Two former high-ranking police officials have told this newspaper that the use of a firearm in the case involving the driver of the Home Affairs Minister did not appear to be justified.
“According to clear guidelines which the police are fully aware of, the use of a gun against somebody cannot be justified unless there is an imminent threat that his life or that of somebody else is in danger,” a former official said.
The guidelines deal with the proper use of weapons including taser guns, pepper spray, tear gas and even the baton. “The intention behind these guidelines was to prevent trigger-happy policemen from overreacting,” he noted.
He added that in this case the policeman did not appear to be facing a life-threatening situation as, according to the official account of the incident, he was dealing with a man who was allegedly carrying a bottle of beer.
“The law clearly says that the weapon to be used needs to be equivalent to the danger being faced and both sides have to be on equal arms,” he added.
It was evident that the shots that hit the car were not aimed in the air, the former official added. Even shooting at a tyre could not be considered as a warning shot as this could have had very serious consequences.
“It is no excuse saying that a man was trying to abscond, as in that case the police should have tried to catch him first.”
These views were shared by another former high-ranking police officer. “Force should only be used to preserve life, not to stop somebody running away – that is not allowed,” he said.
Unless a person was driving recklessly and posing a danger to the public, there was no reason to fire a weapon.
This former officer too referred to the guidelines, which specified that warning shots should only be fired at an angle of 90 degrees in the air.
“We’re no longer in the cowboy age,” he said. According to the facts known so far, the warning should have been verbal; no shots were required. “When violence is advocated the situation will escalate,” he warned.
From the available evidence, those were not warning shots but an attempt to stop the car, he added.
Meanwhile the police yesterday turned down a request from this newspaper for a copy of the guidelines.
“These are strictly for internal use only and are not publicly available for operational security reasons,” a police spokesman said.
The Police Act and force
• Proportionality. Police officers may use such moderate and proportionate force as may be necessary to ensure the observance of the laws.
• Remedy of last resort. The use of force is a remedy of last resort and shall only be used for the duration that is strictly necessary when it is evident that all other remedies would be of no avail.
• Relevant time. If in any court or tribunal any question arises as to the reasonableness of the use of force the circumstances prevailing at the time when force was used shall be the criterion for examining such reasonableness.
• Arms. (1) In exceptional circumstances the force may, in the execution of its duties, use firearms and other offensive weapons or materials. (2) When assessing the existence or otherwise of the exceptional circumstances mentioned in sub-article (1), consideration shall be taken of the conditions prevailing at the time when the use of firearms, or weapons or other materials, becomes inevitable to preserve the life of a police officer or of others, or to avert an imminent danger of widespread violence.
• Responsibility. Saving any criminal or civil liability under any other law, it shall be considered as an offence against discipline if a police officer uses force for considerations extraneous to those permitted by law and the circumstances of the case.
• Regulations. The minister may make regulations concerning the use of force and firearms by the police.
• General saving. The provisions of this part shall be in addition to any other power conferred by any other law.