Should police have any powers that ordinary citizens don't? (2 Viewers)

[jennyfromdabloc]

What evidence do you have to support that statement?

In an organisation of approximately 15,000, which deals with tens of thousands of incidents per year, how many instances of abuse of power occur?

Its all hyperbole. One would be ignorant to suggest there is no abuse of power. One is equally ignorant to suggest it is an endemic problem.

I can't prove it. I am making an assumption based on the available data that if there are a significant number of instances of abuse that are actually proven (remember it is extremely difficult to prove, and often only happens when police are accidentally caught on camera), then the true number of instances of abuse by police must be much, much higher and they are simply unreported, unproved, or the police succeed in charging the victim and presenting the incident as their fault.

However, even a small number of cases is certainly alarming.

 

[katie tully]

The taser, not the force, is prohibited. Every person has the right to self-defence, as long as it is reasonable, save for the use of specified weapons. Why would you need a taser?

How often is a member of the public confronted with a volatile situation or interaction with a mentally ill or drug affected person requiring the use of such weapons? What individual is generally willing to enter a situation where they are required to subdue such a person?

If I am getting attacked by someone who is armed with a weapon or has greater strength than I, how do I defend myself with "reasonable" force if I am not armed?

As I said, I don't see why this is an unreasonable demand. Regardless of how many people are attacked by mentally ill or drug affected persons, do you think that the number of random assaults is going to increase if everyone is allowed to carry a weapon? The people carrying weapons or people who find inanimate objects to attack people with don't care about the law, so why should other people be expected to rely on the law when put in a situation like that?

And we're not talking about just drug and mentally ill people - I've seen plenty of instances of random attacks by drunken idiots at the pub, I've even been in a situation where a group of us were walking home and were challenged by a fool brandishing a big metal pole.

So we're allowed to defend ourselves but we're not allowed to carry anything to defend ourselves with, lol ok

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

Your chances of being randomly attacked are reasonably low, so don't bother preparing for it.

Makes perfect sense.

 

[katie tully]

Your chances of being randomly attacked are reasonably low, so don't bother preparing for it.

Makes perfect sense.

plz be trolling me

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

plz be trolling me

Not trolling. If I am attacked, I don't need a weapon, I will just bust out my phone, call the police, and wait patiently for them to arrive.

 

[katie tully]

True. Because the odds of you being attacked by someone on drugs or with a mental illness is remote *because they are the only people with violent tendencies lah*

 

[incentivation]

So we're allowed to defend ourselves but we're not allowed to carry anything to defend ourselves with, lol ok

You make a valid point.

Those looking to do 'badness' will always find something to assist their goal, irrespective of the law. Be it a chair, hammer or as you said, a pole. There is definitely scope and reason to remove the prohibition on 'offensive implements' (e.g. metal pole etc) for the purposes you mentioned.

Even in the current context, if you use reasonable force, whether it is with your body, a pole or a piece of wood, in an attempt to protect yourself from another (and the need for self defence still exists), you are protected at law.

However, the reasons to reduce gun control requires more consideration than 'one's right to bear arms'. There are studies by both sides (the pro and anti-gun lobby) reaching their desired conclusions about the correlation between firearm ownership (or weapon ownership) and firearm/weapon related crime. I am not averse to more liberal firearms laws, so long as such a move can be wholly supported by evidence within other jurisdictions that harm or the potential for harm is not affected by the reduction in firearms/weapon regulation.