Shoot to kill policy

[rossporterlc]

i think we have to take this kind of action tbh, just wondered what everyone else thinks

[Benji]

agree

[john_lcfc]

agree aswell. imagine if there was a bomb and the police chose not to kill

[Fox Shagger]

I disagree, I'm sure a super super tranquilizer could be invented.

[rossporterlc]

I disagree, I'm sure a super super tranquilizer could be invented.

146420[/snapback]

and what do we do in the meantime?

[Fox Shagger]

I don't think inventing a super tranquilizer would take too long if a proper effort was made. But in the mean time can't police use stun guns or something?

[john_lcfc]

I don't think inventing a super tranquilizer would take too long if a proper effort was made. But in the mean time can't police use stun guns or something?

146424[/snapback]

if its a suicide bomber and there shot in the chest there explosive vests ( if thats the method they choose) would blow up so they are ordered to shoot at the head hence killing instantly( shoot to kill).. i agree

[Durnerz]

I like the new Tazor Gun method but theres not much you can do when you have a suspected suicide bomber running towards a train ignoring your pleas to stop, shoot to kill for me.

[Fox Shagger]

What if the bomber has a trigger which detonates the bomb when dropped like the one used in Terminator 2

[john_lcfc]

If a man is behaving strangeley at a tube station for example looking around nervously and fiddling with his backpack on the platform and is picked up by a cctv camera and police shout to him to stop and he gets on the train what do the policemen do? shoot him to kill him or risk him blowing up the tube ? he may well be innocent but what do you think?

[Fox Shagger]

If a man is behaving strangeley at a tube station for example looking around nervously and fiddling with his backpack on the platform and is picked up by a cctv camera and police shout to him to stop and he gets on the train what do the policemen do? shoot him to kill him or risk him blowing up the tube ? he may well be innocent but what do you think?

146429[/snapback]

If the Jean Charles de Menezes incident didn't go tits up, I would be agreeing but now I'm not so sure. If police persist to wear plain clothes and wield weapons who wouldn't be scared and flee. In the scenario you've just mentioned however, the person should be warned first and if he doesn't comply should then be shot.

[Thracian]

i think we have to take this kind of action tbh, just wondered what everyone else thinks

146413[/snapback]

I voted against:

a) The eternal problem with killing someone - if it's the wrong someone there's no going back.

b) Killing people is fundamentally wrong. We're still doing it because so many people have conveniently moved the goalposts.

c) Security personel should not be able to appoint themselves as judge/jury/executioner (Steve's phrase but I borrowed it).

d) If we allow security personel to kill one person what's to stop this regime or another regime allowing that licence to go further (as has happened in many countries).

It is ironic isn't it that we killed an innocent man but security forces managed to capture the alleged terrorists without killing them.

The question I'd ask (cos I'm a father) is "If your son was killed by security forces

without good reason how would YOU feel"?. It's just like the death penalty. Imagine it affects you before you, or your family, before you vote in favour.

If you don't like it or even the idea is flawed because of possible mistakes then you/we've got to think again. That's what we have brains for. Question/solution.

Exceptional circumstances?

If you agree that the fight on terrorism has necessitated Marshall Law conditions there might be exceptions if any shooting was demonstrably and categorically the only way to prevent loss of life. Even then there should be the strictest guidelines and fully accountable leadership by experienced personel.

For instance a) a man "known to be carrying a bomb illegally and with intent to endanger life".

Even then I'm not comfortable. I would far rather these people were denied access to the UK before they become a danger and that brainwork was used to protect our citizens rather than bullets.

The executed Brazilian was apparently killed because of flawed information plus innacurate conclusions from information given/perceived and this resulted in a tragically fatal conclusion.

Sadly it is a major flaw that human beings often add two and two to get five when related to snippets of information (it happens on the forum daily). That is a major and lasting problem that won't go away.

Except for humane purposes killing is wrong. It is morally wrong and too often it is judgementally wrong.

[Thracian]

I disagree, I'm sure a super super tranquilizer could be invented.

146420[/snapback]

I quite agree.

[Steven]

I voted against:

a) The eternal problem with killing someone - if it's the wrong someone there's no going back.

b) Killing people is fundamentally wrong. We're still doing it because so many people have conveniently moved the goalposts.

c) Security personel should not be able to appoint themselves as judge/jury/executioner (Steve's phrase but I borrowed it).

d) If we allow security personel to kill one person what's to stop this regime or another regime allowing that licence to go further (as has happened in many countries).

 

It is ironic isn't it that we killed an innocent man but security forces managed to capture the alleged terrorists without killing them.

The question I'd ask (cos I'm a father) is "If your son was killed by security forces

without good reason how would YOU feel"?. It's just like the death penalty. Imagine it affects you before you, or your family, before you vote in favour.   

If you don't like it or even the idea is flawed because of possible mistakes then you/we've got to think again. That's what we have brains for. Question/solution. 

Exceptional circumstances?

If you agree that the fight on terrorism has necessitated Marshall Law conditions there might be exceptions if any shooting was demonstrably and categorically the only way to prevent loss of life. Even then there should be the strictest guidelines and fully accountable leadership by experienced personel.

For instance a) a man "known to be carrying a bomb illegally and with intent to endanger life".

Even then I'm not comfortable. I would far rather these people were denied access to the UK before they become a danger and that brainwork was used to protect our citizens rather than bullets.

The executed Brazilian was apparently killed because of flawed information plus innacurate conclusions from information given/perceived and this resulted in a tragically fatal conclusion.

Sadly it is a major flaw that human beings often add two and two to get five when related to snippets of information (it happens on the forum daily). That is a major and lasting problem that won't go away. 

Except for humane purposes killing is wrong. It is morally wrong and too often it is judgementally wrong.

146435[/snapback]

Couldn't have put it better myself, and for posts of this quality feel free to quote me.

[kenny]

I quite agree.

146438[/snapback]

Would have to be that prevents body spasms that would allow a handheld detonator to still be set-off. (Hence suspects being shot in the head to prevent this.) Therefore this idea will never be feasible IMO.

[rossporterlc]

can't agree with that, if you run away from a police officer with a gun then you know what to expect, he wasn't supposed to be in the country and that's why he ran, fool!

[Hitesh]

i agree but the cops will have to have near to 100% that the person they shoot is a danger to public.

[Thracian]

can't agree with that, if you run away from a police officer with a gun then you know what to expect, he wasn't supposed to be in the o****ry and that's why he ran, fool!

146710[/snapback]

Is that it then - visa's out of date, shoot him? Some price to pay for being frightened and some price to pay for being a fool?

Like I say security forces managed to arrest four allegedly dangerous terrorists without shooting them but an apparently harmless Brazilian ... zap. Seven f......g times.

I reckon the terrorists arrested in the UK owe their lives to that Brazilian because the security forces have certainly been more circumspect since and what does that imply?.

It implies that they don't want to make the same mistake again - and mistake it was - as I am sure will be pointed out to the commanding officer in due course.

But, isn't it ironic who ends up dead!

PS Who was it who actually approved the issue of a UK passport to the alleged terrorist who was a known criminal? And when are they going to be made to answer for that decision? Perhaps he should be given 5 seconds to run away from a security gun squad.

[rossporterlc]

Is that it then - visa's out of date, shoot him? Some price to pay for being frightened and some price to pay for being a fool?

Like I say security forces managed to arrest four allegedly dangerous terrorists without shooting them but an apparently harmless Brazilian ... zap. Seven f......g times.

I reckon the terrorists arrested in the UK owe their lives to that Brazilian because the security forces have certainly been more circumspect since and what does that imply?.

It implies that  they don't want to make the same mistake again - and mistake it was - as I am sure will be pointed out to the commanding officer in due course.

But, isn't  it ironic who ends up dead!

PS  Who was it who actually approved the issue of a UK passport to the alleged terrorist who was a known criminal? And when are they going to be made to answer for that decision? Perhaps he should be given 5 seconds to run away from a security gun squad.

146810[/snapback]

no, but if a cop stood pointing a gun at me i am pretty sure i wouldn't run, surely only someone with something to hide would do that

[Thracian]

no, but if a cop stood pointing a gun at me i am pretty sure i wouldn't run, surely only someone with something to hide would do that

147055[/snapback]

I've conceded he had something to hide. So have lots of people. He didn't have a bomb or dangerous weapons. He had no more to hide than loads of people. He was a fool and he was scared. Lots of people do foolish things when they are scared. Lets shoot the next football fan who runs away from a security officer when he's invaded the pitch, eh.

That'll teach him not to stand still and surrender.

[rossporterlc]

I've conceded he had something to hide. So have lots of people. He didn't have a bomb or dangerous weapons. He had no more to hide than loads of people. He was a fool and he was scared. Lots of people do foolish things when they are scared. Lets shoot the next football fan who runs away from a security officer when he's invaded the pitch, eh.

That'll teach him not to stand still and surrender.

147076[/snapback]

now you're talkin!

[Steven]

Sadly everyone is way off the beam. It seems his crime was to run to catch the Tube as it was coming on to the platform. <_<

Mistakes led to tube shooting

6.57PM, Tue Aug 16 2005

ITV News has obtained secret documents and photographs that detail why police shot Jean Charles De Menezes dead on the tube.

The Brazilian electrician was killed on 22 July, the day after the series of failed bombings on the tube and bus network.

The crucial mistake that ultimately led to his death was made at 9.30am when Jean Charles left his flat in Scotia Road, South London.

Surveillance officers wrongly believed he could have been Hussain Osman, one of the prime suspects, or another terrorist suspect.

By 10am that morning, elite firearms officers were provided with what they describe as "positive identification" and shot De Menezes eight times in the head and upper body.

The documents and photographs confirm that Jean Charles was not carrying any bags, and was wearing a denim jacket, not a bulky winter coat, as had previously been claimed.

He was behaving normally, and did not vault the barriers, even stopping to pick up a free newspaper.

He started running when we saw a tube at the platform. Police HAD agreed they would shoot a suspect if he ran.

Source

[Thracian]

QED I think.

All indications suggest a senseless and surely illegal killing committed on the basis of inaccurate evidence and inaccurate supposition by people whose strategy had not been thoroughly thought out and was proved to be fatally flawed.

Just the sort of things I referred to in voting against a shoot to kill policy earlier in this thread.

It's an eternal weakness that, give people a few snippets of information and they will put them together and draw the wrong conclusions.

However people at the top are paid to draw the right conclusions and they must be made to answer for what happened because it seems to have been a monumental cock-up that almost defies belief.

[Guest]

If the first man shot dead by police had been found to be carrying a significant amount of explosive upon his person, I'm sure people's views would be completely different.

For the record, I am undecided on this issue although erring on the side of caution and against a 'shoot to kill policy'.

[Thracian]

If the first man shot dead by police had been found to be carrying a significant amount of explosive upon his person, I'm sure people's views would be completely different.

For the record, I am undecided on this issue although erring on the side of caution and against a 'shoot to kill policy'.

157676[/snapback]

You're right, but the fact that he wasn't shows one of the fatal flaws in the policy. There are others. Indeed the policy would always be irreversibly flawed. We need to think some more.