Talk:Specialist Firearms Officer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Specialist Firearms Officer is within the scope of the Law Enforcement WikiProject. Please Join, Create, and Assess. Remember, the project aims for no vandalism and no conflict, if an article needs attention regarding vandalism or breaches of wikiquette, please add it to the article watch list.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Specialist Firearms Officer article.
Article policies

[edit] Police Mad Jack Edits

Please stop reverting my edits I have:

Cleared out some internal contradictions eg "as they are required to learn a specialisation and undergo tougher firearm usage" vs " SFOs will usually be trained into a particular speciality"

Removed some tautologies and POV adjectives eg "tougher" and non encyclopaedic wording "blow hinges off"

Deleted the thoroughly misleading statement that UK Police can open fire if there is a danger to property.

I relise that you are acting in good faith but you need to post in good English and get your facts correct Handcockshalfhour (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I have proved the article is correct. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 18:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Where have you proved this? If there's a disagreement about the truth of a statement, we just need a source that clarifies it one way or the other, and should reference it in the article. If you can point me at a reliable article that backs up the "danger to property" thing (I can't see anything in the sources, searching for the word "property"), I can show you how to cite it, removing any need for an edit war of differing opinions.
Both Jack and Hancock should familiarise themselves with the three revert rule, before reverting any more changes. --McGeddon (talk) 18:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The bit he is arguing about I have removed. All other evidence for the article can be found in links. I am a little saddened by how you have ruined a good article. I hope your content and got a medal for it. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 18:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "proved" you will find no proof that Police can fire to protect property as they cannot. Beyond that the current wording is internally contradictory as I have pointed out and in places just bad English - this is an encyclopaedia not a comic.Handcockshalfhour (talk) 18:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Read and analyse, I have removed the thing about the property. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 18:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

What I mean about shoot to stop the endangering of property is with the non leathal baton gun which is used in riots to stop property damage, you obviously misunderstood. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 19:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Baton guns and Tazer are not non-lethal, they are 'less-lethal weapons' as defined by ACPO and common academic knowledge. If you wish to confirm this, please see any text by P.A.J. Waddington who has strong views on less-lethal weaponry, or the ACPO guidance document on less Lethal Weapons. The officer using the weapon must therefore bear in mind the fact that the use of such a weapon can kill, and must therefore be able to justify using such a weapon. This article neds a lot of editing for inappropriate language and factual inaccuracy.SW3C (talk) 12:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

ACPO Guidance on the use of firearms states that "opening fire with such weaponry should only be considered within existing legislation in respect to necessity, reasonableness and proportionality and should only be with the intention to stop an imminent threat to life or of serious injury." SW3C (talk) 10:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)