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

[damian_steele]

The report into the recent riots has suggested that under some circumstances the police should be allowed to shoot rioters who are seen to be a threat to life.

Should the police be allowed to shoot people in a riot?

For example, would someone deserve to be shot if they were setting fire to a building which may or may not have people in it?

If someone was shot, would it be seen as a good thing, or as something to make the rioting worse?

What do you think?

[moonwitch]

I don't hac e problem with the suggested proposal for the police to have rubber bullets.

I have never taken part in a riot...nor do I plan to, so they won't be shooting me.

My main concern about this suggestion is how far will this go?

After rioters who set fire to buildings...will protesters be next?...and then who next after that?

[damian_steele]

I don't hac e problem with the suggested proposal for the police to have rubber bullets.

Yes, but it is the LIVE rounds I was asking about.

[BLOXBOOKS]

Some folk may claim police shooting a person sparked a riot, so shooting rioters may be going around in circles, anyhow when agents of the state shoot folk, its a pat on the back when they get it right and ooops sorry "Table legs look like rifles"(various on this theme) when they get it wrong.

[moonwitch]

Yes, but it is the LIVE rounds I was asking about.

apologies...I thought you might be referring to the recent report regarding the London looting.

OK....while the country is run by a government that appears not to defend free speech for political activists...then no..shooting one group might lead to shooting other groups so my answer would be the same as in my first post.

[damian_steele]

I thought you might be referring to the recent report regarding the London looting.

I was. It mentioned the live rounds AND the non-lethal stuff.

[moonwitch]

"The Chief Inspector of Constabulary, Sir Denis O'Connor, said that officers should consider using live ammunition to halt attacks on buildings when the lives of those inside might be at risk.

He said that police should also be prepared to use rubber bullets and water cannon to tackle rioters when petrol bombs or other missiles were being thrown.

Other situations which he said might require the use of
rubber bullets or water cannon included attacks on the
public witnessed by police, or threats to fire and ambulance staff called to deal with disorder."

News Report Here

It seems to me that the use of live ammunition is suggested for use in extreme circumstances...not for rioting without arson where peoples lives might be in danger.

Until we have a government that can responsibly organise policing...I would rather any kind of shooting of rioters should be avoided

[MagnetsAndHangers]

Whether it is some guy with a firearm, or some guy trying to start a fire in a building which may have people in it - as far as I am concerned - yes, the bill should have the power to shoot.
Both scenarios are very similar - just using a different weapon, and are a danger to the lives of others.

Whether involved in riots or not.

[terry5732]

When there is a large crowd out of control an acting in a criminal manner, they should be dropping the crowd until the numbers are closer to matched

Not taking such action only perpetuates the criminal behaviour

[tonyreddevil]

I was. It mentioned the live rounds AND the non-lethal stuff.

Yes damian noticed you said live rounds.The police have never done that in Riot or near Riot circumstances in recent time.Think water cannons and rubbber bullets permissable.Probably Tazer guns as well.
cheers Tony