Quote: Ferocious Aardvark "You have either lost the plot, or having lost this point, are deliberately obfuscating as a smokescreen. It won't work. This particular bit of the discussion was born from the discussion opened by the authorities on whether things could or should be done differently, including whether the use of non-lethal and lethal weapons could or should be applied.
It was never suggested that thare aren't already armed police. It was never suggested that the police don't already have a route whereby 'rubber bulets' could be fired. They do have arms and they do have facilities. We all know this. The question was rather whether, operationally, they ought to use direct and possibly lethal force in some exreme situations such as were seen in the riots.'"
And the answer was already a clear yes. And nobody has argued any different.
Quote: Ferocious Aardvark "Some widened this discussion by suggesting that the risk of 'innocent people' being injured or killed by police firearms was unacceptable and so suggesting that the passive approach was as good as it should get. I suggested that in extreme circumstances i would rather the police took an active approach, and if the choice was between (for example) shooting would-be arsonists on the one hand, and allowing tem to torch possibly ccupied residences on the other, I would have favoured the use of force, even lethal force. As my view is that the right to life of the innocent occupants far outweighs the right to life of the person intent on burning down their residence regardless of the likelihood that innocent residents will be seriously injured or die.'"
I have no idea what you think links the possible murder of innocent people by police firearms and the possible use of lethal force against would be arsonists? I would have thought everybody's point of view was that a criminal, committing a crime which deliberately posed an unacceptable risk death to the victims of that crime could rightly meet police (and possibly public) resistance including lethal force. Im not sure why you think this context changes anything, it was the context I assumed everybody was operating under.
Quote: Ferocious Aardvark "that is the context of the discussion. So I askedde facto[/i been trapped in torched buildings, and of police having [de facto[/i] stood by and watched in some cases buildings being torched. Due amongst other things to their interpretation at the time of their current 'rules of engagement'.
If you don't now get this, after that, then I can't help you. I would suggest that you write to Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and point out that they are wasting their tiime and money as should such very specific and highly unlikely situations ever arise, then there is already, provision in the law for the police and members of the public to react proportionally to the threat with the necessary force, and so there's nothing to discuss and the report was presumably in your view a waste of paper.'"
This seems a very long winded way of you saying that used that specific, rare and unlikely example because that specific, rare and unlikely example happened, but the fact it happened doesnt mean it is any less specific, rare or unlikely. Rare and unlikely things happen all the time, but we can pay them little heed to rare and unlikely things because they are rare and unlikely. And strangely that you think Her Majesties Inspectorate of Constabulary is posting on this thread.
The rules of engagement havent changed and dont need to change because there is already provision there, the police are aware of this, if they arent that is because they are incompetent. It is clear and it is regularly used.
If a police office made the decision that the rules of engagement didnt allow him to use any force to somebody who was posing a clear and immediate threat to life then that Police Officer made a mistake, they made an error and the use of the report and debate around what happened would be on that Police Officer's clear need for additional training, there doesnt need to be a change in law or tactics, simply making sure that officers are aware of them, something really which should be the very bare minimum for someone to be enforcing the law.
It seems odd that the police shot and killed a man causing the riots, then said they didnt think they could use lethal force.
