Riots: Why use live ammunition?
Sep 15, 2009
EDITOR—Once again, the question of the use by the Police and army of live ammunition fired either on target or indiscriminately in a crowd, which will include rioters and those just caught up in the fray, raises its head.
EDITOR—Once again, the question of the use by the Police and army of live ammunition fired either on target or indiscriminately in a crowd, which will include rioters and those just caught up in the fray, raises its head.
So is the excessive and indiscriminate use of violence by the Police and armed forces during civil disturbances.
This use was clearly seen in various shots taken of the riots. Why can’t the Police use tear gas, batons, water cannon and plastic bullets instead of live ammunition?
I must set the record straight. I am not oblivious to the criminal damage and destruction of property caused by rioters, to the harassment suffered by innocent people such as women whom rioters stripped just because they wore trousers and the injury suffered by some of the policemen and women during the riots.
There were casualties among the Police. But the difference between the Police and rioters is that the former are expected to behave like a law and order enforcing agency.
Probably the Police and army chiefs think the tough actions of rioters require a tougher application of force.
The question that needs to be asked is whether, in fact, excessive use of force by the Police and army in this most recent rioting and previous ones, have made rioters use or plan more violence when confronted by the security forces.
Given the orientation of the Police and armed forces in Uganda, this question may not cut any ice. It is often not for them to reflect deeply on consequences in the short and long-term.
One of these consequences is that many people lost their confidence in the Police (and now the army). In other words, the relation between the Police and security forces in Uganda is at a low ebb.
Rev Amos Kasibante
UK
So is the excessive and indiscriminate use of violence by the Police and armed forces during civil disturbances.
This use was clearly seen in various shots taken of the riots. Why can’t the Police use tear gas, batons, water cannon and plastic bullets instead of live ammunition?
I must set the record straight. I am not oblivious to the criminal damage and destruction of property caused by rioters, to the harassment suffered by innocent people such as women whom rioters stripped just because they wore trousers and the injury suffered by some of the policemen and women during the riots.
There were casualties among the Police. But the difference between the Police and rioters is that the former are expected to behave like a law and order enforcing agency.
Probably the Police and army chiefs think the tough actions of rioters require a tougher application of force.
The question that needs to be asked is whether, in fact, excessive use of force by the Police and army in this most recent rioting and previous ones, have made rioters use or plan more violence when confronted by the security forces.
Given the orientation of the Police and armed forces in Uganda, this question may not cut any ice. It is often not for them to reflect deeply on consequences in the short and long-term.
One of these consequences is that many people lost their confidence in the Police (and now the army). In other words, the relation between the Police and security forces in Uganda is at a low ebb.
Rev Amos Kasibante
UK