NCJ Number
108803
Journal
Policing Volume: 3 Issue: 4 Dated: (Winter 1987) Pages: 246-255
Date Published
1987
Length
10 pages
Annotation
Criminal courts and coroners' juries in England have had to consider the liability of police officers who have used firearms against criminals or wounded innocent people.
Abstract
Under the law, police are in much the same position as other citizens, and force used must be reasonable to the circumstances required to prevent crime or effect an arrest. Two pending cases suggest that police liability cases also may be heard in civil courts. Defenses available to police in civil actions for negligence and assault include self-defense, reasonable force, ex turpi causa non oritur actio, volenti non fit injuria, and contributory negligence. The net result of decisions involving these defenses has been to permit officers to escape charges when the plaintiff was carrying a firearm or an award of reduced damages to the plaintiff. Under police guidelines, officers are warned that firearms are to be used only as a last resort, and 'reasonable in the circumstances' has been defined in terms of the individual's reasonable belief that he or she is in danger of serious bodily harm or of being killed. In a case considering the liability of a person issuing a firearms license, the court has held that the relationship between the issue and the victim is too remote that there is no cause for liability.