Calls for clearer riot control rules as report finds that Police could legally have shot London riot - Polidicks

[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16265551[/url] [quote=BBC News][b]Police should be given clear rules about when they can use water cannons and plastic bullets against rioters, a watchdog has said.[/b] But officers could lawfully have shot arsonists in some cases during the summer rioting in England, the Inspectorate of Constabulary said. Water cannon and plastic bullets could have been used in a "number of real scenarios", its report suggested. MPs have said such tactics would have been "indiscriminate and dangerous". Legal advice in the inspectorate's review of the August riots indicates that firearms can "potentially" be deployed where arson poses a threat to life, or of serious injury. This could be justified given the "immediacy of the risk and the gravity of the consequences", said the report, which calls for a new framework for policing public disorder. [b]'Public support'[/b] It suggested water cannon and plastic bullets could be considered to deal with rioters throwing missiles and petrol bombs, to stop "violent attacks on the public" and arson attacks, and also where fire and ambulance crews were under threat. A survey of 2,000 people carried out in September had indicated public support for such measures, the report said. It recognised water cannon as an "effective means of dispersal" which incur fewer injuries to the public in static and slow-moving scenarios but conceded they cost more than £1m each and needed to be deployed in pairs to be effective. The report said that while current guidance already allowed the use of force, commanders were prevented from using some of the more forceful tactics due to a lack of training and resources. Police also needed to outnumber rioters by between three and five to one if they are to effectively move forward, make arrests and disperse groups, the review said. Chief Inspector of Constabulary Sir Denis O'Connor said it was necessary to raise "awkward issues" through the report. [b]Army role?[/b] "Some new rules of engagement are necessary so the police can protect the public in confidence," he said. He said the best option was to get officers on the streets as soon as possible but that a "proper debate" about tactics was needed to decide how to protect the public in the intervening period. The inspectorate also revealed that discussions had taken place about support the military could provide in any future disorder, suggesting the Army could help in "logistical roles". Sir Hugh Orde, president of the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), said: "The challenge remains for operational police commanders to make critical decisions within volatile and fast-moving situations." "When disorder occurs, the available tactics must include the necessary hard edge to resolve situations quickly and effectively." Sophie Farthing, from civil rights campaign group Liberty, said some of the tactics would represent "a very serious step" and it was important not to "sweep up the innocent with the guilty" when using devices like water cannon. "There's certainly a lot for the police force... and the Home Office to consider before they start escalating for greater use of police powers of this kind," she said. Jenny Jones, a Green Party member of the Metropolitan Police Authority, said: "Endorsing the use of live ammunition is an approval of the tactics of war on London's streets and implementing such recommendations would be madness." [b]'Insufficient numbers'[/b] The review is the latest in a number of reports into the riots and its causes. On Monday, a Commons Home Affairs Committee report said the policing operation to tackle the summer riots across England was flawed. The Policing Large Scale Disorder: Lessons from the disturbances of August 2011 said insufficient numbers of officers were initially deployed and police public disorder training was inadequate. The perception that in some areas police had lost control of the streets was the most important reason disorder spread, it said, adding that flooding the streets with officers was what ultimately quelled the disorder. But committee chairman Keith Vaz MP said he did not feel water cannon would have helped police in the riots and may have caused "even greater disorders". The Metropolitan Police said it had outlined what it was doing to improve. This month, a study by the London School of Economics and the Guardian newspaper found that 85% of 270 respondents cited anger at policing practices as a key factor behind the summer's unrest in English cities. Meanwhile, the government-backed Riots, Communities and Victims Panel published its interim report, which found no single cause but that in many areas there was "an overriding sense of despair that people could destroy their own communities". Violence broke out in Tottenham, north London, on 6 August, two days after the fatal shooting by police of 29-year-old Mark Duggan. Unrest spread across London and to other cities, including Manchester, Birmingham and Bristol over the following days.[/quote]

[quote]But officers could lawfully have shot arsonists in some cases during the summer rioting in England, the Inspectorate of Constabulary said.[/quote] And they should have. EDIT: Talking about LTL rounds by the way, since more than half of you don't seem to get that.

[QUOTE=FalconKrunch;33811795]And they should have.[/QUOTE] If they resist arrest first. You don't just shoot an arsonist on sight, you have to at least attempt to see if he'll cooperate.

[QUOTE=FalconKrunch;33811795]And they should have.[/QUOTE] A fascist with a weed-related avatar, now I've seen everything

[QUOTE=Hidole555;33812180]If they resist arrest first. You don't just shoot an arsonist on sight, you have to at least attempt to see if he'll cooperate.[/QUOTE] I hold no sympathy for anyone who has the intent (or already has) created a fire which is a danger to persons and property; fire is extremely dangerous and impossible to control (as in, an arsonists can't control what the fire will do). The arsonist stopped cooperating when they decided to go start a fire.

[QUOTE=Hidole555;33812180]If they resist arrest first. You don't just shoot an arsonist on sight, you have to at least attempt to see if he'll cooperate.[/QUOTE] If the aronist is about to set a fucking building full of people on fire I highly doubht an officer has the time to attempt to arrest the suspect first.

[QUOTE=FalconKrunch;33811795]And they should have.[/QUOTE] Do you have any idea of how much of an uproar would have been caused if they started shooting people?

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;33813603]Do you have any idea of how much of an uproar would have been caused if they started shooting people?[/QUOTE] I think he meant with less than lethal ammo.

So lets do the 'nobel' thing and allow the arsonist to burn down someone's shop, ruining their lifes work because your making a 'statement'. If anything, they should have been shot. The riots were a disgrace to see and watch, animals let loose to follow their mob mentality and destroy and ruin everything in their path. That's the solution right? The reason the world is fucked up right now is because people are losing the balls to do what is necessary, and by allowing these 'people' to run around and burn buisnesses and houses is the cruel thing to do.

[QUOTE=Drsalvador;33813818]I think he meant with less than lethal ammo.[/QUOTE] Well personally I think they should have used less than lethal ammo, but I think he was talking about live.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;33814083]Well personally I think they should have used less than lethal ammo, but I think he was talking about live.[/QUOTE] I wasn't talking about live rounds. 2 whole blocks burned down and the police did nothing but watch.

yeah i'd rather the police not have the ability to shoot anyone based on the prospect of being an arsonist. the police in the united states have that right and they always end up shooting some poor guy who didn't do anything wrong. unless a person presents a clear danger that cannot be stopped by anything except live fire the police should not have the right to shoot anyone.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;33813603]Do you have any idea of how much of an uproar would have been caused if they started shooting people?[/QUOTE] I know the Bobbies are supposed to be polite and all. But really? In America if a cop shot an arsonist during a riot we'd barely give two shits. It's not like he was walking home from the grocery store and the cop gunned him down, he was trying to light up a building and endanger people and property.

[QUOTE=FalconKrunch;33811795]And they should have.[/QUOTE] Yeah if someone is running around with a molotov in hand they are fair game to get lit up with plastic bullets IMO [editline]20th December 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=CodeMonkey3;33814618]I know the Bobbies are supposed to be polite and all. But really? In America if a cop shot an arsonist during a riot we'd barely give two shits. It's not like he was walking home from the grocery store and the cop gunned him down, he was trying to light up a building and endanger people and property.[/QUOTE] The issue with using live ammo is the potential for collateral damage though. Plastic bullets do a pretty good job of putting someone out of commission but have a much smaller chance of killing someone

[QUOTE=FalconKrunch;33811795]And they should have.[/QUOTE] You do realise that would basically mean you could get away with murder so long as you planted a molotov next to the body, right? Hell, make a falsified report and you've just shot a man [I]and[/I] ruined his life at the same time. It's a textbook situation allowing for perversion of the cause of justice. [editline]20th December 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Gundevil;33813831]So lets do the 'nobel' thing and allow the arsonist to burn down someone's shop, ruining their lifes work because your making a 'statement'. If anything, they should have been shot. The riots were a disgrace to see and watch, animals let loose to follow their mob mentality and destroy and ruin everything in their path. That's the solution right? The reason the world is fucked up right now is because people are losing the balls to do what is necessary, and by allowing these 'people' to run around and burn buisnesses and houses is the cruel thing to do.[/QUOTE] I dislike how you put the word "people" in quotation marks like that. It would seem you're saying someone can be a sub-human through their own actions, and that's a dangerous line of thinking.

[QUOTE=CodeMonkey3;33814618]I know the Bobbies are supposed to be polite and all. But really? In America if a cop shot an arsonist during a riot we'd barely give two shits. It's not like he was walking home from the grocery store and the cop gunned him down, he was trying to light up a building and endanger people and property.[/QUOTE] That's because in America you've got cases of cops gunning down people just walking home from the grocery store and those are the cases you give two shits about Well okay, not exactly that, but you've got [URL="http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1142929"]things pretty damn close to that[/URL]

Remember guys, they are talking about LETHAL and NON-LETHAL ammo. The whole riots were supposedly started by somebody being shot and killed by police. Have they not learned lessons from Northern Ireland when innocent people were killed, causing more and more riots and protests? If you want to control them, use water cannon and stop there. Stop -right- there. We know what happens from experience when you use more than that. The police just do not learn from mistakes.

[QUOTE=MrEndangered;33814784]Remember guys, they are talking about LETHAL and NON-LETHAL ammo. The whole riots were supposedly started by somebody being shot and killed by police. Have they not learned lessons from Northern Ireland when innocent people were killed, causing more and more riots and protests?[/QUOTE] No, these riots there unrelated to that. Just a bunch a people destroying shit because they can.

[QUOTE=MrEndangered;33814784]Remember guys, they are talking about LETHAL and NON-LETHAL ammo. The whole riots were supposedly started by somebody being shot and killed by police. Have they not learned lessons from Northern Ireland when innocent people were killed, causing more and more riots and protests? If you want to control them, use water cannon and stop there. Stop -right- there. We know what happens from experience when you use more than that. The police just do not learn from mistakes.[/QUOTE] The riots were not caused by that, it's was fucking opportunists jumping on a media story and got a load of people all riled up thus causing mass mayhem. Combine opportunists with thugs and you get a riot. Simple. In my opinion the police should have used non-lethal rounds on the rioters combined with water cannons, instead they just use water cannons and the odd case of gas in London and Manchester. What they should have done is shown they are a force to break this shit up, instead they allowed themselves to be overwhelmed. And the fact this government is a pile of shit and laid off a huge section of the police force a few weeks before the riots doesn't help, the police is the last section you want to be cutting down people on, same with the NHS but nope, GOTTA GET RID OF THEM.

[QUOTE=Cone;33814715]You do realise that would basically mean you could get away with murder so long as you planted a molotov next to the body, right? Hell, make a falsified report and you've just shot a man [I]and[/I] ruined his life at the same time. It's a textbook situation allowing for perversion of the cause of justice. [editline]20th December 2011[/editline] I dislike how you put the word "people" in quotation marks like that. It would seem you're saying someone can be a sub-human through their own actions, and that's a dangerous line of thinking.[/QUOTE] I'm saying that when people resort to acting like an animal, then that's what they are. Hooting, howling, hitting, smashing is what animals do, look at monkeys and apes. Dahmer was an animal, Bin Laden, the extremist Hutu's. Those are animals, people who go out to cause other people pain and misery. In my eyes the rioters were animals, no control, completely wild and needed to be stopped or put down like we do to animals out of control. Edit: Caught my eye [QUOTE=MrEndangered;33814784]The whole riots were supposedly started by somebody being shot and killed by police. Have they not learned lessons from Northern Ireland when innocent people were killed, causing more and more riots and protests? [/QUOTE] The man killed was Mark Duggan, a known drug dealer. Police stopped him because he was thought to try to go and commit a revenge killing. He pointed a pistol at police, and they shot him dead. He was not innocent, the only defense that is being used was that his pistol was outfitted to fire blanks, but the pistol had recently been converted to fire live ammunition. He was killed for pointing a weapon at police, he was not innocent of anything. It was considered racism that he died, but if the cops had all been black, Duggan still would have been shot.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;33815229]No, these riots there unrelated to that. Just a bunch a people destroying shit because they can.[/QUOTE] Using that as a guise for their mis-deeds. The whole "shot and killed" part went out of the window the minute the riots themselves actually began. originally it was just the family members and close friends protesting the police supposedly unlawfully shooting someone, the riots just spawned from people seeing it as a reason to steal shit. The rioters had no motive other than to cause hell and loot. Don't kid yourselves by thinking otherwise.

[QUOTE=Gundevil;33815514]I'm saying that when people resort to acting like an animal, then that's what they are. Hooting, howling, hitting, smashing is what animals do, look at monkeys and apes. Dahmer was an animal, Bin Laden, the extremist Hutu's. Those are animals, people who go out to cause other people pain and misery. In my eyes the rioters were animals, no control, completely wild and needed to be stopped or put down like we do to animals out of control. Edit: Caught my eye The man killed was Mark Duggan, a known drug dealer. Police stopped him because he was thought to try to go and commit a revenge killing. He pointed a pistol at police, and they shot him dead. He was not innocent, the only defense that is being used was that his pistol was outfitted to fire blanks, but the pistol had recently been converted to fire live ammunition. He was killed for pointing a weapon at police, he was not innocent of anything. It was considered racism that he died, but if the cops had all been black, Duggan still would have been shot.[/QUOTE] Okay, this is the worst shit I've read? People who cause other people misery are animals? Put down humans? Get help.

I feel bad for the police forces of the world. Pretty much everything they do is frowned upon. Thanks, media.

Weird edit?

Pretty sure the word shot in this usage is for rubber bullets not live rounds considering that in the last days of the riot they were ready to bring them and water cannons in.

[QUOTE=ZestyLemons;33815666]I feel bad for the police forces of the world. Pretty much everything they do is frowned upon. Thanks, media.[/QUOTE] In this case, they didn't even do it and it's [I]still[/I] getting frowned upon.

[QUOTE=ZestyLemons;33815666]I feel bad for the police forces of the world. Pretty much everything they do is frowned upon.[/QUOTE] what they do is supposed to be frowned upon. they work for the public so if they screw up it's a public matter.

[QUOTE=Gundevil;33815514]I'm saying that when people resort to acting like an animal, then that's what they are. Hooting, howling, hitting, smashing is what animals do, look at monkeys and apes. Dahmer was an animal, Bin Laden, the extremist Hutu's. Those are animals, people who go out to cause other people pain and misery. In my eyes the rioters were animals, no control, completely wild and needed to be stopped or put down like we do to animals out of control.[/QUOTE] So, wait, people can become less than human because of something they do and the thoughts they have? You do realize that's the basis for a justification of facism, right? I mean, people are going to have differing ideals. Bin Laden, for instance, genuinely believed he was doing the world a favor - would you not say that believing something so obviously flawed in logic with such fervor as to kill many, many people is the very definition of insanity or, at the very least, severly impaired judgement capability? You want to execute the criminally insane because of a mental illness. At this point all you need to do is change what you define as "illness" (if you even care that their actions are byond their control at this point) and all of a sudden you've got a group of sub-humans who have been affected by something out of their own control that you wish to subjugate and kill. Dude, you're a fucking Nazi.

[QUOTE=markg06;33815726]Pretty sure the word shot in this usage is for rubber bullets not live rounds considering that in the last days of the riot they were ready to bring them and water cannons in.[/QUOTE] I think they are referring to rubber bullets, the ITV national news did a small piece on this, and seemed to constantly hint towards the use of rubber bullets rather than live rounds. Which would make sense as the police here barely used rubber rounds to stop rioters, they just kept trying to water cannon.