Re: Seems like 'we' might start shooting people? : Thu Dec 22, 2011 7:13 pm  

Cronus wrote:

I told you I don't suffer fools and therefore our conversation has run its course.

Good day to you.

Awww, I bet you think that's witty dont you?

Your little hissy fit has made me smile. A good day to you too, and dont be so afraid

Re: Seems like 'we' might start shooting people? : Thu Dec 22, 2011 9:17 pm  

I am of the opinion that nobody posting on this thread is likely to shift from their rather entrenched opinions on the matter so will leave it and agree to disagree.

Me included I suppose. I am firmly in the camp of messrs Strummer, Jones, Simonon and Headon on the matter. "Know your rights, all three of 'em"

[Wanderer]

Re: Seems like 'we' might start shooting people? : Thu Dec 22, 2011 9:21 pm  

Keep it civil please folks.

Re: Seems like 'we' might start shooting people? : Fri Dec 23, 2011 10:13 am  

SmokeyTA wrote:

erm yes.

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.

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.

that is the context of the discussion. So I asked:

More to the point, if you're trapped with your kids on the third floor of a building which rioters are trying to torch, would you prefer that the police actively tried to stop the rioters torching the building, or would you be happy if they just video'd it, so there was a possibility that some of the arsonists who fried you and your family would be later identified?

I think you must have been living in a sealed box during the riots since you oddly replied:

Should this very specific and highly unlikely situation 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.

The whole point, which your remark spectacularly missed, is that I was referring to specific cases which had actually arisen, before the world's media, even if they had passed you by.

I was not suggesting that there wasn't already "provision in law" for use of necessary force, nor was anyone else. The issue was why the police had not used it.

Accepting that you innocently knew nothing of people having actually had to jump from burning buildings, I offered you one of the images which you had somehow missed seeing or knowing of.

And so I'm baffled at your next response:

Smokey TA wrote:

Yes, and in that very specific and highly rare situation then as I said the necessary force could include lethal force. Though im not sure why you have brought up such a rare and specific example? are we going to go through all rare and specific examples where lethal force may be necessary or just this one?

I did not bring it up. The report by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary brought it up. I was simply adding my comments. The report called for clear rules of engagement to establish ‘an agreed envelope of available tactics and associated use of force, that are likely to maintain public support’. The specific issue I raised was people having de facto 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.

Re: Seems like 'we' might start shooting people? : Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:59 pm  

Are we any different from Syria if these actions take place?

Re: Seems like 'we' might start shooting people? : Fri Dec 23, 2011 10:06 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

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.

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.

that is the context of the discussion. So I asked:

I think you must have been living in a sealed box during the riots since you oddly replied:

The whole point, which your remark spectacularly missed, is that I was referring to specific cases which had actually arisen, before the world's media, even if they had passed you by.

I was not suggesting that there wasn't already "provision in law" for use of necessary force, nor was anyone else. The issue was why the police had not used it.

Accepting that you innocently knew nothing of people having actually had to jump from burning buildings, I offered you one of the images which you had somehow missed seeing or knowing of.

And so I'm baffled at your next response:
I did not bring it up. The report by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary brought it up. I was simply adding my comments. The report called for clear rules of engagement to establish ‘an agreed envelope of available tactics and associated use of force, that are likely to maintain public support’. The specific issue I raised was people having de facto 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.

Re: Seems like 'we' might start shooting people? : Fri Dec 23, 2011 10:41 pm  

Shoot You Down wrote:

Are we any different from Syria if these actions take place?

Yes. In Syria they shoot you for protesting. This is about reserving the right to shoot people who are attempting to burn down residential property.

Already, if you take someone hostage with a gun EVEN IF ITS A REPLICA then you can be shot by the armed police. Does that make us a police state?

Re: Seems like 'we' might start shooting people? : Sat Dec 24, 2011 12:09 pm  

interesting comments from the Chief of the Met Police http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/feedarticle/10010469 Bernard Hogan-Howe acknowledged that police needed to review their tactics in the light of last summer's disturbances. However he said water cannon had limitations and were "not the answer" to the problems which confronted police last August. After a review of police tactics by HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary Sir Denis O'Connor controversially suggested officers could shoot arsonists if they posed a threat to life, Mr Hogan-Howe said he did not believe arming riot police was an option. "I don't see foreseeably at the moment that is an option," he told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme.

interesting comments from the Chief of the Met Police http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/feedarticle/10010469 Bernard Hogan-Howe acknowledged that police needed to review their tactics in the light of last summer's disturbances. However he said water cannon had limitations and were "not the answer" to the problems which confronted police last August. After a review of police tactics by HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary Sir Denis O'Connor controversially suggested officers could shoot arsonists if they posed a threat to life, Mr Hogan-Howe said he did not believe arming riot police was an option. "I don't see foreseeably at the moment that is an option," he told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme.

Re: Seems like 'we' might start shooting people? : Sat Dec 24, 2011 1:38 pm  

east stander wrote:If you do nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about.

This has been proven wrong time and time again. Why do people still bother to trot it out?

Its obviously what the Government advisers think is the way forward otherwise we wouldn't be having this debate.

Are you saying they are wrong and you are right?

Re: Seems like 'we' might start shooting people? : Sat Dec 24, 2011 4:44 pm  

I suspect that SmokeyTA is the alter ego of Damo, and would go a long way in explaining his convoluted outlook on life....