Rank: Guest 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By AHS
Interestingly if they receive a complaint they assess the risk as highly probable regardless of where it came from.
The controls are then to pin the potential hazard to the floor with extreme force maybe taser them and always point several loaded firearms at them.
Its interesting to see how ALARP is interpreted by different business sectors. It is a very interesting programme Part 2 is well worth watching next week particularly considering the MENEZES case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bob Youel
any body had a loaded gun pointed at them by a suspect?
Cause when people have had this experience they tend to look differently at the subject thereafter especially so if they have had a friend etc shot down next to them on a previous occasion
I feel that the problems we face today are caused by people shouting about subjects that they don't know about as they have not had such experiences themselves
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Wil
Bob, I don't think anyone here is shouting about things they don't know about. I think that they are simply highlighting the programme as an interesting watch.
Speaking with some experience on these matters I have to say that I find the police, at times, inflexible in their approach, especially when there is no immediate or obvious risk to life or property. Someone pointing a weapon at you of course is a different matter.
In the longer term I don't think it does the police reputation much good for them to be seen acting with the perceived use of excessive and unjustified force.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Wil
No gun: No bomb: No risk.............No Comment.
A very difficult case for all concerned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By AHS
Bob
If people have been psychologically affected because they have had a gun pointed at them or a colleague shot then are they able to appraise these situations objectively?
Surely Occupational Health should ensure they are no longer placed in such positions until they are well.
However my post was about ALARP but you have raised a very valid secondary issue although this was not alluded to in the programme.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Raymond Rapp
I found the programme very interesting and informative. The police and especially CO9 have a difficult job to do as the programme highlighted. It would be a very difficult exercise to risk assess these types of activities, it is literally flying by your pants stuff. However, it goes to you what a nonsense the prosecution of former police commissioners Condon and Stevens for offences pursuant to HSWA.
I am keeping an open mind with regards to the level of force used by the officers. Someone pulling a gun and shooting takes a split second, if it was me I would not give them a second chance. There will inevitably be some innocent people caught up in the melee, regrettable though it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Lwood
I have always been of the opinion of if you want someone dead use the Army, if you want to arrest, use the police.
That being said, in this age of armed criminals the police have the right to expect to use reasonable means of self defence and armed police is a reasonable response.
The use of Tasers (spelling?) is a very good alternative to a bullet in the head. However, like all alternatives, it will be misused and abused!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By A Campbell
Something must have gone seriously wrong for a person in training to be accidentally shot!
In the military a negligent discharge is a chargeable and punishable offence... why can't legislation be brought in for such agencies also?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.