Re: Non-emergency '999' service to have 10p charge

On 30 Oct 2005 15:55:19 GMT, "joe" <joeparkinchinese@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>Uno Hoo! wrote:
>
>> > > Firstly - the only way to ensure that someone armed with a lethal
>> > > weapon ceases to be lethal is to kill him. Shooting him in the
>> > > leg is not going to deprive him of the means to fire his weapon.
>> > > Whenever there is a police shooting there is an investigation. Up
>> > > until recently there has not been a totally independent body to
>> > > carry out those investigations, there is now. I do not accept
>> > > that there are cover ups. Investigators look at the
>> > > circumstances, question the officers involved, and prepare their
>> > > findings. There are also coroners court hearings and files
>> > > submitted to the CPS. It is not the police who say that no action
>> > > is being taken - it is always other bodies.
>> >
>> > Firstly, the way to stop someone armed is to negotiate, not to shoot
>> > them. This one pont is enough to show the police are in danger of
>> > playing the wild west.
>>
>> You are being pedantic here. Of course negotiation comes first (in
>> most situations). It is when the firearms officer genuinely believes
>> that either his, or someone elses life is in imminent danger that he
>> would open fire.
>
>Pedantic to say that the first should be negotiation?

Absolutely.

>You clearly said the only way to stop him being lethal was to shoot.
>

And?

That doesn't mean you do shoot him, unless it appears he is about to
*become* lethal. If he is clearly about to shoot, *then* your only
choice is to shoot to kill.

Until that point, negotiation is *always* better, but Kev was only
talking about at that point. As should have been obvious.

I must admit, that was so obvious to me that when I responded to your
previous post, I didn't even consider you had made the assumption you
did.

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Illiterate?... Write for free help.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
.

Relevant Pages