Should the police have the power to use live bullets on rioters?

Shoot to kill can only be sanctioned where there is a threat to innocent life!
IMHO ;) :) :) :)

put it tis way
wud u be willing to just stand theer while dikheads throw god knows wat at u

they mite think twice if the police cud retaliate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PATRIOT73

put it tis way
wud u be willing to just stand theer while dikheads throw god knows wat at u

they mite think twice if the police cud retaliate

---

Good point. I don't believe in violence, but I do believe very strongly in self defense.

Happy holidaze and Happy New Year to all,

Live rounds!! God help us all.
Incapacitate by all means, but kill?
I honestly don't know where all this will end?
Bloodbath perhaps???

Level headed balance is needed in situations of protests, riots, or lawlessness. If too much leeway is given for use of deadly force then abuses can happen. If people feel that abusive force was used it could spark uncontrollable violence.

On the other hand, I do not like seeing law enforcement prevented from doing their job, which is to maintain law and order. If an officer's life or safety is at risk, they have every right to defend themselves. They need the support of their superiors and the community as they fulfill the role they were entrusted to do.

I do not think that an individual should have to the right to decide in a moment whether to fire live rounds.
No individual should have to carry that level of responsibility for their actions.
Water cannon and tazer are more satisfactory because a policeman who makes a mistake does not face homicide charges
Firing at an amorphous crowd is worse in my view than targetting an individual who presents a risk of loss of life to others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billsbooks

I do not think that an individual should have to the right to decide in a moment whether to fire live rounds.
No individual should have to carry that level of responsibility for their actions.
Water cannon and tazer are more satisfactory because a policeman who makes a mistake does not face homicide charges
Firing at an amorphous crowd is worse in my view than targetting an individual who presents a risk of loss of life to others.

---

Where there is a clear threat to innocent life from a clearly identifiable individual; then that individual should be targeted,warned and shot if necessary. (IMHO)

Firing into groups or crowds would be a criminal act as far as I am concerned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pink_Panther

Where there is a clear threat to innocent life from a clearly identifiable individual; then that individual should be targeted,warned and shot if necessary. (IMHO)

Firing into groups or crowds would be a criminal act as far as I am concerned.

---

I don't think anyone has a problem with that Pink.
It's your second point that I agree with as well. I hope this never happens but we all have to worry.

We must be seen to take defensive action to protect our Police, citizens and property. But how far should we go?

Each occurance has to be dealt with rather quickly and decisively, and being judged responsibly on its own severity by the powers that be.

Having these proposed threats, that have been mentioned, will hopefully deter rioters from starting in the first place.

I am in my 70s now, and have witnessed in my lifetime, that respect has disappeared out of the window on Law and Order

Who do you blame? Some say the parents, but they are only a rung in the ladder of life, allbeit a very important one.

regards

Just so everyone is clear

Live rounds are "rubber bullets" fired from a casings that contains explosive, its just the uk media trying to make it a bigger story than it is.

Yes to water cannon and yes to pepper spray

and in extreme circumstances (life or death) yes to the taser gun and "live rubber rounds "

job done