Use of Force and Legality

Moderator: jimothy_183

Post Reply
User avatar
Ryan
Posts: 2795
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 3:10 am
Contact:

Use of Force and Legality

Post by Ryan » Tue Jul 19, 2016 3:15 pm

"In short, the use of force in self defence, or in defence of a third party, must be 'reasonable' in the circumstances. The question of what amounts to a reasonable use of force often turns on whether the amount of force used is proportionate to the perceived threat. Basically, unless you genuinely believe that your (or someone else's) life is in imminent danger, it will be excessive to intentionally kill another person."

How do these kind of legal prepubescents change your practice? ROE? OFOF? PiD?
CQB-TEAM Education and Motivation.

"Pragmatism over theory."
"Anyone with a weapon is just as deadly as the next person."
"Unopposed CQB is always a success, if you wanted you could moonwalk into the room holding a Pepsi."

Breacher01
Posts: 330
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2016 1:42 pm

Re: Use of Force and Legality

Post by Breacher01 » Sat Sep 10, 2016 10:15 pm

With my job the basics is to use deadly force if you think you, a fellow officer, or a civilian are in lethal danger. The Situations vary, and because we do have less -lethal options we often use those with different results.

Our favourite is the dog/k-9, its trained to do its job, and I've never seen one miss. the scare factor is pretty high. that important with less-lethal options, but the dog is vulnerable to the same threats we are. Sometimes the risk is to high to deploy a k-9.

The famous taser Is somewhat new in my country, and is not yet showing to be very reliable with all suspects, maybe because of intoxication, substance abuse or body build and point of impact. we don't use it on the front line yet.

As far as pepper spray goes, our colleagues in blue use it with quite some success. My unit doesn't have time to determine if the suspect is submissive after the use of pepper-spray, but If there are multiple guns already pointing at the suspect we sometimes use it to pacify someone who is a threat to us or the public.

With less-lethal 12g Shotgun shells I did have training in Germany, but we aren't issued any yet(no bean bags, rubber bullets, taser rounds etcetera).

In my work we sometimes rely on explosives to gain entry, This is the first option we discuss internally afterwards, and may have to defend before court. Its deadly when used wrong, and can cause thousands of euro's of damage. To the targeted opening, but also car windows and the neighbors houses.

When we use pyrotechnics as distraction we also have to discuss internally afterwards, but not necessarily before court or internal affairs. Its formally still considered less-than-lethal, but we've seen mayor injuries, damage and started fires using those.

The last thing we have before firing kill shots are warning shots, but that's a rare occurrence. If a suspect isn't impressed enough by our less-lethal options were trained to use the Mozambique without second guessing. Most instances we have to use fire-arms result in a dead suspect, and annoying investigation.


Does it seem hurting or killing a suspect threatening with lethal means is going to get you in trouble too with your jobs?
Over here we sometimes feel caught between 2 evils, but there doesn't seem to be a lesser evil?

User avatar
tacticalguy
Posts: 703
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 4:48 pm
Location: Florida

Re: Use of Force and Legality

Post by tacticalguy » Tue Sep 13, 2016 9:24 pm

Ryan wrote:"In short, the use of force in self defence, or in defence of a third party, must be 'reasonable' in the circumstances. The question of what amounts to a reasonable use of force often turns on whether the amount of force used is proportionate to the perceived threat. Basically, unless you genuinely believe that your (or someone else's) life is in imminent danger, it will be excessive to intentionally kill another person."

How do these kind of legal prepubescents change your practice? ROE? OFOF? PiD?
Prepubescents? LMAO. Do you mean precedents? You were posting on a phone, weren't you? I recognize Android's auto-correct feature, lol.

Armed security is held to the same standard as LE, in the U.S. from what I've seen. There has to be a "reasonable" fear that deadly force is imminent and life is in danger, yours or another's. The definition of reasonable is mutable, depending on the POV.
If you have `cleared' all the rooms and met no resistance, you and your entry team have probably kicked in the door of the wrong house.
(Murphy's Cop Laws)

The greatest enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan. (Von Clausewitz)

User avatar
Ryan
Posts: 2795
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 3:10 am
Contact:

Re: Use of Force and Legality

Post by Ryan » Wed Sep 14, 2016 8:08 am

LOL. God damn it.
CQB-TEAM Education and Motivation.

"Pragmatism over theory."
"Anyone with a weapon is just as deadly as the next person."
"Unopposed CQB is always a success, if you wanted you could moonwalk into the room holding a Pepsi."

Breacher01
Posts: 330
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2016 1:42 pm

Re: Use of Force and Legality

Post by Breacher01 » Thu Sep 15, 2016 12:47 am

Ryan wrote:LOL. God damn it.
You better start shaving then :D
tacticalguy wrote:Armed security is held to the same standard as LE, in the U.S. from what I've seen. There has to be a "reasonable" fear that deadly force is imminent and life is in danger, yours or another's. The definition of reasonable is mutable, depending on the POV.
Where I live there is no armed security, those guys carry very large flashlights sometimes, and are allowed to carry folding knives, but the use of chemicals, weapons(firearms or objects solely mean to cause harm) and excessive violence to apprehend someone with the interest of turning him in to law enforcers is often very much scrutinized in court.

The use of flashlight or knives is therefore as illegal as it is for any citizen. But if you have a job in which you risk getting into a fight you would rather defend yourself in court, then before saint peter.

The POV is in my opinion always your own, no matter what the circumstances are, but must be defensible in court.

Small case study:

About a year ago we had a case here where 3 guys(of sensitive decent. Auto-rasism i call it) tried to rob a jewelers store. The Husband of the couple who owned and ran the business was in the store, the wife in the back. Its important to tell this business was robbed at gunpoint 3 times in the last 2 years before.

While the 2 robbers(both armed with a firearm) entered the store and were savagely beating the owner, his wife took an unregistered firearm, and killed the 2 robbers in the store(with 3 .38 bullets from a revolver). Saving herself, their business and especially her husband which at that time had taken a severe beating. Clearly she didn't shoot the six bullets she had, or shot the robbers inside when they were incapacitated.

The entire community of the decent the robbers came from were outraged the husband and wife weren't immediately arrested on the spot, but got medical and emotional help with the aftermath of their experience. The highest responsible officer at the time made this decision, because the first responders could get a pretty good picture of what happened(jewelers store, beaten husband, shook up wife, 2 dead robbers, 3 firearms...)

After some huge commotion the husband obviously not convicted, the wife stood trials, but only risked community service. At the end the wife got a criminal record for possession and unregistered firearm, got no community service, because she defended her husband who was being beaten by 2 armed robbers.


This illustrates why strict firearm regulation has 2 faces. The police and defense personnel obviously can carry arms while on duty, but the criminals don't care about regulations, and always carry a gun if they like to.

The police normally is better trained and equipped then most criminals, so until this point there isn't any problem. If we look at security employees or owners of a store are defenseless if they follow the rules. When your jewelers store is robbed 3 times at gunpoint in a 2 year period I can understand why you would want to have a weapon for yourself in your store. the same may count for security guards(who have no special legal status here), so they may want to defend themselves in front of a judge rather then before saint peter.

If LEO's and criminals carry guns, what should an honest civilian with a high risk job do? Where is the line between people who should feel safe with body armor, and who should be allowed to carry firearms? Criminals don't care...

Breacher01
Posts: 330
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2016 1:42 pm

Re: Use of Force and Legality

Post by Breacher01 » Fri Dec 30, 2016 5:00 am

Заебись

Post Reply

Return to “CQB General Discussions ”