We have been discussing some quite serious issues in our Ethics lecture recently and I thought I would get some further opinions on these issues.
One of the topics covered was whether it is ethical for the Police to use ultimate force i.e should they be able to shoot civilians dead? The outcome of the discussion was that in most situations it will be the circumstances that will determine whether this is necessary or not. But what if the circumstances prove to be wrong. I am sure you remember the case of Jean Charles de Menezes who was sadly shot dead in London as police believed him to be a danger to the public. This was in fact not the case, but it was too late, they had made their split second desicion. I am sure the police officers involved in this shooting will never forget the fact that they shot an innocent man dead, so how do you go about using your own descretion- as this is what police officers are asked to do in these kind of situations.
I am going to look at this from a slightly different angle than we did in our original discussion- asking police officers to make split second desicions between life and death-is this ethical?
Join me on my travelling adventure! I have recently completed a degree in Public Relations and Communications and I am soon off traveling for six months. I want to see if travelling the world can enhance my PR career!
Soldiers and police have the training (in theory) to be able to make these decisions. Split seconds may be all that are available. What would happen if they didn't pull the trigger or shoot to kill, if their hesitation resulted in a terrorist getting that chance to detonate the bomb, or the insurgent the chance to shoot your colleague? As society we train our professionals to make these decisions. What I find odd is when we civilians then quibble about the results. Utilitarian ethics say the needs of the many (us) outweigh the needs of the few 9the professionals- police and army.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately mistakes are made, and when they are they seem to gather much more media coverage than when the right decision has been made. I'm sure this happens more often than not.
ReplyDeleteThe police are trained to make these decisions and should be fully aware that the time may come when they have to. When the safety of other people is in question I suppose they just have to rely on their instincts. It's something we just have to accept, but still know such actions can save peoples lives.
Seeing as I'm a second year PR student at solent I would be very grateful if you could follow my PR blog at http://2plus2pr.blogspot.com/
It will really help me out when I'm in your position next year!
Thanks
Thank-you for your comments.
ReplyDeleteI am going to add a little more to this discussion as I believe there is far more that can be said on this subject.
There are obviously a number of things that are taken into consideration by police officers when they are in this kind of situation and there are many procedures in place to ensure that the best possible outcome occurs in the circumstances. However, do you really think that in the split-second that the officer has to make the decision, to 'shoot' or 'not', that training really has any impact or can prepare you for the actual event?
Please feel free to comment on anything that you feel may be relevent to this topic, I understand that it is a very difficult subject to discuss but I really do appreciate your views.
Would the use of a taser gun make the decision of whether to use ultimate force easier and less risky?
ReplyDeleteThe split second decision made by the police officer would still be required, but potentially the severity of any incorrect decisions may not be as severe in comparison to the use of an actual gun.
But would a taser gun have the required effect, or would it be open to abuse by some police officers who may use it in non life or death situations?
I did actually look at this as an alternative as I couldn't understand why in certain circumstances it wasnt considered. Literature shows that in some cases a taser will not cause instant incapacitation and therefore can still be dangerous, especially in the case of a suicide terrorist. Sometimes, the only option is to 'shoot to kill'.
ReplyDeleteThere are now authorities such as the ACPO (Association of Chief Poice Officers) and the IPCC (Independent Police Complaints Commission)to ensure that the same mistakes are avioded in the future, if mistakes are made in these critical situations. I am not sure however that the familiy of Jean Charles de Menezes would say that this is acceptable. Okay so preventions can be put in place for the future, but that does not mean that this tragedy can be reversed.
Also, what I find difficult to understand is that there is not really any consideration to the police officers who now have to live with the fact that they mistakenly shot someone who was innocent. How is this fair on them or everyone invloved?
I think that police should definitely have the right to kill if the person whom they are killing has killed someone else. I very much believe in "a life for a life" ... if someone has murdered someone, then I don't see why they should deserve to live themselves.
ReplyDeleteThe Jean Charles de Menezes case is just awful, and by no means was this acceptable. Like you said, I'm sure that the police who committed this tragic offense will never be able to forgive themselves, but I guess that this comes with the job title of being a police officer. When you sign up for the job you will fully understand that you may be put in these situations where you have to make a decision as serious as shooting someone whether you have factual evidence or not. Im sure, in a different situation, the gun shot wouldn't have gone off and police would have a chance to arrest someone before any damage was needed to be done. In a situation like the London bombings and any act of terrorism, police are put in such a tricky situation, and I can see why they did what they did. I am not however in anyway saying that what they did was right.
I don't think that training has anything to do with making a decision of "to shoot, or not to shoot...." I think this is all down to your personal instinct and what you think is right and wrong.
Going back to your original question Jenna, is it ethical to force the police to make these decisions.
ReplyDeleteIt's a difficult call but at the end of the day someone has to make the decision or a lot of innocent people could be put at risk. The police know what they're getting into when they take on the job and they know that one day they may be put in the position where they have to make a life or death decision.
I guess this raises another ethical dilemma, is it right to expect someone to be able to make the decision to kill because of the profession they choose?
We could look at it like this- if terrorists are trained to kill anyone who gets in their way then there is no way police should be restrained from shooting who they believe is endangering the wider group. They are the police because their job is to solve crime and protect society. How can they protect people, if they don't have the appropriate weapons to use on criminals or have less defense compared to them.
ReplyDeleteI think the case of killing an innocent person as a mistake caused by the police is horrible, but what about all the other people that would be put in danger if the law was changed to not allow police to make split second decisions.
I don't understand how the police were running after Jean Charles de Menezes and it happened in the street didnt it? so were able to kill someone while they were running, in between other innocent people and got him so good that he died instead of just being injured.
These police men are obviously very skilled and know what they are doing so surely it would have been as easy to have shot the man somewhere where he would have to stop running but would not die. I think the police should be trained to approach criminals differently since obviously this man who had immigration problems and must have been approach aggreseively straight away to start running from the police.
The rules should be developed but not changed..risks need to be taken all the time for anything to be done. Something as stupid as having plastic surgery has the risk of the patient dieing on the operating table. Policemen with split second decisions have the risk of killing someone innocent but this is something thy should prepare for in training and try working around
Did the order come from above or did they have to make the call themselves? I think it is ethical to have armed police otherwise we do not have any protection against terrorism etc, and if we or the terrorists know the police wont use force then where is the deterrant? Im not sure whether it was fair in this case as if the order came from a superior and the officers in question are used as scapegoats to protect the 'force' then this is also unfair in my opinion. It will always be difficult for any officer to make the choice, but i do believe that they have to have that power, otherwise what message are we sending to real terrorists? its a terribly sad story for all involved but i suppose there isnt a choice, there has to be a system in place that protects officers but also that they must follow to protect themselves. I would like ot know who gacve the order though, because it could have come from above?
ReplyDeleteThe order does come from above as they have a gold, silver and bronze command structure in place. There is also a DSO (Designated Senior Officer) alongside this command structure. The DSO gives the command but again it is ultimately at the officers discretion. The Coroner's report into Operation Kratos suggested that there was a number of misunderstandings and ambiguities relating to the DSO role, so really is there any benefit from this role. Does it just mean more confusion for the officers in the situation.
ReplyDeleteOperation Kratos in the UK is the only known time that 'shoot to kill' has ever been the desired outcome.
Shoot to kill officers are so well trained its unimaginable, yes we do still have to question whether this is the right thing in targetting violence.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, mistakes are made, and do happen, just as in any other line of work. These police officers are working for the good of all of those who live in this country, and sometimes if there is a threat of danger, action is required.
I think there are so many scenarios that you can put this question too, but I know I would rather understand that there are specially trained people who could help in a terrible situation, than be left to deal with any consequences
I think it is ethical to make the police make split decisions between life and death. Those that go into the police force know what they are signing themselves up for when they apply to be a police officer. Their job is to help prevent crime and keep the public safe. The case of Jean Charles de Menezes was tragic but it wasn't like the police just randomly chose to shoot a member of the public, he was acting suspicously and it was just after the 7/7 bombings so there was already a lot of paranoia around there being another terrorist attack. In a case like this if he had have been a terrorist and the police hadn't have shot him and he had gone on to kill people I think they would have then got the blame for not doing something. I think that when it comes to the subject of ultimate force there is always going to be people that say it is wrong but those that are armed have been fully trained and they have to make decisions based on their gut instincts all the time so we should trust them.
ReplyDelete