Would Wild Birds Eat Grapes If They Were...
Home & Garden12 mins ago
Is It Now Time For Armed Police Patrols In Some Areas Of London?
41 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Yes. Most definitely. The days of Dixon of Dock Green are over. Providing the Met can get officers who are prepared to train and use lethal force then they should be given the tools to do the job. Not many,I wager on AB would run forward and tackle that crazed youth in Croydon with his zombie knife. No that's a job for the police!!!
We want no more Keith Blakelocks sacrificed on the altar of Political correctness. The Mehad Tear Gas ready for use during the Broadwater Farm Estate riots but no senior officer had the cajones to apply to the H.O. for it's deployment.
I wish a passing ARV had seen matey with his Zombie knife attacking a driver in a fit of frenzy. If ever there were justifiction to take the low life out. That was it.
We want no more Keith Blakelocks sacrificed on the altar of Political correctness. The Mehad Tear Gas ready for use during the Broadwater Farm Estate riots but no senior officer had the cajones to apply to the H.O. for it's deployment.
I wish a passing ARV had seen matey with his Zombie knife attacking a driver in a fit of frenzy. If ever there were justifiction to take the low life out. That was it.
danny,
Things have changed. I was an Authorised Firearms Officer for 15 years and the rules of engagement are that lethal force is allowed if one's own life is threatened or the person you are protecting's life is threatened. It also includes any person who's life is threatened by lethal forced.
I believe that law is enshrined in the ECJ ruling.
Things have changed. I was an Authorised Firearms Officer for 15 years and the rules of engagement are that lethal force is allowed if one's own life is threatened or the person you are protecting's life is threatened. It also includes any person who's life is threatened by lethal forced.
I believe that law is enshrined in the ECJ ruling.
Danny
//The decision to shoot is the officer’s alone. They are legally responsible for each and every shot they decide to fire. For the shots to be legal, they must show they were acting in the defence of themselves or others and that their actions were proportionate. Section three of the 1967 Criminal Law Act reads: “A person may use such force as is reasonable in the prevention of crime.”
If an officer honestly believes someone poses a threat to their life, or to the life of others, reasonable force may be used.
Do police shoot to kill or wound?
The official policy says firearms officers “shoot to incapacitate”. They are trained to target the centre of the chest as the quickest way to “neutralise” a suspect, even though it is highly likely that this will kill.
The idea that officers will shoot to wound is dismissed because it is felt that it places the public and officers in too much danger.
Concerns about marauding terrorist attackers mean officers have been told they may need to shoot a terrorist suspect in the head because they may be wearing body armour.
The law on self defence can be controversial, especially as it does not mean an officer has to be correct in assessing the level of danger. //
//The decision to shoot is the officer’s alone. They are legally responsible for each and every shot they decide to fire. For the shots to be legal, they must show they were acting in the defence of themselves or others and that their actions were proportionate. Section three of the 1967 Criminal Law Act reads: “A person may use such force as is reasonable in the prevention of crime.”
If an officer honestly believes someone poses a threat to their life, or to the life of others, reasonable force may be used.
Do police shoot to kill or wound?
The official policy says firearms officers “shoot to incapacitate”. They are trained to target the centre of the chest as the quickest way to “neutralise” a suspect, even though it is highly likely that this will kill.
The idea that officers will shoot to wound is dismissed because it is felt that it places the public and officers in too much danger.
Concerns about marauding terrorist attackers mean officers have been told they may need to shoot a terrorist suspect in the head because they may be wearing body armour.
The law on self defence can be controversial, especially as it does not mean an officer has to be correct in assessing the level of danger. //
I doubt it danny if not in striking distance of one'self however, unfortunately, the video of that youth with the zombie knife does not show him successfully smashing the nearside FP window and lunging at the driver. If after appropriate warning he would be fair target to use lethal force. He was threatening the driver with a lethal weapon and had the ability to kill him if it wasn't for the driver legging it pronto from his door.
Armed police must be a call for special situations only or we will slip into becoming an uncivilized society.
—————
So all these stabbings in London and Birmingham, combined with knife crime rising by 25% in some areas is deemed civil?
Plus, with a flagrant disregard for the law I guess it must be sweetness and light everywhere else!
https:/
—————
So all these stabbings in London and Birmingham, combined with knife crime rising by 25% in some areas is deemed civil?
Plus, with a flagrant disregard for the law I guess it must be sweetness and light everywhere else!
https:/
Latest Posts
Businesses Warn Of Job Losses Threat As...
News15 mins ago
Technology21 mins ago
Assisted Dying, Here's Where It...
News21 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.