scum of the earth - otherwise who will determine who deserves to die?
Im not sure what further justification there needs to be beyond 'he had an illegal firearm on his person'. Even if its a replica firarm, given the circumstances and his connection with gang violence (which would increase the chances of him doing something 'irresponsible' with said firearm) i think that gives them sufficient reason for a kill order. Im just amazed at the tenacity of the society that protested against the police after this.
You have a gun in this country, you run the risk of the police taking you down. He took that risk and they took him down.
ik9000 (14-08-2011)
We can argue over whether simply carrying a gun should be justification for shoot-on-sight, but the fact remains that, currently, it simply is not. If that gun was
drawn, and certainly if the bloke made a move to point it at someone, be it police or anyone else, then there is imminent and real threat to life or of serious injury and then police would be justified in firing.
It's the classic "reasonable force" argument.
If I'm standing on the bank of a raging torrent of a 100 foot wide river, holding a baseball bat, with the nearest bridge 5 miles away and shouting I'm going to bash your brains out, is there any imminent threat. Clearly, no.
If, on the other hand, I'm standing 6 feet from you, waving that bat around, bulging eyes and red-faced, clearly having lost all self-control, then the threat is imminent. The level of force you are allowed to use, as "reasonable", in those two situations is very different.
That's essentially the same test police have to use - if they are going to use deadly (or very likely deadly) force, like firing a gun, is it "reasonable" force? The answer to that is, essentially, only if their reasonable belief is that the threat of violence is serious and imminent, and that firing is, for all practical purposes, a last resort to protect themselves or someone else.
And for clarity, I stress I said that they had reason to believe that the threat was serious and imminent, not that they are necessarily correct in that belief. An example would be where the "gun" turned out to be a replica. Police, of course, have no way to know that in advance. Sadly, that also applies if the "gun" turns out to be a table leg in a bag, when police has had credible intelligence of it being a shotgun. That led to a tragedy several years ago.
So if we tell police to shoot on sight when someone's simply carrying a "gun", how long before some innocent person gets shot for carrying a wet umbrella in a bag, or the courgette they're going to use to make dinner?
Police have a duty to protect everyone, including known thugs, and that's only over-ridden to allow them to use force, of whatever level, when circumstances dictate. If you're stopped and arrested on the street, they can't (legally) just beat the crap out of you to do it, but if you pull a knife, expect to get battened, or tazered .... or have chunks taken out of you by a canine constable. And you'd deserve it. But only if you resist, and threaten them, or someone else. Until then, even the arrestee gets the benefit of the doubt. After all, you might just be innocent.
I do not, personally, want to see police given the authority to shoot first and ask questions later, even for known gang members. The result is, in my view, is inevitably going to be a lot more innocent people getting hurt or killed.
Even at that, 'reasonable force' should mean using just enough force to incapacitate. Even the military doesn't aim for shooting to kill any more (that's partially why NATO forces use 5.56mm rounds). There should be a crystal clear set of safety procedures put in place for authorisation of force which either don't exist, or aren't being adhered to by officers.
First, there has to be a clear threat to the safety of the public or agents of the state, that should mean actually brandishing a weapon. Having a suspected weapon stored in a bag merely warrants a stop and search, not spray and pray.
Second, there should be a clear pronouncement by the armed officers of who they are, and demand the person put down the offending article.
Third, a warning shot should be fired if the suspect doesn't desist to show they mean business.
Fourth, if the situation deteriorates, then take a shot to render them unable to use the offending article.
But it's amusing that the British public is held to a much much greater standard in regard of self-defence than the police who're suppose to be the authority in law enforcement and public defence.
I agree with much of that, but certainly not "third", the warning shot. By the time the police get to the point where they need to fire, a warning shot would endanger people. I don't want police banging off shots for the purpose of intimidating suspects, and by the time a threat to life is imminent enough to justify firing, someone's life is act risk if they don't take the shot right now.
As for shooting to kill, with specific rare exceptions (de Menezes, for example), they don't. They shoot to incapacitate, to remove the threat. But, Hollywood-style shooting of hands or arms isn't in the play-book, because people can still aim and fire, and you've got a much smaller target. So, if you want to incapacitate someone who currently presents serious and imminent risk, the policy is to aim for the largest and most effective part of the target, that being the torso. And, if you hit the torso, it's eminently possible that the result will be fatal, even tough the objective was incapacitation, not death.
The exception to that is the de Menezes situation where they believe (wrong, as we now all know) that they had a suicide bomber on a train full of people. Then, the only was to prevent a wounded suicide bomber pushing a button is, realistically, drastic destruction of the nervous system and that means, in practice, several shots to the head. It's still effectively the same mandate, though, which is to incapacitate rather than kill, because the objective is to nullify the threat. It's just that in the case of suicide bombers, nobody has yet come up with another way of doing it. Besides, with a suicide bomber, incapacitating shots to the chest might in themselves detonate explosives, thereby doing the bomber's job for him and killing a tube-load of people.
It's about reasonable belief, again. If it was a shotgun, as they'd apparently been told it was, then when someone turns and starts to raise the "gun", if they fire, you (or a member of the public) is likely to end up dead, when it's fired from inside a bag.
We expect armed police to risk their lives to protect us and it;s entirely unreasonable to tell them they cannot fire unless absolutely certain. What they have to have is a genuine, evidence-based reasonable belief of the reality of the threat. It's not spray and trap.
We can perhaps criticise the intelligence given to the officers at the pointy end, as we sure can with de Menezes, but I can't criticise the actions of the officers themselves, if they rely on what they've told by Command.
'I was just obeying orders' or 'for the common good' has been used as excuses throughout history as a justification and defence for committing some of the most abhorrent acts imaginable. Nor can we allow coulds, maybes, and whatifs to become justification for the state committing arbitrary murder of civilians. Innocent until proven guilty, and all that.
Who is saying that, though? Certainly not me, nor the police.
Actually the move to 5.56mm rounds came about in order to reduce the weight of a magazine, and therefore enable troops to carry more ammunition with them at a given time. They also found that the smaller round, rather than stay intact fragments on impact, typically into 2 or 3 pieces, each spalling off in a different trajectory inside the body. The effect is a significant trauma wound that is difficult to operate on, and which, despite the bullet's lower mass, is actually more effective at putting the enemy down. The US loved it in Vietnam for just this reason. Plus the smaller cartridge meant the rifle itself could be smaller and lighter - a big bonus over the old style rifles like the M14 with its heavier 7.62mm rounds.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
