Anyone who has ever used guns knows how difficult it is to hit a stationary target with a rifle, let alone with a pistol. When a police officer is required to use their gun, it rarely involves hitting a stationary target. They are more likely to have to hit a fast-moving suspect. It is unreasonable to expect police officers to shoot with extreme precision.
A more reasonable expectation is that when they have to resort to the use of firearms, they take care to avoid injuring innocent bystanders.
In a shoot-out, there is always the possibility that a police officer’s bullet could hit a third party. Article 11 of the Act Governing the Use of Police Weapons (警械使用條例) states that when use of a police weapon results in a third party’s injury, death or loss of property, the government should provide medical expenses, consolation money, compensation or funeral expenses.
Furthermore, if the injuries, deaths or property losses are caused intentionally by the police, the government “may seek indemnification from the officer found liable for compensation.”
In the eyes of the law, suspects do not bear any responsibility during a shoot-out with police officers.
A draft amendment to the act is currently going through the legislature. The amendment seeks to broaden the scope of a police officer’s permitted use of their firearm. It would also make a suspect who, through their own actions, causes a police officer to reach for their gun, liable to pay compensation to any third party injured during a shoot-out. The court may grant relief only if there are grounds for “responsible cause.”
There is an implicit presupposition that officers possess the ability to shoot with precision. This completely disregards the characteristics of bullets, which may ricochet, or the fragility of the human body. The reason police officers still face the risk of being tried in a court of law over the use of their firearm, even when conforming with regulations, is due to these erroneous assumptions.
The act in its current form, and the proposed amendments, still cling to the conventional legal concept of “state compensation” and “loss compensation,” and do not attribute responsibility for injury or death caused during a police shootout according to the concept of “crime-victim protection.”
Given this, one can understand the reluctance of a police officer to use their gun — and it is even more difficult to expect that a suspect would comply with an officer’s order to drop their weapon.
After the government has underwritten compensation and damages, there should be no need, nor should it be possible, to claim compensation from another party. After the government has paid out “state compensation,” any further claim for compensation can only be directed against the police — which is why police officers can be reluctant to use their firearms.
However, by following the “crime-victim protection” model, the government could then turn to the suspect for compensation after first compensating the victim. Because police shoot-outs often occur when a suspect is refusing arrest, it would make sense that the suspect be responsible for providing compensation, not the government — and certainly not the police.
As the law currently stands, if a suspect is not afraid of being shot by the police and resists arrest, or engages in a firefight with the police, so long as the suspect does not directly injure a third party, any injuries or property damage resulting from the shoot-out are the responsibility of the government and the police.
Police officers are currently damned if they do and damned if they don’t: If they do not open fire, they risk ending up in hospital, but if they do open fire, they may well end up in court.
Daniel Lee is a civil servant.
Translated by Edward Jones1397909876
Life as we know it will probably not come to an end in Japan this weekend, but what if it does? That is the question consuming a disaster-prone country ahead of a widely spread prediction of disaster that one comic book suggests would occur tomorrow. The Future I Saw, a manga by Ryo Tatsuki about her purported ability to see the future in dreams, was first published in 1999. It would have faded into obscurity, but for the mention of a tsunami and the cover that read “Major disaster in March 2011.” Years later, when the most powerful earthquake ever
Chinese intimidation of Taiwan has entered a chilling new phase: bolder, more multifaceted and unconstrained by diplomatic norms. For years, Taiwan has weathered economic coercion, military threats, diplomatic isolation, political interference, espionage and disinformation, but the direct targeting of elected leaders abroad signals an alarming escalation in Beijing’s campaign of hostility. Czech military intelligence recently uncovered a plot that reads like fiction, but is all too real. Chinese diplomats and civil secret service in Prague had planned to ram the motorcade of then-vice president-elect Hsiao Bi-khim (蕭美琴) and physically assault her during her visit to the Czech Republic in March last
Cosmetics have long been one of the “golden pillars” of revenue for department stores in Taiwan. With rows of beauty counters and a full lineup of brands, they once served as a powerful draw for customers. However, since last year, the halo surrounding the sector has begun to fade. It is not an isolated issue affecting one retailer — it is a widespread phenomenon across department stores in Taiwan. Department store executives admit that business is tough, but they also stress that the root cause is not a drop in Taiwan’s spending power or a surge in outbound travel. Instead, a
As things heated up in the Middle East in early June, some in the Pentagon resisted American involvement in the Israel-Iran war because it would divert American attention and resources from the real challenge: China. This was exactly wrong. Rather, bombing Iran was the best thing that could have happened for America’s Asia policy. When it came to dealing with the Iranian nuclear program, “all options are on the table” had become an American mantra over the past two decades. But the more often US administration officials insisted that military force was in the cards, the less anyone believed it. After
RSS