You'll note a couple of things. There is NO reference to a Police Officer in the above. Its ANY PERSON.
Secondly is that the force is not disproportionate to the objective.
Thirdly - to prevent the commission of an indictable offense
Can't be a low level sort of thing, don't want members thinking they can go around arresting people for dropping litter!!
Not sure if that applies to any power granted to an armed force as it's just the Victorian Crimes Act, and armed forces are under Federal jurisdiction.
No doubt the police are going to need some better equipped back up pretty soon if this keeps going, it's hard to understand how this has spread to different areas, seemingly unrelated.
Yes - the
use of force is to prevent the commission of an indictable offence or effect or assist in
effecting the
lawful arrest of a person committing or suspected of committing any offence.
- Straight out of the Victorian Crimes Act. Interesting read if you have a few weeks of doing nothing!!
Obviously is different legislation for different states, but I had a quick read through the Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914 and could not find similar legislation under Commonwealth Law. This are sections for use of force when arresting or executing warrants (Federal Police), but not 'any person' type of legislation. Its an interesting point about bringing the Army in to control riots and how the law works with it. I have no knowledge of it happening in my lifetime (within Australia). I guess if necessary they could rush something through Parliament over in the UK.
The UK Police are exceptionally well equipped and have vast experience in dealing with massive incidents (ie bombings etc). Given the vast spread of all the incidents, I guess protection of life is the number 1 priority (as it should be), restoring public order as #2 and finally protection of property (public and private) #3. I'm tipping the boys and girls in blue over there will be pulling some seriously long hours for the next couple of days.
