Police play a role in maintaining public well-being and order by preventing and eliminating risks. In order to achieve this goal, preventive tasks must be performed, as well as suppression of crimes. In the process of crime suppression, compulsory means are used to arrest a criminal, and in some cases, guns must be used. However, gun use is the most powerful compulsory means, and gun use is likely to cause injury or death. Therefore, with regard to the use of firearms by police officers, our precedent examines whether the use of firearms was justified based on the principle of proportionality, relevance, and supplementation.
In principle, each state has its own police power in Germany. However, as criminal phenomena change and the area of crime widens, joint cooperation between the police in each state was greatly requested, and as a result of the need for consistent rules on compulsory measures taken by the police, the Federal and State Uniform Police Act Model Draft (MEPolG) was created in 1975, and Articles 41 to 44 of the Uniform Police Act stipulate the principle of proportionality as a general principle for police action in general, and there are several regulations based on this, especially regarding the use of weapons.
The use of firearms is the most powerful means of police coercion, and police laws in all states in Germany have detailed regulations on them separately from direct coercion, and most of these regulations reflect the principle of proportionality.
In Japan, there is a police law regarding the function of the police, and in principle, the use of weapons is regulated by the Police Officer Duty Execution Act and the Police Officer General Use and Handling Standards. Basic matters concerning the use of weapons are stipulated in Article 7 of the Police Officer Duty Execution Act, and detailed matters concerning the requirements and procedures for the use of weapons and equipment are stipulated in detail in the Police Officer General Use and Handling Standards. The provisions of Japan’s Police Officer Duty Execution Act, which was the birthplace of the Korean Police Officer Duty Execution Act, are still maintained, and there are no regulations on the use of other police equipment (such as light rods, police officers, tear gas sprayers, tear gas, special light rods, etc.) other than weapons manufactured for the purpose of killing people due to their nature. Accordingly, theories and precedent interpretation of the use of equipment that is less powerful than weapons in nature have been developed, and to regulate this, the police’s internal rules were ’norms of use and handling of police pistols and light rods’, which present stricter use requirements.