Reasonable force?
Discussion
In view of the 5,000 rounds fired during the siege at St.Dennis in Paris, I wonder if there is any legislation or policy in force that pre-determines what is reasonable force here in the UK?
In Cumbria when Derek Bird went on the rampage, and Raoul Moat went on the run, there was a different scenario, as both ended up in rural locations, but this French action was in a built up area, and 5,000 rounds seems an awful lot of wasted shots?
Was this just "getting the job done" or a reasonable tactic, and could it happen here without legal censure?
In Cumbria when Derek Bird went on the rampage, and Raoul Moat went on the run, there was a different scenario, as both ended up in rural locations, but this French action was in a built up area, and 5,000 rounds seems an awful lot of wasted shots?
Was this just "getting the job done" or a reasonable tactic, and could it happen here without legal censure?
How does the number of rounds fired have any relevance whatsoever? Surely you analyse the threat and decide the level of force required to deal with it (be that stern words or one in the head and two in the chest). If it is determined that lethal force is the only safe option then you fire as many rounds as required to get the job done, be that one or a truckload.
When the suspects have assault rifles, high explosives and a deathwish then quite clearly lethal force is the only option and frankly I wouldn't see the problem with them bringing in tanks and helicopter gunships if it resolved the situation with the least danger to Police and members of the public.
When the suspects have assault rifles, high explosives and a deathwish then quite clearly lethal force is the only option and frankly I wouldn't see the problem with them bringing in tanks and helicopter gunships if it resolved the situation with the least danger to Police and members of the public.
Purity14 said:
Sometimes you could be in a position where you need to give covering fire for someone else to gain a better position.
Are those shots wasted, despite them never actually intending to hit the target? I would argue no.
Why do you want to limit them to so many rounds?
I don't want to limit them, I wondered if they WERE limited.Are those shots wasted, despite them never actually intending to hit the target? I would argue no.
Why do you want to limit them to so many rounds?
The covering fire would need to be accurate in an urban situation, otherwise who knows where they might end up!
TurboHatchback said:
How does the number of rounds fired have any relevance whatsoever? Surely you analyse the threat and decide the level of force required to deal with it (be that stern words or one in the head and two in the chest). If it is determined that lethal force is the only safe option then you fire as many rounds as required to get the job done, be that one or a truckload.
When the suspects have assault rifles, high explosives and a deathwish then quite clearly lethal force is the only option and frankly I wouldn't see the problem with them bringing in tanks and helicopter gunships if it resolved the situation with the least danger to Police and members of the public.
I fully agree, I just wondered if there were laws or policies in place that might restrict the use of what ever became necessary.When the suspects have assault rifles, high explosives and a deathwish then quite clearly lethal force is the only option and frankly I wouldn't see the problem with them bringing in tanks and helicopter gunships if it resolved the situation with the least danger to Police and members of the public.
king job done. 
Mill Wheel said:
I don't want to limit them, I wondered if they WERE limited.
The covering fire would need to be accurate in an urban situation, otherwise who knows where they might end up!
I'd imagine it'd be pretty accurate anyway otherwise it wouldn't serve the purpose of stopping someone popping out from wherever they're hiding. The covering fire would need to be accurate in an urban situation, otherwise who knows where they might end up!
It's not exactly like the covering fire would be someone stood in the middle of the street doing pirouettes on full auto fire.
edited to add: I do understand the point that's being made though. I've no idea, but i imagine the firearms police in the UK have to account for every single bullet fired whenever there is an instance of them needing to pull the trigger. How would you even begin do that in a situation like this?
Edited by gsxr renegade on Friday 20th November 11:21
Edited by gsxr renegade on Friday 20th November 11:23
Greendubber said:
Here each and every round would need to be justified as a use of force.
I wouldnt worry though because if we end up in the same boat as Paris we have neither the staff or weapons to deal with it.
How would it happen here though? I wouldnt worry though because if we end up in the same boat as Paris we have neither the staff or weapons to deal with it.
How many assault rifles are actually in circulation in the UK?
Devil2575 said:
How would it happen here though?
How many assault rifles are actually in circulation in the UK?
I wouldnt know how many assault rifles are in circulation in the UK but proper 'spray and pray' stuff has already been recovered. We had an input from NABIS a while back and it was an eye opener as to what is out there. How many assault rifles are actually in circulation in the UK?
The concept of reasonableness is not a difficult concept. You apply the concept with reference to the particular factual context in which it has to be applied. The concept is inherently flexible, and can't be strait jacketed by some strict guideline that applies to every conceivable situation.
In the Paris siege, the police and the terrorists were engaged in a stand up firefight. Each side fired lots of rounds in order to suppress the opposing side. Suppressing fire is intended to interfere with the enemy's ability to carry out its intentions, whilst facilitating your own side's ability to carry out its intentions. The side that wins the firefight gets to determine the outcome of the encounter. The police won the firefight. Their actions sound to me like they were proportionate and reasonable. The situation would have been different if they had been facing, for example, one person armed with a handgun instead of several people armed with automatic or semi automatic weapons and explosives.
In the Paris siege, the police and the terrorists were engaged in a stand up firefight. Each side fired lots of rounds in order to suppress the opposing side. Suppressing fire is intended to interfere with the enemy's ability to carry out its intentions, whilst facilitating your own side's ability to carry out its intentions. The side that wins the firefight gets to determine the outcome of the encounter. The police won the firefight. Their actions sound to me like they were proportionate and reasonable. The situation would have been different if they had been facing, for example, one person armed with a handgun instead of several people armed with automatic or semi automatic weapons and explosives.
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 20th November 11:48
There was a story around the time of the SAS shooting some IRA in Gibralter, when they shot them all at a petrol station. Intelligence from France and Spain suggested that they were an ASU, and had a car bomb, possibly remotely triggered. Shoot first, ask questions later, so the IRA bods went down in a hail of 9mm rounds.
At the inquest, it was revealed that one of the dead IRA had 13 bullet wounds, and an SAS trooper was asked why this was the case.
His answer?
"I ran out of bullets"..............
At the inquest, it was revealed that one of the dead IRA had 13 bullet wounds, and an SAS trooper was asked why this was the case.
His answer?
"I ran out of bullets"..............
Mad Jock said:
There was a story around the time of the SAS shooting some IRA in Gibralter, when they shot them all at a petrol station. Intelligence from France and Spain suggested that they were an ASU, and had a car bomb, possibly remotely triggered. Shoot first, ask questions later, so the IRA bods went down in a hail of 9mm rounds.
At the inquest, it was revealed that one of the dead IRA had 13 bullet wounds, and an SAS trooper was asked why this was the case.
His answer?
"I ran out of bullets"..............
Yes indeed, why did they fire 5000 rounds ? That was maybe all they had.At the inquest, it was revealed that one of the dead IRA had 13 bullet wounds, and an SAS trooper was asked why this was the case.
His answer?
"I ran out of bullets"..............
Mill Wheel said:
In view of the 5,000 rounds fired during the siege at St.Dennis in Paris, I wonder if there is any legislation or policy in force that pre-determines what is reasonable force here in the UK?
In Cumbria when Derek Bird went on the rampage, and Raoul Moat went on the run, there was a different scenario, as both ended up in rural locations, but this French action was in a built up area, and 5,000 rounds seems an awful lot of wasted shots?
Was this just "getting the job done" or a reasonable tactic, and could it happen here without legal censure?
When Derek Bird when on the rampage, the nearest armed police (except Sellafield CNC, who were locked in) were 30 and 35 miles away.In Cumbria when Derek Bird went on the rampage, and Raoul Moat went on the run, there was a different scenario, as both ended up in rural locations, but this French action was in a built up area, and 5,000 rounds seems an awful lot of wasted shots?
Was this just "getting the job done" or a reasonable tactic, and could it happen here without legal censure?
Greendubber said:
Devil2575 said:
How would it happen here though?
How many assault rifles are actually in circulation in the UK?
I wouldnt know how many assault rifles are in circulation in the UK but proper 'spray and pray' stuff has already been recovered. We had an input from NABIS a while back and it was an eye opener as to what is out there. How many assault rifles are actually in circulation in the UK?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff