Time to arm all police officers?

[panoma1]

8 hours ago, ordnance said:

Just because someone is a victim of crime, does not give them the right to take the law into their own hands. 

UK law states that if under threat you are allowed to use "reasonable force" to defend yourself, your family and property, but does not describe what "reasonable force" is!......so if the situation arises you have to make a judgment on how much force you can reasonably use to defend yourself, your family and your property? Tony Martin right or wrong, judged and used whatever force he deemed necessary, at the time. This was subsequently tested in court and he was found guilty of murder, later reduced to manslaughter, for having used excessive force, I imagine the fact he shot the criminals whilst they were making their escape, and possessed and used an unlicensed shotgun to do so, was taken into consideration and wouldnt have helped his case?

However, a later similar case which resulted in the perpetrators death, was deemed to be "reasonable" and no charges were bought against the victim....so from this we can deduce that to use lethal force can be reasonable and in compliance with the law.......in certain circumstances, if the force used is accepted by the law as "reasonable"

I don't know Martin and only he knows what and why he did what he did, so I am unable to judge him....but I do support (and more importantly the law supports) the use of reasonable force, up to and including lethal force in protecting yourself, your family and your property!

[ph5172]

1 hour ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

I think you need to add the following to your statement after the comma!

"That the Police have failed to deal with appropriately"

 

They cannot be judge, jury and executioner - as people moan about that, people moan they do nothing but forget they moaned about the previous 

the police uphold the law of the land as it is stands in statute. 

I think you need to be looking towards the judicial and prosecution system  if you want to level blame of inaction  

 

Edited August 19, 2019 by ph5172

[henry d]

42 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

UK law states that if under threat you are allowed to use "reasonable force" to defend yourself, your family and property, but does not describe what "reasonable force" is!......so if the situation arises you have to make a judgment on how much force you can reasonably use to defend yourself, your family and your property? Tony Martin right or wrong, judged and used whatever force he deemed necessary, at the time. This was subsequently tested in court and he was found guilty of murder, later reduced to manslaughter, for having used excessive force, I imagine the fact he shot the criminals whilst they were making their escape, and possessed and used an unlicensed shotgun to do so, was taken into consideration and wouldnt have helped his case?

However, a later similar case which resulted in the perpetrators death, was deemed to be "reasonable" and no charges were bought against the victim....so from this we can deduce that to use lethal force can be reasonable and in compliance with the law.......in certain circumstances, if the force used is accepted by the law as "reasonable"

I don't know Martin and only he knows what and why he did what he did, so I am unable to judge him....but I do support (and more importantly the law supports) the use of reasonable force, up to and including lethal force in protecting yourself, your family and your property!

No it also needs to be proportionate too, proportionate to the threat involved therfore you cannot use lethal force on someone unarmed. I believe that proportionality has been adopted as case law (if that is the right term?).

[panoma1]

17 minutes ago, henry d said:

No it also needs to be proportionate too, proportionate to the threat involved therfore you cannot use lethal force on someone unarmed. I believe that proportionality has been adopted as case law (if that is the right term?).

Reasonable force is force which is not disproportionate!....read the CPS legal guidelines on the use of reasonable force, on a quick scan I can see no mention of the word proportionate!

To which "case law" established by which court, giving judgment on which case of reasonable force, against whom, do you refer?

 

[ditchman]

1 hour ago, panoma1 said:

UK law states that if under threat you are allowed to use "reasonable force" to defend yourself, your family and property, but does not describe what "reasonable force" is!......so if the situation arises you have to make a judgment on how much force you can reasonably use to defend yourself, your family and your property? Tony Martin right or wrong, judged and used whatever force he deemed necessary, at the time. This was subsequently tested in court and he was found guilty of murder, later reduced to manslaughter, for having used excessive force, I imagine the fact he shot the criminals whilst they were making their escape, and possessed and used an unlicensed shotgun to do so, was taken into consideration and wouldnt have helped his case?

However, a later similar case which resulted in the perpetrators death, was deemed to be "reasonable" and no charges were bought against the victim....so from this we can deduce that to use lethal force can be reasonable and in compliance with the law.......in certain circumstances, if the force used is accepted by the law as "reasonable"

I don't know Martin and only he knows what and why he did what he did, so I am unable to judge him....but I do support (and more importantly the law supports) the use of reasonable force, up to and including lethal force in protecting yourself, your family and your property!

as i under stand the law...or the veiw the law takes .........is Martin (Tony).......was plagued by these scroats on several occasions ...they treated it as a hobby.....he eventually pointed a gun at them....as he was in fear of his own life....(which at that stage was reasonable force ...providing they were facing him).....but the one he killed was at the time fleeing from him....so the law viewed the firing of the weapon as illeagal/murder as pointing the weapon at the scroats had already done its job....and shooting whilst they were making their escape.unnessasary...........

thats how i understood it

there was a debate years after...which concluded that as long as you shot the person whilst they were facing you it was leagal ?.....but if you shot them in the back it was illeagal..

[ph5172]

Reasonability and proportionate go hand in hand.

Is it proportionate to shoot an armed intruder ..... probably...... is it reasonable to shoot an armed intruder who had decided to drop their weapon.... probably not. 

(The above is no reference to the Martin case it was just a case tried example)    

[ditchman]

this subject is at total minefield.........there are so many good aguements.......... for and against

and sadly it might all come down to the quality of the lawyer as to what the outcome is

Edited August 19, 2019 by ditchman

[bostonmick]

I am not sure that arming all police is the answer. They have tazers which in certain situations are adequate. My understanding of the recent killing is he was either hit by or dragged by a vehicle a gun would not have made much difference. However I do believe that the police in some of our cities where the current trend of stabbings is the thing they need more protection than a stab vest. These maybe effective in a one on one situation but a police officer confronted with a knife wielding gang is a different matter. It should be the individuals choice and then after sufficient training. I do not agree with the general public being armed. God help we never become like the USA or other countries that have armed population. 

[henry d]

2 hours ago, panoma1 said:

Reasonable force is force which is not disproportionate!....read the CPS legal guidelines on the use of reasonable force, on a quick scan I can see no mention of the word proportionate!

To which "case law" established by which court, giving judgment on which case of reasonable force, against whom, do you refer?

 

Collins v Sec. of State (2016), The High Court. It refers to acts which are "Grossly disproporionate" but at the time were deemed reasonable by the person being attacked/burgled as the two sections (76-5a and 76-3 criminal justice and immigration act 2008) had to be read together.

[panoma1]

1 hour ago, henry d said:

Collins v Sec. of State (2016), The High Court. It refers to acts which are "Grossly disproporionate" but at the time were deemed reasonable by the person being attacked/burgled as the two sections (76-5a and 76-3 criminal justice and immigration act 2008) had to be read together.

 

As I read it, the case was bought by the father of Collins (who remains in a coma) under human rights legislation. The court confirmed the "householder defence", ruled the proportionality of force was within acceptable parameters, and consequently the case was dismissed. The court found the force used was not Grossly Disproportionate but "reasonable under the circumstances" it did not find the force used was not grossly disproportionate!

 

 

 

[panoma1]

5 hours ago, henry d said:

No it also needs to be proportionate too, proportionate to the threat involved therfore you cannot use lethal force on someone unarmed. I believe that proportionality has been adopted as case law (if that is the right term?).

Apparantly, to pass the "reasonableness test" force does not need to be proportionate, it only fails the test if the force is found to be grossly disproportionate! 

[ditchman]

4 hours ago, bostonmick said:

I am not sure that arming all police is the answer. They have tazers which in certain situations are adequate. My understanding of the recent killing is he was either hit by or dragged by a vehicle a gun would not have made much difference. However I do believe that the police in some of our cities where the current trend of stabbings is the thing they need more protection than a stab vest. These maybe effective in a one on one situation but a police officer confronted with a knife wielding gang is a different matter. It should be the individuals choice and then after sufficient training. I do not agree with the general public being armed. God help we never become like the USA or other countries that have armed population. 

i very much agree with that...........i think it would be a sad day when all police are armed........i would accept it but i wouldnt be happy about it.........

a lot of the problem is "the total and complete lack of fear and respect, folk have of the law, and law enforcement officers"

what would it take for this trend to be reversed ?

 

[Scully]

I can’t really see the point in discussing proportionality unless it’s from the point of view of a judge or jury. When you’re faced with a situation in which Adrenalin is surging and you’re either scared ********, angry beyond belief or both, proportionality isn’t likely to be uppermost in your head. It’s only after the event when all is done that you have time to assess the situation and become aware of how you reacted to the threat. It’s all very well for judge and jury to do just that, judge, but they weren't there, and neither were we, when those lads broke into TM’s house for the umpteenth time, and ( more apt to this thread perhaps ) nor were the police. If the police can’t protect the general public ( and they can’t, as is clearly the case ) then it’s up to the general public to protect themselves. 

I regarded it a rather cynical move by senior police the other night, on seeing on the news, heavily armed police strolling around as if on guard duty outside Eldon Square shopping centre in Newcastle city centre two days after a 52 year old man was stabbed to death by a kid with a screwdriver....in broad daylight....in a major UK city. What were they guarding? 

Perhaps if armed police strolled around our towns and cities as a matter of course it would give a real sense of reassurance to the general public, rather than the token gesture this was. 

[KB1]

14 minutes ago, Scully said:

I can’t really see the point in discussing proportionality unless it’s from the point of view of a judge or jury. When you’re faced with a situation in which Adrenalin is surging and you’re either scared ********, angry beyond belief or both, proportionality isn’t likely to be uppermost in your head. It’s only after the event when all is done that you have time to assess the situation and become aware of how you reacted to the threat. It’s all very well for judge and jury to do just that, judge, but they weren't there, and neither were we, when those lads broke into TM’s house for the umpteenth time, and ( more apt to this thread perhaps ) nor were the police. If the police can’t protect the general public ( and they can’t, as is clearly the case ) then it’s up to the general public to protect themselves. 

I regarded it a rather cynical move by senior police the other night, on seeing on the news, heavily armed police strolling around as if on guard duty outside Eldon Square shopping centre in Newcastle city centre two days after a 52 year old man was stabbed to death by a kid with a screwdriver....in broad daylight....in a major UK city. What were they guarding? 

Perhaps if armed police strolled around our towns and cities as a matter of course it would give a real sense of reassurance to the general public, rather than the token gesture this was. 

+1

[Dougy]

For those that dont agree with Tony Martins actions you need to put yourselves in his position. Years of attacks from these types of people and nothing ever done to stop it. 

Tony Martin has a few issues, he had been a loner for some time, unable to mix with the outside world, hes not the only person to live that way. 

 

I can promise any of you on here, if i poke you enough times you WILL react, he reacted after reaching that point in his life that he could no longer accept the bullying he had received over a long period. 

[panoma1]

20 minutes ago, Scully said:

I can’t really see the point in discussing proportionality unless it’s from the point of view of a judge or jury. When you’re faced with a situation in which Adrenalin is surging and you’re either scared ********, angry beyond belief or both, proportionality isn’t likely to be uppermost in your head. It’s only after the event when all is done that you have time to assess the situation and become aware of how you reacted to the threat. It’s all very well for judge and jury to do just that, judge, but they weren't there, and neither were we, when those lads broke into TM’s house for the umpteenth time, and ( more apt to this thread perhaps ) nor were the police. If the police can’t protect the general public ( and they can’t, as is clearly the case ) then it’s up to the general public to protect themselves. 

I regarded it a rather cynical move by senior police the other night, on seeing on the news, heavily armed police strolling around as if on guard duty outside Eldon Square shopping centre in Newcastle city centre two days after a 52 year old man was stabbed to death by a kid with a screwdriver....in broad daylight....in a major UK city. What were they guarding? 

Perhaps if armed police strolled around our towns and cities as a matter of course it would give a real sense of reassurance to the general public, rather than the token gesture this was. 

That indeed sums up why the test is one of reasonableness, not one of proportionality!

[johnphilip]

46 minutes ago, Dougy said:

For those that dont agree with Tony Martins actions you need to put yourselves in his position. Years of attacks from these types of people and nothing ever done to stop it. 

Tony Martin has a few issues, he had been a loner for some time, unable to mix with the outside world, hes not the only person to live that way. 

 

I can promise any of you on here, if i poke you enough times you WILL react, he reacted after reaching that point in his life that he could no longer accept the bullying he had received over a long period. 

So true , as they saying goes " its better  to be judged by 12 , than be carried by 6 " .

[udderlyoffroad]

 

1 hour ago, Dougy said:

I can promise any of you on here, if i poke you enough times you WILL react, he reacted after reaching that point in his life that he could no longer accept the bullying he had received over a long period. 

Well said.

As for arming police, can we please get away from this idea that there’s only our model, or the US model of policing?  It’s such utter bovine secretion, the very definition of a false dichotomy.  Plenty of other countries in Europe routinely arm their officers and don’t have anything like the issues the US does.

 

8 hours ago, bostonmick said:

I am not sure that arming all police is the answer. They have tazers which in certain situations are adequate. My understanding of the recent killing is he was either hit by or dragged by a vehicle a gun would not have made much difference. However I do believe that the police in some of our cities where the current trend of stabbings is the thing they need more protection than a stab vest. These maybe effective in a one on one situation but a police officer confronted with a knife wielding gang is a different matter. It should be the individuals choice and then after sufficient training.

More than a stab vest?  What do you propose exactly?  I used to house share with coppers, and I’ve tried on their stab vests; it’s enough doing normal things whilst wearing one, let alone chasing and man-handling toe-rags.  I'd like to see you tell a coppers at a briefing they have to wear something even more bulky for 12hrs+2hrs o/t...

 

8 hours ago, bostonmick said:

I do not agree with the general public being armed. God help we never become like the USA or other countries that have armed population. 

I don’t think you mean that.  You’re on a shooting forum, almost by definition you agree with the general public being armed, as you are the general public.  If you mean concealed carry, then….possibly not (though legal in NI, in rare cases).  If you mean open carry in large conurbations – and yes I’m resorting to using US terminology for the sake of brevity -  then I don’t think there’s any appetite for that either.

 

[Westley]

Instead of arming more Police Officers, perhaps greater protection would be achieved by more appropriate action from the Judiciary. In a recent documentary series featured on television regarding Police assaults, of some 15 to 20 offenders arrested and put before the Courts, not ONE received a custodial sentence. Fines, suspended sentences and community service by the shed load though  ?  Even though  ALL of these cases were filmed and the degree of violence used towards the Officers involved was plain to see, the Magistrates and Judges did not deem a custodial sentence appropriate. While this situation is allowed to continue we will see an increasing number of assaults on Police and Community Officers, after all the Offender has nothing to lose, least of all their freedom.

[Scully]

22 minutes ago, Westley said:

Instead of arming more Police Officers, perhaps greater protection would be achieved by more appropriate action from the Judiciary. In a recent documentary series featured on television regarding Police assaults, of some 15 to 20 offenders arrested and put before the Courts, not ONE received a custodial sentence. Fines, suspended sentences and community service by the shed load though  ?  Even though  ALL of these cases were filmed and the degree of violence used towards the Officers involved was plain to see, the Magistrates and Judges did not deem a custodial sentence appropriate. While this situation is allowed to continue we will see an increasing number of assaults on Police and Community Officers, after all the Offender has nothing to lose, least of all their freedom.

The trouble with that is that there has already been a victim; a harsher custodial sentence would be of no consolation to me if I were laying in intensive care. 

[ordnance]

Quote

As for arming police, can we please get away from this idea that there’s only our model, or the US model of policing?  It’s such utter bovine secretion, the very definition of a false dichotomy.  Plenty of other countries in Europe routinely arm their officers and don’t have anything like the issues the US does.

You don't have to go as far as Europe people seem to forget that the PSNI  is a UK police force and armed, with out all the negative consequences some post about. There are political reasons for not arming the police but no practical reasons.

A reminder bellow. UK police forces areas. 

 

Edited August 19, 2019 by ordnance

[Westley]

24 minutes ago, Scully said:

The trouble with that is that there has already been a victim; a harsher custodial sentence would be of no consolation to me if I were laying in intensive care. 

Yes, but, if there was sufficient deterrent value in the sentence,  like a minimum of 10 years for any assaults,  on any of the Emergency services, regardless of how severe or minor. Why do so many plead not guilty to Murder,  but willingly accept a Manslaughter charge, if not for the lesser sentence  ?

[Scully]

3 minutes ago, Westley said:

Yes, but, if there was sufficient deterrent value in the sentence,  like a minimum of 10 years for any assaults,  on any of the Emergency services, regardless of how severe or minor. Why do so many plead not guilty to Murder,  but willingly accept a Manslaughter charge, if not for the lesser sentence  ?

I’m all for harsher sentencing, but the thought of a custodial sentence doesn’t appear to work;  perhaps the thought that you may get killed in the process of a crime, would.

There is a reason why scum target the old and infirm, or anyone else they regard as defenceless. 

[Westley]

10 minutes ago, Scully said:

I’m all for harsher sentencing, but the thought of a custodial sentence doesn’t appear to work;  perhaps the thought that you may get killed in the process of a crime, would.

There is a reason why scum target the old and infirm, or anyone else they regard as defenceless. 

Yes, they must lose sleep over the thoughts of doing er.......................  Community Service and they will be shaking in their boots over a suspended sentence too  ?

[Scully]

20 minutes ago, Westley said:

Yes, they must lose sleep over the thoughts of doing er.......................  Community Service and they will be shaking in their boots over a suspended sentence too  ?

Yes, can’t argue with that. 👍