Arming all are police yes or no?

[Oli]

lol

[Muddy Funker]

 

Seriously?? It's the fault the primary source that it doesn't say what you want it to say or thought it said!!!

 

It's irrelevant who's interprettion it is, it is wrong. Article 2 does not say that it is unlawful to deprive life in defence against unlawful violence. Indeed, it specifically says that depravation of life under those circumstances is not a contravention.

 

J.

 

I've read, re read and understand what you're getting at now.

 

However the member is correct in saying that armed officers shoot to stop a threat and not to kill unless it's a headshot without warning which is obviously an extreme tactic for the relevant extreme situation.

 

As far as I'm concerned the most important wording in this part of the legislation is "no more than absolutely neccesary" this legislation doesn't give carte blanche for an armed officer to kill to protect life and the other situations that are not regarded in contravention of the act.

If it takes one shot to stop the threat then a second could be seen as murder. The line is that fine.

 

Anyway as others have said this thread has run it's course.

[welsh1]

Please

 

 

[Pole Star]

Good program on king Edward hunting in Africa 9pm BBC if I got the preview out the corner of my eye right ! Right OFF !

[Pastiebap]

 

I've read, re read and understand what you're getting at now.

 

However the member is correct in saying that armed officers shoot to stop a threat and not to kill unless it's a headshot without warning which is obviously an extreme tactic for the relevant extreme situation.

 

As far as I'm concerned the most important wording in this part of the legislation is "no more than absolutely neccesary" this legislation doesn't give carte blanche for an armed officer to kill to protect life and the other situations that are not regarded in contravention of the act.

If it takes one shot to stop the threat then a second could be seen as murder. The line is that fine.

 

Anyway as others have said this thread has run it's course.

 

No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.

 

An agent of the state is not allowed to INTENTIONALLY take a life, killing someone is only accepted if:

 

2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:

 

 

The article isn't saying killing someone is a breach, only if it is an INTENTIONAL killing.

 

 

 

Anyway, do I think police should be more routinely armed? Yes, although more should be done to provide less lethal options that allow the officer to have a bit of range between himself and an attacker.

[JonathanL]

 

No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.

 

An agent of the state is not allowed to INTENTIONALLY take a life, killing someone is only accepted if:

 

2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:

 

 

The article isn't saying killing someone is a breach, only if it is an INTENTIONAL killing.

 

So what it is saying then is that life can be intentionally deprived for the purpose of defence against unlawful violence because it provides a derogation under which the article is not contraveined if this is done. The article deals exclusiely with the intentional depravation of life. Hence, any derogation from it must, logically, relate to the intentional taking of life. Anyone who used force against someone employing unlawful violence and ended up killing the assailant without intending to do so would not fall within the remit of Art.2 to start with so the whole issue would be moot.

 

The officer who shot De Menezes on the underground some years ago specifically intended to kill him in order to prevent him from detonating a device he was believed to be carrying and said so in his evidence to the coroners inquest. He was not acting in contravention of Art 2 because of the derogation contined in it.

 

J.

[fabarm gamma boy]

im for it! but training police to the standard required would be rediculously expensive

[welsh1]

I think light sabres should be issued to the general public and stun phasers to the police,then we would all sleep peacefully knowing that we are all protected.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The above was said in jest,I am not a loon yet.

[Pastiebap]

 

So what it is saying then is that life can be intentionally deprived for the purpose of defence against unlawful violence because it provides a derogation under which the article is not contraveined if this is done. The article deals exclusiely with the intentional depravation of life. Hence, any derogation from it must, logically, relate to the intentional taking of life. Anyone who used force against someone employing unlawful violence and ended up killing the assailant without intending to do so would not fall within the remit of Art.2 to start with so the whole issue would be moot.

 

The officer who shot De Menezes on the underground some years ago specifically intended to kill him in order to prevent him from detonating a device he was believed to be carrying and said so in his evidence to the coroners inquest. He was not acting in contravention of Art 2 because of the derogation contined in it.

 

J.

 

Point me out where it actually says that please.

 

It will probably be after save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.

 

I think light sabres should be issued to the general public and stun phasers to the police,then we would all sleep peacefully knowing that we are all protected.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The above was said in jest,I am not a loon yet.

 

 

SET TO STUN!!!!

 

 

[overandunder2012]

beam me up scotty

[JonathanL]

 

Point me out where it actually says that please.

 

It will probably be after save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.

 

 

As I said in my previous response; The article says that it isn't a contravention to deprive life pursuant to the lawful carying out of a sentence of a court of law as long as that sentence is privided for in law. The second part of the article, however, (the bit about defending against unlawful violence) outlines additional circumstances under which it is not a contravention to intentionally deprive life.

 

The second part cannot be in reference to the unintentional taking of life as Art.2 is only concerned with the intentional taking of life to start with. Hence, the unintentional depriving of life couldn't contraveine the article anyway as that is not what the article is concerned with. Saying that depriving life under those circumstances is not a contravention of the article it must only be referring to the intentional depriving of life.

 

J.

[ordnance]

im for it! but training police to the standard required would be rediculously expensive

 

Two weeks basic firearms training hardly that expensive.

[Bagsy]

Two weeks basic firearms training hardly that expensive.

135,000 police in the UK - that's a pretty damn big bill for the tax payer to foot, and the equivalent of 270,000 weeks in lost police time.

 

Is the threat that bad, seriously?

Edited May 29, 2013 by Bagsy

[ordnance]

135,000 police in the UK - that's a pretty damn big bill for the tax payer to foot, and the equivalent of 270,000 weeks in lost police time.

 

 

The police are training all the time and updating their training it costs money its seen as improving performance not wasting money.

[four-wheel-drive]

The police are training all the time and updating their training it costs money its seen as improving performance not wasting money.

All that I can say is good luck trying to get through to this load of dimwits that you no what you are talcking about its like herding cats trying to make them understand.

[Bagsy]

You said it wouldn't cost much. Clearly it will - wages (270000 weeks worth), training facilities, trainers, weapons, ammo, resources, allowances, refresher training, time putting new laws through parliament etc etc etc.

 

Massive costs and money we haven't got. For what return? Who's gonna pay? Can we afford the 270000 weeks lost police work? What's going to suffer as a result?

 

Commensurate with the threat, remember?

 

Edit - but I'm just a dimwit who doesn't think things through, apparently :-)

Edited May 29, 2013 by Bagsy

[four-wheel-drive]

You said it wouldn't cost much. Clearly it will - wages (270000 weeks worth), training facilities, trainers, weapons, ammo, resources, allowances, refresher training, time putting new laws through parliament etc etc etc.

 

Massive costs and money we haven't got. For what return? Who's gonna pay? Can we afford the 270000 weeks lost police work? What's going to suffer as a result?

 

Commensurate with the threat, remember?

 

Edit - but I'm just a dimwit who doesn't think things through, apparently :-)

 

you got it in one.

[Bagsy]

There you go, give yourself a round of applause. What a wonderful argument you put forward ;-)

[ordnance]

You said it wouldn't cost much. Clearly it will - wages (270000 weeks worth), training facilities, trainers, weapons, ammo, resources, allowances, refresher training, time putting new laws through parliament etc etc etc.

 

The return would be that police that confronted by armed terrorists etc could defend themselves. No one is suggested that it could be done over night they could start with new recruits for example. Again they manage to do it in most European countries and a UK police force PSNI so could it be done yes should it be done that's what the debate is about.

Edited May 29, 2013 by ordnance

[welsh1]

All that I can say is good luck trying to get through to this load of dimwits that you no what you are talcking about its like herding cats trying to make them understand.

Who would have thought

 

[Bagsy]

Ordnance, I don't disagree with everything you say and have sympathy with the police. But arming them all isn't the answer IMO, it simply isn't necessary or cost effective.

[welsh1]

 

[ordnance]

Don't worry I can't see it happening any time soon the politicians or police could never agree one way or another.

[unapalomablanca]

Don't worry I can't see it happening any time soon the politicians or police could never agree one way or another.

The trouble with this country is people debate everything far too much, everytime an idea is presented, we hear howls of protest from every quarter, it makes for weak governance, as governments get scared to govern. I agree we need healthy debate, but we also need hard ******** in power, who in the end dont give a **** about the minority view. For christs sake, arm the police, like in spain, i have never felt threatened by a foreign copper, only reassured that he has an equaliser in his belt if needed.

[ordnance]

The trouble with this country is people debate everything far too much, everytime an idea is presented, we hear howls of protest from every quarter, it makes for weak governance, as governments get scared to govern. I agree we need healthy debate, but we also need hard ******** in power, who in the end dont give a **** about the minority view. For christs sake, arm the police, like in spain, i have never felt threatened by a foreign copper, only reassured that he has an equaliser in his belt if needed

 

I couldn't agree more they would be scared of the wingers and human rights brigade, they haven't the balls to do it even if they thought it was required. And tell the police or anyone that didn't like tough its happening like it or not.

Edited May 29, 2013 by ordnance