More options may mean less fatal shootings
DEAR SIR,
I note that a newspaper recently ran an article
on new instructions issued by Force management for the handling of drug addicts "resisting
arrest" (arrested persons/suspects who threaten officers with possibly contaminated syringes).
According to the newspaper, these instructions are that "it may be permissible for officers
to draw their service revolvers and open fire, if considered necessary. These instructions are
not applicable to uniformed officers as they are armed with shields and batons".
Is it not time that officers are issued with sufficient equipment to defend themselves? There
is no good reason why plainclothes officers are not issued with batons (the ASP extendible
is a perfect solution to this problem), or with CS spray or OC foam.
Currently plainclothes officers have only the options of verbal control, physical control
(self defence) and then application of deadly force. And although senior officers my be
able to justify a shooting only a judge or coroner can rule it lawful.
The suggestion that uniformed officers are armed with shields and batons to defend
themselves is questionable. How many officers carry a shield? How many officers have
ever used the issue baton to defend themselves? The current issued baton is clumsy and
slow to draw, and I challenge the average UB officer to prove otherwise. Up close and in
the spur of the moment, this baton will never be drawn.
We have heard for years that various studies are underway, but I have yet to see any
evidence of change. The time to change the baton is long overdue. Issue extendible
batons (ASP 16" to plainclothes and 21" to UB officers) and more OC foam.
It will not be long before another officer is injured, infected with a contagious disease
or killed just because he/she could not draw their baton when they did not feel justified
in shooting a suspect.
Simply because it has not happened recently does not mean that it will not happen tomorrow.
Yours faithfully
Inspector N A Pearson
E &C Traffic HKI
REPLY . . .
DEAR SIR,
Your correspondent raises a number of
issues, which I shall attempt to answer.
Contrary to the newspaper report, no instruction has yet been issued concerning suspects
who threaten officers with syringes or needles and any such instruction concerning the
use of force or firearms would apply equally to both uniformed and plainclothes duties.
This subject does, however, involve a wide range of issues which currently are being
addressed by various wings in PHQ.
I think it fair to say that every police officer should by now be aware of the dangers posed
by syringes and needles used by drug addicts and common sense dictates that one should
exercise the utmost caution when dealing with these items.
As for equipment, the Senior Directorate recently endorsed both OC foam and a straight
extendible baton as items of equipment for the Force. OC foam will replace all IS stocks
of CS spray and will be issued to all EU and PTU personnel and to non arms-trained
women officers. Stocks should be available by April or May.
A 21-inch Kevlar straight-extension baton has been approved and a tender exercise is
currently underway. The baton will be issued as beat equipment from armouries with
the number of batons based on the "Luddington formula", i.e. the same scale as for
revolvers. There will be sufficient numbers for plainclothes units such as SDS to draw
batons if they wish. Officers will be required to undergo a short training course before
carrying this baton on duty. TRG Wing will co-ordinate the training and hopefully
completion of the training will coincide with the completion of purchase procedures
in May 1999.
I trust that this addresses the concerns raised.
Yours faithfully
C W Mitchell for ACP SUP
|