Woman shot dead "lawfully killed"
Discussion
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/8652109.st...
Just seen this, and it has struck me as odd that in the eyes of the law, you can lawfully kill someone..?
I know this might sound like a stupid thing to say, but where are the limits of such a law? Self-defence I can understand, and rulings of accidental death too, but the way that the news article is written seems to suggest that the person shot was done so with an intentionally fatal blow - would non-fatal ammunition or a shot to a limb not have sufficed under these circumstances?
I realise too that the news article probably does not tell the whole story, but I'm just reading it how it is, and my original question is a bit further reaching than this individual case.
Just seen this, and it has struck me as odd that in the eyes of the law, you can lawfully kill someone..?
I know this might sound like a stupid thing to say, but where are the limits of such a law? Self-defence I can understand, and rulings of accidental death too, but the way that the news article is written seems to suggest that the person shot was done so with an intentionally fatal blow - would non-fatal ammunition or a shot to a limb not have sufficed under these circumstances?
I realise too that the news article probably does not tell the whole story, but I'm just reading it how it is, and my original question is a bit further reaching than this individual case.
ccr32 said:
would non-fatal ammunition or a shot to a limb not have sufficed under these circumstances?
Shooting someone in the leg or a shoulder is a Hollywood idea, as far as I know. Trying to do so just makes it far more likely you will miss completely. Soldiers and armed police learn to aim for the centre of a target, to make it as likely as possible that your first shot will make contact. If it doesn't and the target has a gun, you'll be lucky to get a second try. As for non-fatal ammunition, doing so would mean the assailant was more heavily armed than the officers, which doesn't really give them munch incentive to put the gun down and give up.
ccr32 said:
I know this might sound like a stupid thing to say, but where are the limits of such a law?
What it means is that an armed officer can shoot to kill if he needs to - I suspect "needs to" will be a broad term to suggest at any point that there is a danger either to the officer or any other human being - that width being necessary to enable the police to actually do their job when they need to. It is possible to take an arm or a leg shot, but not with the MP5s that the armed police use. I don't know if their pistol skills are that profficient either - the only armed police officer I know was an ex-Army chap so was a pretty good shot. But in any event, would you be happy that an officer shot the arm, then the armed person used their other arm to operate their weapon and kill an innocent bystander? That is also I believe why the police will, if they have to shoot, aim for centre mass - best chance of a stop shot.
Jasandjules said:
But in any event, would you be happy that an officer shot the arm, then the armed person used their other arm to operate their weapon and kill an innocent bystander?
I agree with what you're saying, but you've clearly never been to Sevenoaks at 3am! We all go to bed after The Magic Roundabout. 
Completely fair responses wrt aiming for the chest - I must have been watching too much 24!
I guess that you have to make provisions in the law then for when firearms are used as, like has been said, there is no point in challenging someone with non-fatal weapons/shots if their response would then be to take down a bystander or police.
I guess that you have to make provisions in the law then for when firearms are used as, like has been said, there is no point in challenging someone with non-fatal weapons/shots if their response would then be to take down a bystander or police.
jshell said:
ErnestM said:
Sounds like she was shot from a distance ("marksman")? Or is it that all armed police are considered "marksmen"? To me it means somebody armed with a sniper style rifle or similar.
They're all 'marksmen', seemingly. 
They are.An all inclusive Equal Opportunities policy thankfully hasn’t yet been extended to issuing firearms to those who those who are too incompetent to become marksmen, or women.
The training is there to ensure all those issued firearms have both good shooting skills; plus good judgement on when to shoot and more importantly, when not to shoot.
Different types of firearm are best suited to different circumstances. It still requires marksmanship, whatever the type of firearm.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff