|
Home>News Center>Life | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
When should cops pull the trigger?
On the morning of April 18, Yang Wei, a young man who stole a heavy truck and drove it against traffic regulations on Beijing's Badaling Expressway, was shot dead on the spot. Before he was shot, his escape had caused damage to more than 20 cars, and injured 8 people.
The report of the above-mentioned incident immediately sparked wide debates. Some people query the policemen's behavior. In their eyes, rather than shooting Yang dead at such close range, police should have used other methods to apprehend him. Moreover, the trouble-making driver who intended to get something from his bag had not yet caused any actual harm to policeman. Shooting Yang under such conditions violated the law. Others believe that the decisive act adopted by the policemen is totally in accordance with the law because Yang deliberately placed the lives of the public at risk. An Inappropriate Act Ma Dengmin (Professor at China University of Political Science and Law): To judge whether shooting Yang dead is lawful, the key is to see whether he was committing criminal activity to threaten other people’s personal safety at that very moment. The fact is that after ramming a big bus, the heavy truck driven by Yang was compelled to stop. His activity that had endangered public security had therefore come to an end. Under such conditions, the police should capture him rather than randomly fire shots. According to relevant regulations, policeman may use weapons in case of acts of violence, including resisting arrest, but they should fire a warning shot first. Because Yang was reaching for something from the bag, this act doesn’t pose a threat to the policemen’s safety. So before taking any action, the right thing police should have done is to make clear the actual situation. Li Dahong (a reader): Personally, I think the police should have made more of an effort to capture Yang. For example, shooting him in the hand to prevent him doing harm to police should have been the first move. If Yang continued to resist then they would be justified to shoot him dead. Wu Ming (a reader): It is true that Yang’s actions had broken the law. However, shooting an empty-handed man dead is a mistake. The police who made the mistake must be held accountable. We can see that the Beijing policemen who followed the heavy truck, had no plan in place to stop the insane driver. Since they were equipped with guns, why didn’t they shoot out the truck’s tires beforehand? This would have been a more effective way to stop Yang’s escape. If the police used a bus to stop the truck, they should take some responsibility for all the damage Yang caused. Moreover, from watching relevant videotapes of the case, we can see that the driver didn’t intend to ram other vehicles. As a matter of fact, he tried to dodge cars coming toward him, most of which were only scratched. It’s quite clear that had the police handle the situation properly, there would not have been such a brutal ending. In addition, shooting a person who had stopped harming others will have a negative influence on the image of the police in the eyes of ordinary people. Wang Xiaochuan (a reader): It’s obviously a typical case of excessive force. At the time of the shooting, Yang had no means of continuing to cause damage. Shooting him dead on the spot was not necessary. Such a move should not be encouraged and the police should abide by laws when performing their duties. Sun Bing (a reader): I think it is inappropriate to shoot the troublemaker dead and the police’s behavior is rather hasty. If they did so when the driver entered the highway, it may be understandable, because at that time, nobody could estimate the possible damage the driver would cause. But under the circumstances where the driver had already stopped the truck, the police should hold him captive and punish him in accordance with the law. A Lawful Response Yin Wei (Deputy Director of Teaching and Research Department of Chinese People’s Public Security University): Facing such an emergency, shooting criminals conforms to related laws, and is seen as a rational act. In accordance with the relevant regulations on the policemen’s use of police arms and weapons promulgated by the General Office of the State Council on January 16, 1996, policemen may fire shots when encountering those who deliberately jeopardize public security through hijacking aircrafts, ships, trains and cars or driving motor-vehicles. In Yang's case, robbing or stealing a truck is an illegal activity. Besides, he drove the truck on the expressway, with the clear understanding that driving in an opposite direction prohibited by traffic regulations may lead to severe casualties. However, he kept driving this way even after successively ramming more than 20 cars. His actions had already seriously endangered public security. In addition, according to media reports, the police fired a warning shot before shooting him dead, conforming to lawful procedure. Though the truck had stopped at the time of the shooting, the driver failed to follow the policemen’s instructions. For instance, the young man was asked to put his hands behind his head, a gesture to prove that he was not holding a weapon. But instead of doing so, he tried to take something from a big handbag on the drivers seat. In the eyes of the policemen, such an act could have been a threat to their lives. What would they do if the driver took out a weapon and attacked them? In order to stop any further illegal actions, the policemen who were performing their duty according to law had the right to shoot. In addition, according to related regulations, facing other acts of violence such as resisting arrest, attacking targets under the state’s protection, escaping from prison, warrant policemen firing at criminals. Currently, compared with other countries, we still lack comprehensive regulations on the use of police arms and weapons. In other countries, policemen may immediately use weapons in case of emergencies that have seriously impacted public security, such as arson, dyke breaching, explosions and grabbing hazardous articles, including firearms and ammunition, or other criminal activities such as destroying important facilities. Wei Liuming (a reader): Policemen should make efforts to minimize potential danger when dealing with emergencies. That’s the principle. If Yang hadn’t resisted arrest, or the policemen were capable of controlling the situation and keeping harm to a minimum, it would be unnecessary to shoot Yang dead. However, Yang failed to cooperate with the police, instead, he tried to take out something from his bag. Supposing there were weapons or self-made detonators in the bag, then the life of surrounding people would likely be threatened. I believe given the conditions, shooting was the right choice for the police in any country. Liang Dong (a reader): Had the policemen failed to take timely measures to stop the frenzied driver, more innocent people would have lost their lives or been injured. People who were not personally on the scene could not feel and imagine the dangerous situation. Yang’s resistance could even have resulted in further damage to public security. To protect the public’s property and save lives, shooting him was a rational and acceptable move. Li Lisheng (a reader): In the past, policemen on duty have suffered great casualties due to sudden attacks from mobsters. Learning from previous lessons, shooting an extremely vicious criminal is quite right. Yang can’t be treated as an ordinary traffic offender. Who can guarantee what he would take out of his bag was a bottle of mineral water and not a bomb? I feel we need to put relevant laws and regulations in this field in place as soon as possible. |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
