Firstly

Three things to talk about today. Two are quite serious, the third a bit more light hearted so I will deal with them in separate posts.

Firstly. According to news reports a man has been shot by Police in North London. In the same incident, a police officer was apparently wounded by a bullet. Reports in all the papers I've read suggest that the dead man is a known gang member. Accounts vary as to the number of shots fired but the consensus so far is that the police officer was shot first prompting their armed colleagues to return fire killing the assailant.

The killing of someone in such circumstances is tragic and we should be grateful that the situation was resolved without further injuries. I very much hope the injured police officer will recover quickly and not be left with any long-term physical or psychological scars.

I am extremely grateful to the police officers of this country who keep the people I care about and me at considerable personal risk. The bravery and commitment of unarmed officers who rush to situations like this is humbling. Praise at the highest level should also be given to the armed officers at the scene. They keep themselves in peak physical condition and train extensively to allow them to operate at their absolute optimum capabilities despite the fact that they fire their weapons so rarely.

What I find shocking is that as soon as an armed officer fires their weapon, they are instantly suspended while the incident is investigated. I am not advocating anybody be given carte blanche to open fire on the streets of Great Britain with no consequences however this practice seems ludicrous. When I started studying law I was introduced to an interesting concept: innocent until proven guilty. The policy of immediate suspension suggests presumed guilt. The stress these officers must face is unimaginable and they have my utmost respect not only for the job they do but for having the courage to do their jobs in the face of such potentially devastating personal consequences.

No doubt there will be outcry from some in the media asking why he wasn't shot in an extremity and disarmed. As far as I am aware this is impossible. Though films portray the hero pulling off incredible shots, I fear reality differs greatly. People taught to shoot in a combat situation are taught to aim at the central mass of the target. This is for the simple reason that they are more likely to hit that than anywhere else especially when under stress. This reduces the risk of stray bullets flying and injuring more people than necessary. Furthermore, being shot in the central mass is more likely to disable the target instantly reducing the risk for all those around. Similar reasons apply to the use of hollow-point bullets. The bullet will cause a lot of damage to the target giving them greater "stopping power" whilst being unlikely to pass through the target and cause injury to those around. In short, "shooting to kill" is an inevitable consequence of police carrying weapons. If someone survives shooting with only wounds then they are lucky but this situation cannot be engineered, especially when the lives of many others are at risk.

The facts above are unpleasant. People will die as a result. Unfortunately, this is a necessary consequence of people arming themselves on the streets of this country. Ultimately, surely it is better the police use force if necessary to protect innocent citizens from those intending to do harm. Yes, mistakes have been made however I believe the police usually make the correct decision and never take it lightly. In short, I am glad we have the police force we do and grateful for the protection they provide.

JR