R.O.E. Rules of engagement

[Quinnwok]

It seems our Police have R.O.E.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_use_of_firearms_in_the_United_Kingdom

 

The usage of firearms by the police is covered by statute (such as the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and Human Rights Act 1998), policy (such as the Home Office Code of Practice on Police use of Firearms and Less Lethal Weapons and the ACPO Manual of Guidance on Police Use of Firearms) and common law.

 

AFOs[clarification needed] may only carry firearms when authorised by an "appropriate authorising officer".[14] The appropriate authorising officer must be of the rank of Inspector or higher.[15] When working at airports, nuclear sites, on Protection Duties and deployed in Armed Response Vehicles in certain areas, 'Standing Authority' is granted to carry personal sidearms.[16] All members of the Police Service of Northern Ireland have authority to carry a personal issue handgun as a matter of routine.[17] In all forces, usage of other weapons such as semi-automatic carbines requires further training and authorisation. Semi-automatic carbines are stored in a locked armoury inside Armed Response Vehicles. Equipping of semi-automatic carbines rests on a judgment of the AFO[clarification needed].[4]

 

United Kingdom law allows the use of "reasonable force" in order to make an arrest or prevent a crime[18][19] or to defend one's self.[20] However, if the force used is fatal, then the European Convention of Human Rights only allows "the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary".[21] Firearms officers may therefore only discharge their weapons "to stop an imminent threat to life".[22]

 

ACPO policy states that "use" of a firearm includes both pointing it at a person and discharging it (whether accidentally, negligently or on purpose).[23] As with all use of force in England and Wales, the onus is on the individual officer to justify their actions in court.[24]

 

YOU POINT A WEAPON, THEY CAN KILL YOU.

 

However the Army has to be actually shot at, and can only return fire if there is no risk to civilians.

 

http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=british+rules+of+engagement+in+afghanistan&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest

 

Insane.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_lords/newsid_9533000/9533691.stm

[Plain Talker]

You'll have to tell me why you are so surprised that the police have procedures set out for the different situations they are likely to come across in their work, because your logic is somewhat lost on me.

 

in most walks of life, you will have procedures to smooth out the running of your job, from where the stationery supplies are kept, and how to obtain replenishments when you run out. to queueing in the refectory, and what you are supposed to say to a customer or visitor when they approach the reception desk. in large organisations, you are expected to sign in, and wear a visitor badge, and are not permitted to enter restricted areas.

 

why should the police force be any different?

[Quinnwok]

You'll have to tell me why you are so surprised that the police have procedures set out for the different situations they are likely to come across in their work, because your logic is somewhat lost on me.

 

in most walks of life, you will have procedures to smooth out the running of your job, from where the stationery supplies are kept, and how to obtain replenishments when you run out. to queueing in the refectory, and what you are supposed to say to a customer or visitor when they approach the reception desk. in large organisations, you are expected to sign in, and wear a visitor badge, and are not permitted to enter restricted areas.

 

why should the police force be any different?

 

eh?

 

Police here can kill you for pointing a gun at them, or something that looks like a gun. However our lads in Afganistan cannot.

[Quinnwok]

It seems we in this nation would rather see our lads dead, than risk killing civilians.

[AJ sheffield]

It seems we in this nation would rather see our lads dead, than risk killing civilians.

 

Maybe they just dont want to risk killing civilians.

[Conrod]

. . .YOU POINT A WEAPON, THEY CAN KILL YOU.

 

However the Army has to be actually shot at, and can only return fire if there is no risk to civilians. . ..

It's the same for the military as the Police. If they have good reason to think that somebody is threatening their life or other innocent life, they can fire. That includes pointing a gun if they have good grounds to think it will end up with them being shot.

 

In both cases, military and Police, they can't fire if it's not a 'clean' and presents an unacceptable level of risk of civilian casualty - like, for example, an armed robber in a shopping mall surrounded by shoppers.

[Andy]

It seems we in this nation would rather see our lads dead, than risk killing civilians.

 

You are comparing apples with oranges here. Both the Police and Army will have rules of engagement, which will be different as they operate in very different circumstances.

 

The fact that the police are allowed to fire on someone in certain circumstances does not imply that we are happy to see soldiers being killed in completely different circumstances.

[ricgem2002]

In both cases, military and Police, they can't fire if it's not a 'clean' and presents an unacceptable level of risk of civilian casualty - like, for example, an armed robber in a shopping mall surrounded by shoppers.

unless your a electrician running for a tube ?

[HeadingNorth]

unless your a electrician running for a tube ?

 

When has an electrician been shot while running for a tube? Did I miss something?

[ricgem2002]

When has an electrician been shot while running for a tube? Did I miss something?

the penny will drop soon