Why Can’t Malaysian Police Just Shoot Armed Suspects? Here’s What The Law Says

Following the machete attack in Kepong that left a Malaysian police officer with a severed wrist, one question has been circulating online: Why didn’t the police shoot the suspect earlier?

It may seem like a straightforward question, especially when officers are confronted by someone armed with dangerous weapons. However, the use of firearms by police officers is subject to legal restrictions.

So, when are Malaysian police legally allowed to open fire, and what does the law actually say?

Can Malaysian police shoot someone who resists arrest?

Under Section 15(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Act 593), an officer or another person making an arrest may use all means necessary to effect the arrest if the person forcibly resists or attempts to evade it.

However, this does not mean that every suspect who refuses to cooperate or resists arrest can automatically be shot.

Section 15(3) places a restriction on causing someone’s death during an arrest. It states that this section does not give officers the right to cause the death of someone who is not accused of an offence punishable by death, imprisonment for a term of between 30 and 40 years, or life imprisonment.

Importantly, this does not mean that officers are automatically authorised to use lethal force against someone accused of an offence carrying those punishments.

The provision must be read alongside other applicable legal principles governing the use of force. In other words, the power to use force during an arrest is not an unrestricted licence to use lethal force.

What if the suspect threatens someone’s life?

This is where the law on private defence becomes relevant.

Under Sections 96 and 97 of the Penal Code (Act 574), the law recognises the right of private defence, allowing individuals to defend themselves or another person against certain unlawful acts.

However, this right is subject to restrictions.

Section 100 outlines specific circumstances in which the right of private defence of the body may extend to causing death. These include assaults that may reasonably cause someone to fear that death or grievous hurt will result, as well as certain other serious assaults specified under the provision.

Meanwhile, Section 99(4) states that the right of private defence does not extend to inflicting more harm than is necessary for the purpose of defence.

Section 102 also explains when this right begins and how long it continues. It states that the right commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt or threat to commit an offence, even if the offence has not yet been committed.

This means that officers do not necessarily have to wait until they are physically injured before defending themselves or others.

However, whether the use of lethal force is justified depends on the circumstances, including the nature and seriousness of the threat and whether the requirements under the law are met.

The presence of a weapon alone does not automatically establish that firing a gun would be legally justified.

What happened during the Kepong attack?

On 11 November, police and emergency personnel responded to a disturbance at a residence in Desa Aman Puri, Kepong, after receiving a report about a man who was reportedly behaving aggressively, according to WORLD OF BUZZ’s earlier report.

When the team opened the door, the suspect allegedly emerged carrying two machetes and attacked the responding personnel.

A 26-year-old lance corporal from the Gombak District Police Headquarters’ Mobile Patrol Vehicle (MPV) unit suffered a severed right wrist, alongside injuries to his head and body. Several firefighters and Health Ministry personnel also sustained minor injuries.

The suspect subsequently fled and was located at a nearby playground at around 7pm. When officers attempted to arrest him, he allegedly attacked them again with a machete, prompting police to fire several shots.

The suspect was pronounced dead while being taken to hospital.

The injured officer was initially taken to Selayang Hospital before being transferred to Kuala Lumpur Hospital for surgery. He was reported to be in stable condition.

What did the KL police chief say about officers using firearms?

Following the incident, Kuala Lumpur police chief Datuk Fadil Marsus urged frontline personnel to remain alert and be prepared to use their firearms when facing dangerous threats.

In an audio recording shared on Kuala Lumpur police’s official Facebook page, Fadil told officers to assess situations quickly, draw their firearms, identify their targets and remain prepared to act.

He also reportedly told officers not to hesitate to shoot if they encountered an obstruction, uncertainty or a perceived threat.

However, such operational instructions should not be interpreted as overriding the legal requirements governing the use of firearms. An officer’s decision to fire must still have a lawful basis and be assessed against the circumstances of the incident.

So, can Malaysian police shoot whenever they feel threatened?

Not automatically.

Whether the use of a firearm is lawful depends on the circumstances, including the nature and seriousness of the threat, whether there is an immediate danger to life or serious injury, the applicable legal powers and whether the force used was necessary.

Police officers also operate under internal procedures known as the Inspector-General’s Standing Orders (IGSOs), which are issued under Section 97 of the Police Act 1967 (Act 344).

This provision empowers the Inspector-General of Police to issue administrative orders for the general control, direction and information of the police force.

The Malaysian Bar has previously highlighted that these Standing Orders are classified documents and called for them to be made publicly available to improve transparency and accountability.

The Bar has also referred to the United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, which emphasise that officers should, as far as possible, use non-violent means before resorting to force and firearms. They also state that intentional lethal use of firearms should only occur when strictly unavoidable to protect life.

These principles provide an important international standard, although they should not be confused with a specific provision of Malaysian legislation.

Ultimately, police officers have a duty to protect lives, including their own and those of members of the public. However, their use of firearms must still have a lawful basis.

As for the Kepong incident, the exact circumstances surrounding the officers’ decisions should not be judged based on viral footage or isolated accounts alone. A proper assessment would require the full circumstances of the confrontation and the evidence available to investigators.

Do you think Malaysians generally understand when police officers are legally allowed to use their firearms?

Also read: KL Police Chief Warns Officers Not to Hesitate to Shoot When Threatened After Kepong Attack

Source: Threads
Source: Berita Harian
Source: Berita Harian
Source: Polis KL | Facebook
Source: Utusan Malaysia
Source: Berita Harian