PDA

View Full Version : Use of Force Confusion Sparks RIse in Japanese Cop Kilklings



Kit LeBlanc
18th March 2002, 16:10
From Police Magazine March 2002 Issue, P. 12:

" Looking for a way to lower the number of officers killed in the line of duty, Japan's National Police Agency (NPA) has released new use-of-force guidelines.

With good reason. Last year three of Japan's finest were stabbed or shot to death because they thought they were required to issue a verbal warning and fire a warning shot before using deadly force. Now Japanese police are being told in no uncertain terms that they can open fire without warning if a suspect places their lives or the lives of innocent civilians in imminent danger.

Previous use-of-force guidelines were so confusing that some Japanese cops were under the impression that they had to climb the force ladder one rung at a time - from baton, to verbal warning, to warning shot, to aimed shot 0 regardless of the threats they were facing. The results were tragic. In Tokyo last summer, a 51-year-old officer was mortally wounded by a knife attack as he fired a warning shot.

NPA's new guidelines order officers to forego the warning shot in emergencies. However, police in Japan still face great scrutiny for even removing their pistols from their holsters while on duty, and the guidelines dictate in detail what cirumstances allow them to draw their weapons, aim, them, fire warning shots, or shoot at suspects."

*Tried to edit the messups in the thread title but #@!&*! thing won't let me!

thumpanddump
18th March 2002, 21:34
NPA's new guidelines order officers to forego the warning shot in emergencies. However, police in Japan still face great scrutiny for even removing their pistols from their holsters while on duty, and the guidelines dictate in detail what cirumstances allow them to draw their weapons, aim, them, fire warning shots, or shoot at suspects.

Thanks for that Chris,

It's funny, when I was travelling Japan, especially in more quiet places like Himeiji, the cops were on traffic duty - the kind where they were stopping cars for pedestrians to cross. :)

Forego a warning shot ? :look:

George Ricard

Todd Prosser
19th March 2002, 06:05
I think many, if not most, US police departments have recognized the unreal expectation of a verbal warning during an active attack for some time. Warning shots I think have been ruled out for years due to necessary concern over where the so called 'warning shot' will end up. But... recently my department has said due to supreme court decisions officers using a less lethal shotgun must give a very specific warning before firing.(Something to the effect of "stop or I will shoot you with a less lethal/bean bag gun and it will cause pain/injury") Again, a shot can be fired if safety reasons dictate otherwise, but such influence by the legal 'profession' may soon cause such warning policies to become very similar to Japan's now outdated policy. :(

Todd Prosser

thumpanddump
19th March 2002, 06:16
Hi Todd,


Warning shots I think have been ruled out for years due to necessary concern over where the so called 'warning shot' will end up.

Todd, interesting - what goes up, eventually comes down. Any stats on how frequently people or object have been harmed due to these types of 'shots'?


bean bag gun and it will cause pain/injury

Have these bean bag guns become very popular over in the USA? How about other 'non-lethal' weapons? What are used other than Capsicum spray and bean bag guns?

George Ricard

Kit LeBlanc
19th March 2002, 14:57
Our policy states a verbal warning should be given if practicable...warning shots are ruled out.

As for Less Lethal, there is always new technology being developed. We use SAGE instead of bean bag shotguns...fires a hard rubber 37mm projectile. There are tasers, the paintball guns rigged to shoot OC balls, and it seems there is always something in the works with lasers to make you sick, sound waves, etc.

Todd Prosser
20th March 2002, 07:45
Reading my post again I see that I left it 'kinda' open ended. I believe in giving verbal warnings,if feasible, in all situations. As a matter of fact, I'm quite well known for my very descriptive warnings(;)). My real concern is that the court ruling led to the belief that such a descriptive verbal warning was necessary, if possible. Tha would include the previously mentioned "going to be shot with a less lethal/ bean bag gun" and "it will cause you pain/ and or injury." I guess such is the world of the courts and lawyers, but I truly believe those people(be they defense or prosecution) have no concept of the world everyone else lives in.:redhot:

Walker
20th March 2002, 16:46
Also as Todd and Kit know, Portland may be a little weird due to a couple of bean bag incidents that got people in various interest groups in a twist. :cry:

Todd Prosser
22nd March 2002, 05:09
Originally posted by Walker
Also as Todd and Kit know, Portland may be a little weird due to a couple of bean bag incidents that got people in various interest groups in a twist. :cry:

Funny thing is.... I was there at both of those 'incidents'(the big ones) and they really haven't done much to change our policy. But I completely agree... Portland is weird!:laugh: