Baton rounds on hand so that protesters can be shot if needs be.

[truman]

You describe some extreme scenarios there involving threat to life. Clearly in such cases extreme responses may be required.

 

As for baton rounds being the default response for property protection. That would be disastrous for this country.

 

There were businesses burnt down in London which had residential flats above them..how would you protect the people who could have been in them?Would you let the rioters do as they want and take photos?The people who did this cared not a jot for life and limb of others..

[MrSmith]

You describe some extreme scenarios there involving threat to life. Clearly in such cases extreme responses may be required.

 

As for baton rounds being the default response for property protection. That would be disastrous for this country.

 

How would the police know if life was in danger?

Would they have time to assess the risk to people that could be inside a building?

Would they even know there was someone in the building?

[I1L2T3]

This was insured would it have been acceptable to prevent its destruction by fire baton rounds at the rioters.

 

The Carpet Right / Allied Carpet building was the biggest building to burn down last night in Tottenham. It also had thirty flats above the building, which have now been burnt down too.

 

If somebody was trying to set fire to a large building full of people then they deserve to be shot with a baton round. Nobody would shed any tears. But such extreme responses should be reserved for when there is clear threat to life.

[I1L2T3]

How would the police know if life was in danger?

Would they have time to assess the risk to people that could be inside a building?

Would they even know there was someone in the building?

 

Up to the police to decide. Email them and ask what their operational guidelines are.

[MrSmith]

If somebody was trying to set fire to a large building full of people then they deserve to be shot with a baton round. Nobody would shed any tears. But such extreme responses should be reserved for when there is clear threat to life.

 

How would the police know a building was unoccupied, the default approach should be to assume it’s occupied and do whatever is necessary to protect it.

[speedbirdone]

I wouldn't be too pleased with somebody smashing my house up but if there were a hundred people doing it and only a handful of coppers on the scene they wouldn't be able to do much, except perhaps record the event for use in later prosecutions. Not everything in life is black and white unfortunately.

 

And in that situation i would tend to agree there would be little the police could do right there and then but to say the police should just let a crime like that take place even if the police where in a position to easily deal with it is not what i would execpt the police to be doing.

 

If a crime is taking place no matter what crime it is and the police are able to deal with it right there and then, then they should deal with it. If there is little the police can do at the time then i accept the fact there is little they can do.

[I1L2T3]

How would the police know a building was unoccupied, the default approach should be to assume it’s occupied and do whatever is necessary to protect it.

 

It would be up to the police to decide based on the circumstances and whatever guidelines were in place.

You are never going to successfully argue that the policy should be shoot first worry later. There are very few countries where that would be tolerated. Maybe you should move to Syria.

[L00b]

You are never going to successfully argue that the policy should be shoot first worry later.

In fairness, such a policy would never be used/passed in law, so that's a bit of an empty statement/argument.

 

There would always be a first warning. "Desist or we will shoot you"-kinda thing.

 

As already done with other non-lethal force projection tools in use in the UK, e.g. pepper spray and taser.

 

After that, if the perps choose to ignore the warning/refuse to comply, well...you makes your choices, you lives with the consequences

[0742Sheff]

If somebody was trying to set fire to a large building full of people then they deserve to be shot with a baton round. Nobody would shed any tears. But such extreme responses should be reserved for when there is clear threat to life.

 

I don't agree at all. If there is even a hint of threat to an innocent life then the perpetrator/s should have a baton round put them on their backside. If people are engaging in acts that threaten the lives of innocent people, they should fully expect to be on the receiving end of any and all means at the disposal of the police force to stop them.

[I1L2T3]

In fairness, such a policy would never be used/passed in law, so that's a bit of an empty statement/argument.

 

There would always be a first warning. "Desist or we will shoot you"-kinda thing.

 

As already done with other non-lethal force projection tools in use in the UK, e.g. pepper spray and taser.

 

After that, if the perps choose to ignore the warning/refuse to comply, well...you makes your choices, you lives with the consequences

 

It is already lawful for the police to use baton rounds. No new laws are required.

 

I am talking about the policy for their deployment. I'll say it again. You cannot have a policy where the default is to deploy potentially lethal force.