PART III.  INSTRUMENTS OF FORCE Any use of a firearm in the performance of duty should be reported. As the pointing of a firearm is intimidating, even when no shot is fired, it is good practice to define the use of a firearm when the weapon is: • Pointed at another person • Fired at another person in self-defence or in defence of another whether or not injury or death results • Discharged in any other operational circumstances, including unintentional discharge Whenever the use of force resulted in death or serious injury this should be investigated by an independent organ. The person under investigation should hand in his or her firearm for investigation. Depending on the circumstances of the incident, it may be required to relieve him or her from duties that require the use of a firearm pending the investigation. Because of their perceived status and their lethal force, firearms are sometimes stolen from law enforcement officials and used for criminal activities. Care should be taken to prevent this from happening; law enforcement officials should be provided with proper holsters in which to keep their firearms and be trained in how to retain their weapons. SWAT teams Most countries have one or more specialized units to deal with high-risk situations, where there is a high chance of a violent confrontation, such as arrest squads, SWAT (special weapons and tactics) teams, sniper units, special forces or hostage rescue teams. The culture, operational methods and command structure of such teams tend to have military-type characteristics, and they tend to be secretive about their tactical methods because they prefer them not to be widely known. They are often well-equipped with a variety of firearms and sometimes explosives, distractions and breaching devices. Their operational methods are commonly characterized by stealth, speed and “controlled aggression”, such as a lot of shouting and other noise in order to disorientate the subject of the operation and thus avoid further use of force. Because of the way they are trained and the type of situations they are called in for, these squads tend to rely heavily on the use of lethal force and they have been criticized for lack of restraint.221 Indeed, deployment of this type of units should be subject to high-level authorization and in some situations, judicial oversight, and careful consideration should be given to the question of whether a de-escalation approach could be effective as well, and if so, such an approach should be given preference. Bear in mind that States are required to prevent the loss of life to the greatest extent possible, including by taking all reasonable precautions in the planning and control of the operation,222 and indeed the principles discussed in chapter 2 equally apply to SWAT teams. All decisions around the deployment of such teams should be logged, and their actions should be recorded in order to ensure full accountability and, when needed, allow for an independent review.223 221  See for example Victor E. Kappeler and Peter B. Kraska, Policing and Society (2013): “Normalising police militarisation, living in denial.” http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2013.864655 On the other hand, because they are very well trained, usually have the initiative in an operation (rather than having to react) and can prepare for an operation, they tend to use very few shots as compared with common officers. 222  In McCann e.a. v. United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights held that in determining whether the force used is compatible with article 2, protecting the right to life, it may be relevant whether an operation has been planned and controlled so as to minimize risk to life. § 150 and 194. 223  Osse, A. (2006). 99