I would like to bring to your notice that the time and are still ongoing crimes. The police are doing their best to maintain security and ensure the safety of citizens. In this scenario, the police have used their rights and responsibilities, and where the author has not given rise to close to a threat to the gun, the police officer the right to act by shooting, but not kill him and then he just found a toy gun. If it had been a police officer was injured or killed in place of the thief.
We can also observe that the person who suffered harm as a result of the negligence of a public official, such as police, firefighters, ambulance service cannot succeed under the tort of negligence unless the public servant to the plaintiff a duty of care.
The duty of care in Donoghue v. Stevenson, [1932] Lord Atkin explained that "we must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to harm your neighbor. Definition of" neighbor "and that nearly those directly affected by their acts and omissions (Elliott, and Quinn, 2005). As part of testing a quarter defendant owed a duty of care, whether the applicant would be "closely and directly affected by the actions of the accused and whether the defendant should reasonably foresee that his lack of attention May cause harm to the plaintiff (Macintyre, 2007).
A duty of care if there is a sufficient link of proximity or neighborhood "between the plaintiff and the defendant that the defendant could reasonably foresee that negligence on their part could adversely affect the applicant and regardless of whether policy justifying the refusal of a duty of care ...