Simple question, do you back the shoot to kill policy that the police and special forces have for the hunt of terrorist bombers?

I will tell you now, I fully 100% back the policy.

Yes- im sorry but the lives of 10 are worth more than the life of 1- they can't take any chances can they!!! i agree it needs to be verified by other offices who authorise the kill but i see no reason why they shouldn't shoot to kill- as they said- shooting to would is impracticle if they have a bomb- they will just set it off anyway!!!

Despite being a leftie-treehugging-dogooder...I still back this policy when dealing with people who are prepared to kill themselves and others by detonating an explosive device...an innocent life has been lost to this policy, but more innocents will die if we are not vigilant.

I can't vote yes or no, as on the whole I back it, but I think it could do with amending (e.g. only allowing uniformed officers to shoot to kill, as I've stated elswhere).

Far better would be if they could all use tasers, as they did last night, though I realise this might not always be possible.

Originally posted by DanSumption
I can't vote yes or no, as on the whole I back it, but I think it could do with amending (e.g. only allowing uniformed officers to shoot to kill, as I've stated elswhere).

Far better would be if they could all use tasers, as they did last night, though I realise this might not always be possible.

If there are uniformed offices around then the bombers won't show themselves!! and whathappens if you shoot a tazer into the explosives- it will probably set it off!!!

I fully back the police and special forces.
It is unfortunate that innocent people will be killed in the process but overall there is a greater chance o saving moor. This guy who was shot shouldn't have been there anyway, he shouldn't have even been in our country!

I have had many arguments with my work colleagues about this. There is only me an a couple of others that do back it.
i put this to you:
Imagine you are on a train, you have a gun. A person then starts running towards you, who you think is a bomber. Are you going to shoot him, or are you going to wait till he gets to you, and possibly blows you up. I know what i would do.

Can we not just back the police please, they have a hard job to do with difficult decisions to make.

Originally posted by scottf
Yes- im sorry but the lives of 10 are worth more than the life of 1

I agree but I can't help thinking that I wouldn't agree if it was a relative of mine that got their head blown off for acting suspiciously. And people saying "he was stupid, he shouldn't have run away" wouldn't realy comfort me.

I back it 100% for many reasons.But imagine these headlines:


Breaking News,Armed police kill innocent man on tube in tragic circumstances.

or

Breaking News,Armed police allow suicide bomber to escape with leg wound.Bomb detonated,scores killed.


which one would you prefer happen?

I don't back 'the' shoot to kill policy in operation at the moment becuase i believe it needs to be altered slightly.

The attitude that - terrorists could blow themselves up and kill dozens, so police are allowed to shoot suspects in the head seven times without any grounds - is unacceptable.

It should be made clear that ALL efforts must be made to avoid the situation where the officer has to make that decision.

Its clear that there must have been a number of failings with the inncodent in which the brazilian was shot the other day.

Originally posted by uncleheed
I back it 100% for many reasons.But imagine these headlines:


Breaking News,Armed police kill innocent man on tube in tragic circumstances.

or

Breaking News,Armed police allow suicide bomber to escape with leg wound.Bomb detonated,scores killed.


which one would you prefer happen?

Or this one :

"10 people killed so far by police and still no terrorists arrested."

Shooting bombers is one thing but actually finding them before they get the bombs would probably be more usefull.

Originally posted by MarkB
i put this to you:
Imagine you are on a train, you have a gun. A person then starts running towards you, who you think is a bomber. Are you going to shoot him, or are you going to wait till he gets to you, and possibly blows you up. I know what i would do.
I put this to you:

Imagine you live in a dodgy part of you. You walk out of your block of flats. Three blokes start shouting at you to stop where you are. Do you:

(a) Stop, and risk the fact that they are actually muggers.

(b) Try to get somewhere more public, like a tube station, so that they can prove they are genuine or, if they're not, there will at least be witnesses around to dissuade them from attacking you.

Originally posted by nick2
Or this one :

"10 people killed so far by police and still no terrorists arrested."

Shooting bombers is one thing but actually finding them before they get the bombs would probably be more usefull.

The police can only act upon intelligence they recieve.

Lets not turn this into an anti police thread.

Please tell me that the opening line from the police was something along the lines of:

"Stop, armed police!"

Originally posted by uncleheed
Lets not turn this into an anti police thread.

I wasn't wanting to.

I just think more resources put into finding terrorists before they get to the point where they are stood on a train with semtex strapped to them would benefit everyone, including the police who wouldn't have to be in the possition where they have to shoot someone.

Originally posted by DanSumption
I put this to you:

Imagine you live in a dodgy part of you. You walk out of your block of flats. Three blokes start shouting at you to stop where you are. Do you:

(a) Stop, and risk the fact that they are actually muggers.

(b) Try to get somewhere more public, like a tube station, so that they can prove they are genuine or, if they're not, there will at least be witnesses around to dissuade them from attacking you.

You stop, and you can't get anymoor public that the tube station!
If they have guns they are going to be able to shoot from distance, so running would be a little pointless don't you think.

Also I can't imagine they are going to look like muggers, can you!

Think can you, you are in the real world now, not a movie!

Originally posted by Carmine
Please tell me that the opening line from the police was something along the lines of:

"Stop, armed police!"
I should think it was.And not just shouted once.

If that was shouted at me,and a gun was being pointed at me,I would hit the floor like a sack of spuds

Originally posted by MarkB
you can't get anymoor public that the tube station!
Yes, my point exactly!

Originally posted by MarkB
If they have guns they are going to be able to shoot from distance, so running would be a little pointless don't you think.
So if a mugger approached you with a gun, you would stay where you were, because "resistance is futile"?

Originally posted by MarkB
Also I can't imagine they are going to look like muggers, can you!
They're plain clothes police.

What does a mugger look like?

They didnt stop him outside the flats they apparently followed him on the bus into town where they took the decision to confront him.
And they did state the fact they were police.

So im not too sure how it would of appeared to be a mugging...

Shouting stop armed police would make me stop and even if i was scared i wouldnt run into a tube station.

Its on a par with reaching into your pockets when at police gun point in the states while the officer has a weapon pointed at your head and is shouting hands on your head.

Just wouldnt do it would you!

Originally posted by DanSumption
Yes, my point exactly!




I mean he was approached in the station then he decided to run on to a tube. Not that he ran in to the station.

I was under the impression he jumped the barriers at the station as he ran in from the street?

I may be wrong but I am under the impression he was inside the station before the barriers.

Anyway, we have gone on to the subject of this shooting.

The subject is - Do you agree with the shoot to kill policy or not?

not without a lot of safe guards in place. It can never be 100% safe, but at the moment it is not clear if there are any safeguards in place at all.

So long as the correct procedures are followed (identifying themselves as Police etc.), yes.

Does anyone remember a certain American comedian commenting on our Police, "in a chase, the British Police shout STOP or we will shout STOP again", that's part of the problem, people in this country are too used to having that option, "just do a runner".

It doesn't matter what we think of the policy.

On Channel 4 News last night Sir Ian Blair was certain that it would continue and accepted that further tragedies were inevitable.

If we consider the number of people 'of Asian appearance' who do not want to be stopped and checked by the police, - illegal immigrants, petty criminals, small-time drug dealers etc., then I'm sure he's right.

I suspect what might make the policy acceptable to many is that white people will not be liable to summary execution if they leg it when challenged by the police.

But that's just cynical old me :loopy:

Originally posted by Greybeard
...If we consider the number of people 'of Asian appearance' who do not want to be stopped and checked by the police, - illegal immigrants, petty criminals, small-time drug dealers etc., then I'm sure he's right.

I suspect what might make the policy acceptable to many is that white people will not be liable to summary execution if they leg it when challenged by the police.

But that's just cynical old me :loopy:
Just to throw a small spanner in the works...

...the Brazilian chap who got shot looked pretty "white" to me, on the photo's I've seen.

Just a thought.

:suspect:

Sounds like another excuse to roll out this:
http://www.wavepeople.com/Notting_Hill.jpg :D

I still disagree fully with the shoot to kill policy.

People say that body shots may set off bombs. Whos to say that a head shot can not set off a bomb? Its entilrely possible for someone wearing head wear eg cap, hoody etc, to have wiring above the neck.

These terrorists wil be trying everything in their power to succeed after some of their plans didnt work, so surely things like this will be considered to make sure that there bomb goes off no matter what.

the point isn't that body shots may set of the bomb, it's that they don't kill you, so you can press the trigger and set off the bomb.
Being shot in the head, even when it doesn't kill invariably renders people unconscious and unable to press a trigger.

The obvious solution if you're a terrorist is to have either a deadmans switch, or a little more technical, one of those wrist watches that monitors your pulse and sets of an alarm if your pulse stops... Easy enough to rewire the alarm to the triggering mechanism...

I would never ever trust any policeman with a gun. My brother was assulted by a plain-clothed police officer, who apprehended him on his way home one morning. My brother, thinking the policeman was a mugger, kicked the policeman to get away and ran. When uniformed officers turned up, my brother was relieved to see them and thought the plain clothed officers were about to be arrested, only for him to be cuffed and forced into the back of the police car. He was charged with assault and resisting arrest.

It went to court and my brother won, but he never even got as much as an apology from either the police body as a whole, or the policeman concerned. The policeman who assaulted my brother was promoted.

I dread to think what may have happened if the plain clothes officers had been carrying guns that night. He could be dead.

Originally posted by Greybeard

If we consider the number of people 'of Asian appearance' who do not want to be stopped and checked by the police, - illegal immigrants, petty criminals, small-time drug dealers etc., then I'm sure he's right.
[/B]

This is not racial, white black or whatever colour people can be Muslim.

I feel really strongly about shot to kill and people really p*** me off when they think its wrong. A load of do-good w******!

Originally posted by MarkB
I feel really strongly about shot to kill and people really p*** me off when they think its wrong. A load of do-good w******!
You don't think it is wrong that innocent people could get shot?

Originally posted by MarkB
This is not racial, white black or whatever colour people can be Muslim.

I feel really strongly about shot to kill and people really p*** me off when they think its wrong. A load of do-good w******!

indeed - you don't think it's wrong that an innocent man did get shot? It's just being a dogood w-stars is it?

I hope that if there is a next time, it's someone like you who openly supports the policy. No reason for your family to complain then is there, they can say, "he would have understood, it's the way he would have wanted to go, shot in the head by a plain clothes policeman he thought was trying to mug him."

It is a hard question because there is always the chance of an inocent person being killed by mistake.

I hear on of the failed bombers from last Thursday has been arested in Birmingham using an electric stun gun which disabled him for a short while but which isn't fatal. Maybe this is a better option.

ps - lets hope it really hurt.:hihi:

If i am one of those that dies helping to save other, then be it. They may kill me, they may kill others accidently but in the end they will kill the b****** bombers.

Originally posted by Cyclone
"he would have understood, it's the way he would have wanted to go, shot in the head by a plain clothes policeman he thought was trying to mug him."
Genius! :thumbsup:

Good point about the stun-guns slimsid, if they suspect someone is a terrorist, why can't they just stun them?

Originally posted by Sidla
Genius! :thumbsup:

Good point about the stun-guns slimsid, if they suspect someone is a terrorist, why can't they just stun them?

I have been stunned by a stungun and even though it hurts, you can still move for a while and it would be easy if you thought about it to press a trigger.
It doesn't drop you in an instant!

Originally posted by MarkB
I have been stunned by a stungun and even though it hurts, you can still move for a while and it would be easy if you thought about it to press a trigger.
It doesn't drop you in an instant!
So they shoot to kill, just on the off-chance that you might be a suicide bomber?

The police are literally allowed to get away with murder.

Originally posted by MarkB
If i am one of those that dies helping to save other, then be it. They may kill me, they may kill others accidently but in the end they will kill the ******* bombers.

great. Lets nuke london then. A few innocent people will be hurt for sure, but that's the only way to be sure we got the bombers.

In the end... what a ridiculous thing to say. In the end is not acceptable, civilians killed by our own police force is just not acceptable. They are not the secret police and we are not combatants. A single civilian killed by friendly fire should not be acceptable, as it undermines everyones trust in the police...

Originally posted by Cyclone
undermines everyones trust in the police...
You are assuming that everyone has trust in the police...

Not everyones trust -justs yours and 22% others according to the poll!

Originally posted by MarkB
Not everyones trust -justs yours and 22% others according to the poll!

I didn't say that the policy undermined it. I said that the police killing random people as you seem to be suggesting on the basis that they would eventually kill a suicide bomber would undermine it.

Redo the poll and ask how many people are willing to loose a member of their family in order to see a suicide bomber arrested... I suspect you'll get a different result.

Well , Cyclone , we know that innocent deaths are , "not acceptable " , in the sense that no sane person wants to see it happen ------but unfortunately it's the sort of thing that does happen in moments of extreme tension and uncertainty.
If a police marksman was watching , for example , a crazed lunatic holding a couple of children with a knife to their throats , on a balcony , and the man then looks as though he is going to plunge the knife into the children , what does the police marksman do ? He hasn't got the luxury of sitting down and pondering on the moral implications of shooting the man.
So , let's say he fires and misses , the bullet ricochets and kills someone else . Yes , dreadful , but was the marksman supposed to take a gamble on the children's lives ?
I think acts of barbarism are perfectly justified in fighting evil , on occasions. We bombed Germany in the 2nd. World War , believing it would help to finish the war quicker. We felt justified in this as they had bombed in Spain in the Civil War , bombed lots of cities in Britain , almost flattened Warsaw and bombed Rotterdam and many , many other places.
After we defeated Germany , we helped the vast majority of our ex-enemy to re-build their country , until now , they have become a peaceful , prosperous country. We didn't carry on being barbaric when it was no longer necessary.
Barbarism can be very useful and effective if used judicially. If the Germans had won the war because we had fought , "like gentlemen " or the Russians had used kid gloves , how much barbarism would have occured then ?
There's barbarism and there's barbarism.!

It's easy to see the logic behind the shoot-to-kill rule, but it'd be great if a more moderate idea could be tried. How's about shoot-to-chill? In the tradition of South American hunters and zookepers, the police could shoot tranquillizer darts into their targets. While the offenders doze peacefully they could divest them of their explosive Karrimors. Simple, and not in the least deadly. Then of course they could pump them for info about other bomb plots etc.

The actual disturbing thing about shoot to kill is that it's another part of the dialogue-free approach to the current East-West problem. Instead of whacking suspects and deporting rabid Imams, it might help if somebody asked them questions such as: why are you so angry? and how do you think we can set about working together as a world? It's not enough to simply say "ooh, theyr're mad, them rag-heads, they won't talk to anyone". Nobody's really tried.

Originally posted by joyphil
It's easy to see the logic behind the shoot-to-kill rule, but it'd be great if a more moderate idea could be tried. How's about shoot-to-chill? In the tradition of South American hunters and zookepers, the police could shoot tranquillizer darts into their targets. While the offenders doze peacefully they could divest them of their explosive Karrimors. Simple, and not in the least deadly...
Great idea, the next time we see a suicide hippo' on the underground I'm sure the Met' will use this policy.

:rolleyes:

you'd have to use a nerve agent to get an effect fast enough to stop them triggering a bomb.
Although if one could be found, maybe causing paralysis, it would also foil the deadmans trigger.

Fareast - I can see both sides of the debate, but I'd say that a ricochet killing an innocent man whilst regrettable is not in the same league as acting on information that is known full well not the be concrete.
One is a genuine unforseable accident. Ie the marksman tried to shoot the knife wielding maniac and for some reason missed.
The other is acting on the balance of probablility, there's a 50% chance that he's the man we want, is that enough to kill him? What about when it's only 25%, do you risk it. How about if it's 1%....

Someone in that situation is making a decision and putting a value on a mans life.

Originally posted by Cyclone
the point isn't that body shots may set of the bomb, it's that they don't kill you, so you can press the trigger and set off the bomb.
I thought it was because it could set off the bomb. From what I've heard, the "normal" shoot-to-kill policy is for a chest shot, but they have amended this for potential suicide bombers because of the risk of hitting explosives.

I'm not sure that it's 100% reliable though - other than the dead-man's trigger and other methods suggested by Cyclone, it could be that the bomber already head their hand poised on the trigger, and death could induce nerve spasms (headless chicken effect) which would set it off anyway.

Not lots to say - simply YES. Too many people getting away with murder, and then when they get caught spending a cushy time in prison.

Maybe time to bring back hanging. Er!!!

Dragon

Originally posted by Dragon
Not lots to say - simply YES. Too many people getting away with murder, and then when they get caught spending a cushy time in prison.

Maybe time to bring back hanging. Er!!!
Yes, but mightn't their soul (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?postid=486938#post486938) just come back in another body and carry on with the suicide bombing?

Good point if you believe in the soul as being just another container which has predetermined limitations. Perhaps a better word for soul would be life force or awareness?

If you was here 50 years ago and was a mass murderer, then does the fact that you had a previous existance make you that same person as when you committed the crime?

But nice linkup Dansumption.

You'll get no arguments from me there. Doh!!!

Dragon

after listening to a 5 live report the use of stun guns is not recommended in the case of suicide bombers.

1.the reflexes continue & spasms are induced using "tazers" which could trigger the bomb
2. no one has tested the effect of the electrical discharge on a backpack full of explosives to see the effect.

tranquilizers similarly or slow acting and allow movement to activate silent triggers as does the use of shoot to disable.
neither can be 100% on stopping activation.

if a person challenges the police in a "bomb threat" situation or refuses to stop when challenged & continues to runaway why should anyone assume he is innocent.unfortunately by default his actions make him guilty.

no one on this forum was present at the shooting so why speculate on the correct actions.i have sympathy with the guys family & would not wish it on anyone however it was a complex scenario.
wot would the comments have been if he had been a bomber & the police let him walk away to kill loads of innocent people.

I know this is pure conjecture but I've been thinking of something else in the "Brazilian " case.
Let's assume the poor man was terrified out of his wits and he finally stumbles or falls into the carriage of the tube train. He senses that people are sitting around him and thinks ,
" Well , whoever these men are , they wont kill me in such a public place ."
Now , here comes the pure conjecture:- Is it possible that because he felt comparitively safe , that he put his hand inside his overcoat to produce some kind of identity, i.e. mutely saying , " This is who I am ".
The police get the wrong impression and it's all over.
Worth thinking about ?

Yup, I fully back this policy

If you choose to run from armed police, be a suspected bomber or not, in the current climate you have sealed your own fate in my opinon.

Originally posted by Fareast
I know this is pure conjecture but I've been thinking of something else in the "Brazilian " case.
Let's assume the poor man was terrified out of his wits and he finally stumbles or falls into the carriage of the tube train. He senses that people are sitting around him and thinks ,
" Well , whoever these men are , they wont kill me in such a public place ."
Now , here comes the pure conjecture:- Is it possible that because he felt comparitively safe , that he put his hand inside his overcoat to produce some kind of identity, i.e. mutely saying , " This is who I am ".
The police get the wrong impression and it's all over.
Worth thinking about ?

Could have happened like that, another theory (I overheard on the tram) is that the British police have wanted guns for years and couldn't wait to use them.

Originally posted by foo_fighter
Great idea, the next time we see a suicide hippo' on the underground I'm sure the Met' will use this policy.

:rolleyes:

Ooh, you want to watch out for those suicide hippos. Fundamentalist giraffes are an ever-increasing scourge too. And if you keep on rolling your eyes you simply won't see them coming. Kaboom... one too-serious person down, lots to go. Where's my fertilizer-filled Bonobo bomb?

Or something

Originally posted by joyphil
Where's my fertilizer-filled Bonobo bomb?
:loopy: Bonobos are peaceful creatures, too busy having sex to fight one another.

You must be thinking of a chimp bomb.

:D

Ah yes. I'd forgotten they were horny little chappies. Maybe that's why they call them dirty bombs...

Originally posted by Deejay
If you choose to run from armed police, be a suspected bomber or not, in the current climate you have sealed your own fate in my opinon.
2 questions:

1. How do you know they are armed?
2. How do you know they are police?

Originally posted by Sidla
2 questions:

1. How do you know they are armed?
2. How do you know they are police?

I dont think you are going to know whether they are armed unless they shout it. If you do hear the 'Police' shout i agree with Deejay in that you should stop. Dan has already questioned this by stating that muggers may use this to stop people. However, i still agree with the shoot to kill policy 100% and back our police 100%. I don think it's ideal to have only uniformed officers carry guns as dan previoulsy mentioned, although have survelliance in plain clothes with unifoirmed back up may be one answer.

I back this policy 100%. Of course it is regrettable that innocent people may be killed but please don't forget the innocents who have already died all over the world because of fanatics.

Originally posted by Sidla
2 questions:

1. How do you know they are armed?
2. How do you know they are police?

I can't imagine rounds would be fired with warning from the armed officer.. I'm all for this policy if a warning is issued ie;

' Armed police, down on the ground etc '

If you choose to run then your fate is sealed.. Given what has happened in the last couple of weeks I think common sense would provail in most cases..

What would you do if given instructions by armed police ?

I voted yes, I'm in full agreement with anything that's beeing done that doesn't not involve doing nothing.
We're too used to ineffectiveness these days, latency and laziness, bit of action makes thing moving quicker !

All policemen should have guns with them anyway.Originally posted by Deejay
What would you do if given instructions by armed police ?Shuddup and do what I'm told :D

i feel sorry for the person who was shot (presuming he was entirely innocent) and his family. if he has done nothing wrong, then it is a tragedy - but so were the london bombings. there will no doubt be more tragedies, but this is the price that has to be paid in these times.

I also feel sorry for the police officer who fired the shots - he had a splist second decision to make. when we are talking the possibility of bombs being detonated with tragic consequences, then these decisions have to be made.

whatever your views on the police, I say they should have full backing from us in these difficult times.

those that criticise for them having shot an innocent man would certainly have criticised if the scenario had been different, had he been carrying a bomb and there was a further mass murder.

Originally posted by Captain_Scarlet
Shuddup and do what I'm told :D

The defence rests :)

Everyone regrets the tragic killing of an innocent man by the police. An investigation is now taking place as to how this occurred.

However, we are now in a situation we have never encountered before in our country, namely, suicide bombers. Four have already blown themselves up, taking over 50 lives with them. Four more then made similar attempts, of whom some are still at large - probably willing and able to strike again.

Now imagine that one of these suspected bombers is recognised by armed police in a public place, and he is carrying a rucksack. Do the police shoot to kill, or risk that he might blow himself up along with other innocent people nearby?

I voted yes.

Originally posted by Fareast
I know this is pure conjecture but I've been thinking of something else in the "Brazilian " case.
Let's assume the poor man was terrified out of his wits and he finally stumbles or falls into the carriage of the tube train. He senses that people are sitting around him and thinks ,
" Well , whoever these men are , they wont kill me in such a public place ."
Now , here comes the pure conjecture:- Is it possible that because he felt comparitively safe , that he put his hand inside his overcoat to produce some kind of identity, i.e. mutely saying , " This is who I am ".
The police get the wrong impression and it's all over.
Worth thinking about ?

Originally posted by SuzyQ


An article the other day stated that the dead Brazilian's brother doubted that police had in fact shouted a warning. This because, in Brazil it is an everyday occurrance for the police to "shoot to kill" and in his opinion, his brother, if hearing a warning, would have instinctively stopped, more so than a British person, not used to this policy.

So, did the police shout a warning? And if so, did he ignore it because up until now, nobody in this country could conceive of a shoot to kill policy?

If now, like in Brazil, we ALL know there is a shoot to kill policy, then innocent people should not be killed because hopefully they won't run away when hearing the warning.

if I ever fall on hard times and have to resort to mugging. I hope it's all you people that will stop and do exactly as instructed that I mug.
The reason being that it will be much easier to mug you after shouting "stop armed police", as you'll be falling over yourself to fling yourself to the ground, hand me your wallet for identification, maybe you wrist watch because it might be a bomb trigger... I can probably order you not to look at me, as i'm undercover and to stay there for 10 minutes as a sharp shooter is targetting you right now.

Ok then Cyclone, following on from your great few lines of sarcasm :roll:

What do you suggest we do.. Tap them on the shoulders and say 'scuse me son, are you a suicide bomber ?'

' No officer '

2 minutes down the line.. BOOM! 100 people dead, aren't you really glad you sacrficed those 100 lives :)

Originally posted by Deejay
I can't imagine rounds would be fired with warning from the armed officer.. I'm all for this policy if a warning is issued ie;

' Armed police, down on the ground etc '



There have been eye-witness reports that this didn't happen. I'm still wondering why the police haven't appealed for witnesses., there must have been quite a few at a crowded ticket barrier.

All we can do is wait for the results of the inquiry. I have this feeling the guy wouldn't have legged it if he'd been challenged by an armed uniformed officer, - the whole point of being an 'under-cover' policeman is to look as little like a copper as possible.

Originally posted by Deejay
Ok then Cyclone, following on from your great few lines of sarcasm :roll:

What do you suggest we do.. Tap them on the shoulders and say 'scuse me son, are you a suicide bomber ?'

' No officer '

2 minutes down the line.. BOOM! 100 people dead, aren't you really glad you sacrficed those 100 lives :)

i'm not quite sure how that follows on from my "sarcasm".

If you don't believe that the criminal element are smart enough to shout "police, stop", then you've got a very strange view of the world. So whilst it may have been slightly less than serious, I made a serious point, other people have already made it, but the "shoot to kill" supporters have ignored it so far, I tried to make it a little more personal so that some of you might respond.

I'm sure there's a middle ground between shooting them with no warning, and politely asking them if they plan to blow anyone up.
Maybe it lies somewhere along the lines of not allowing them to get to a crowded place when you've followed them from outside there home.

Originally posted by Cyclone
...The reason being that it will be much easier to mug you after shouting "stop armed police", as you'll be falling over yourself to fling yourself to the ground, hand me your wallet for identification, maybe you wrist watch...
Is there any evidence that this is a particular MO of muggers in say the US, or any other country where the Police (including plain clothes officers)are routinely armed?

Originally posted by Greybeard
There have been eye-witness reports that this didn't happen. I'm still wondering why the police haven't appealed for witnesses., there must have been quite a few at a crowded ticket barrier.

All we can do is wait for the results of the inquiry. I have this feeling the guy wouldn't have legged it if he'd been challenged by an armed uniformed officer, - the whole point of being an 'under-cover' policeman is to look as little like a copper as possible.

I have heard (and I stand corrected if I am wrong) that he was only in this country on a student visa and it had ran out hence his reaction to the police so strictly speaking he shouldn't have even been in the country in the first place....bummer

shooting to kill has to be based on intelligence otherwise it will get out of hand - you can't just follow random people into crowded places and then shhot them - in the unfortunate case of the bazilian - police should have pictures and information on suspected people then follow the right people

the key is that there must be some solid intelligence and not just a hunch before the policy is implemented - if police think i'm a terrorist and have pictures of me and have been tapping my phone or following me over a period od=f time then they see me coming out of my house with a rucksack looking suspicious heading for a train station etc then they would be justified in warning me and shooting me if i refused to stop

71.58 % so far say yes.

Me included.

(I wish I could have posted this on Thursday, before I got banned...)

I spoke to a friend on Thursday, apparently the situation in London was mayhem with police everywhere. Somebody from her office had been travelling to work as per usual, with his CD walkman in his rucksack but the headphone wires poking out (can you see where this is going?)

When he got on to the tube, six armed police got on at the next stop, trained their guns on him and ordered him to the floor so they could search his back.

Sounds like a terrifying ordeal to me, and I'm sure there must have been many similar. If police are running about as hyped-up as it seems from that report, how long will it be before somebody's finger slips and they shoot another innocent person by accident?

Why did you get banned Dan? or is this a secret between you and the mods?

For a crime I didn't commit. "Ignored my request to cease sniping at another forum user". Actually, far from ignoring the request I actually responded to it, and far from sniping at another user I suggested that he should "snipe" at himself. Trying to find the post now, it's in one of the London shooting threads, or something related.

I am just getting my paint pot out so I can write 'Dan Sumption Woz Innocent' in a prominent place in the city centre.

Originally posted by DanSumption
For a crime I didn't commit. "Ignored my request to cease sniping at another forum user". Actually, far from ignoring the request I actually responded to it, and far from sniping at another user I suggested that he should "snipe" at himself. Trying to find the post now, it's in one of the London shooting threads, or something related.
Why didn't you fly a flag with "BAN ME" written on it as well.

:hihi:

Originally posted by DanSumption
(I wish I could have posted this on Thursday, before I got banned...)

I spoke to a friend on Thursday, apparently the situation in London was mayhem with police everywhere. Somebody from her office had been travelling to work as per usual, with his CD walkman in his rucksack but the headphone wires poking out (can you see where this is going?)

When he got on to the tube, six armed police got on at the next stop, trained their guns on him and ordered him to the floor so they could search his back.


no doubt this is theway it's going for everyone. on recent business trips abroad i have had to remove footwear - shoebombs, open a rucksack containing a dvd player and been physically searched because they thought i hadn't completely emptied my pockets.
in he cause of safety i don't really mind i even arrived early @ the airport to make allowances for extra safety chex. but how long will it be b4 someone starts making accusations over race whilst being searched.

The post wot got me banned (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?postid=517025#post517025).

Of course, I probably shouldn't be discussing it on this thread, otherwise I risk getting banned again. Hang on, I'm just gonna get that flag out and hang it off the roof...

Originally posted by DanSumption
The post wot got me banned (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?postid=517025#post517025).

Of course, I probably shouldn't be discussing it on this thread, otherwise I risk getting banned again. Hang on, I'm just gonna get that flag out and hang it off the roof...

You're being disingenuous, DanSumption.

The posting you were warned about was offensive, and was an irresponsible thing to post on a public forum.

You refused to leave well alone when asked to by a Mod, and so you were rightly banned.

Stop complaining.

StarSparkle

Not being disingenuous, my second post was just explaining the first one because I thought it was a little curt and easily misunderstood, hence I am a bit peeved at being banned just for trying to make myself clear, but c'est la vie.

But, as I said, this is not the correct thread... Anyone want to start a new one to discuss this? Or take it to PM.

Reasons for shooting at the head and not using a tazer:


• If lethal force is justified or authorized, aim for the
head. Police officers are trained to fire at center body mass.
Using this tactic against suicide bombers is inappropriate for
two reasons. First, it may only wound the bomber, and a
wounded bomber may still detonate the device. While suicide
bombers are not known to wear body armor, it has happened.
Second, if a round hits the explosive device, it may detonate.
Some explosives, such as smokeless powder, Triacetone
Triperoxide (TATP)—a highly sensitive primary explosive
manufactured from common chemicals such as acetone, peroxide—
and acid (used by Palestinian bombers), and those that
contain nitroglycerine, are sensitive to heat, shock, and friction.
Hence, if lethal force is justified, all shots should be
aimed at the bomber’s head—specifically, at the tip of the
nose when facing the bomber, at the point of the ear canal
from the side, or about one inch below the base of the skull
from behind. An accurately placed head shot will terminate
the bomber before he or she can take action to detonate the explosive
device and will not accidentally set off the device. A
fragmenting, high-velocity shot from a firearm such as an AR-
15 at any of the above mentioned areas is ideal for immediately
terminating the threat. When using lethal force, remember
to fire from cover to avoid the effects of a potential
explosion.
In some instances an officer or officers may attempt to hold
down a suicide bomber without success. Under such circumstances,
take the head shot by placing the pistol directly to the
bomber’s head in one of the aforementioned locations. Under
no circumstances are tasers or other electrical discharge devices
to be utilized against a bomber, as the charge they deliver
may detonate the explosive device.


Taken from http://www.theiacp.org/pubinfo/IACP582SuicideBombersPart2.pdf

Personally I don't think we're left with any option but to use a shoot to kill policy and as sad as it is we have to accept that there will be innocent casualties. When it comes to suicide bombers you aren't left with much choice.

Question for anyone who doesn't agree with a shoot to kill policy - what do you think the police/secuity services/special forces should do in a situation where they have a suspected suicide bomber who isn't co-operating? It's ok saying we can't shoot them but what are the other effective options? I'd be happy to reconsider my opinion if something effective (and proven would help) is suggested.

I support the shoot to kill policy but think if they are going to adopt it they should send out leaflets in lots of different languages, and broadcast it on radio and television, and for blind/deaf people, to let people know exactly what they should do if the police are shouting something they don't understand at them.

In a lot of cases I think people from countries with evil police forces would leg it from the cops regardless of the situation.

Originally posted by DanSumption
(I wish I could have posted this on Thursday, before I got banned...)

I spoke to a friend on Thursday, apparently the situation in London was mayhem with police everywhere. Somebody from her office had been travelling to work as per usual, with his CD walkman in his rucksack but the headphone wires poking out (can you see where this is going?)

When he got on to the tube, six armed police got on at the next stop, trained their guns on him and ordered him to the floor so they could search his back.

Sounds like a terrifying ordeal to me, and I'm sure there must have been many similar. If police are running about as hyped-up as it seems from that report, how long will it be before somebody's finger slips and they shoot another innocent person by accident?
Let me tell you Dan,because of the police acting like you say,people now feel a little bit better about getting on London transport. So I say a BIG thank you to them for being " Hyped up" Your word not mine.

Originally posted by kathythebean
I support the shoot to kill policy but think if they are going to adopt it they should send out leaflets in lots of different languages, and broadcast it on radio and television, and for blind/deaf people, to let people know exactly what they should do if the police are shouting something they don't understand at them.

100%:thumbsup: I support the shoot to kill policy if you have nothing to hide why run?

Originally posted by madowl
100%:thumbsup: I support the shoot to kill policy if you have nothing to hide why run?
As has already been said, there may be no reason for you to believe the people with the guns are police officers.

Originally posted by Sidla
As has already been said, there may be no reason for you to believe the people with the guns are police officers. Ive read it, and like i said why run? if someone pointed a gun at me i wouldnt run, even if i could tell that they are not the police, i cant out run bullets.... id rather stand and take my chances.

I no longer know.

The new "facts" came out in the papers recently Apparently he was already running to catch a train when he was chased, he didnt leap the barrier and was wearing a thin denim jacket. Also he didnt emerge rom the bombers flat - he lived in an adjacent flat and had nothing to do with them.

Which completely contradicts what we were told. If these new "facts" are true it would seem there is a good case for someone going to jail for this and the police having the shoot to kill power taken away until they can show they act on proper suspicions (apparently they have almost killed 7 other people too, none of which were terrorists).

In principle they should have the power and this is what I said when the original "facts" were released but given the seeming incompetence at identifying real terrorists I really dont know anymore.

From this week's Popbitch:


>> Does my bomb look big in this? <<
Watch out fatties, it's a war-zone...

A man was surrounded by police and arrested
while walking by the Department of
Health in Westminster this week. The
gun-toting coppers were suspicious
of his bulky appearance under a big jacket.

He was taken to a police station to be
searched where it was found that he was
wearing no explosives. He was just
extremely fat.

(FYI: Beauty salons across Britain are reporting a drop in profits... now that the Metropolitan Police are doing Brazilians for nothing...)

Originally posted by madowl
Ive read it, and like i said why run? if someone pointed a gun at me i wouldnt run, even if i could tell that they are not the police, i cant out run bullets.... id rather stand and take my chances.

you'll be easy to mug then, and/or kill after you've handed over your wallet as you'd have seen the muggers face.

It's surprisingly difficult to hit a moving target with a handgun, but the point appears to be mute as he was simply running to catch his train.

I started this exact same poll on the day after the police shooting in London and it was removed by a Mod!

Not Fair! (I'm spitting my dummy out)!

I think the quote about the new rules of engagement just about says it all really!

Originally posted by Cyclone
It's surprisingly difficult to hit a moving target with a handgun, but the point appears to be mute as he was simply running to catch his train.

The point could even be MOOT, as well ;)

Originally posted by Cyclone
you'll be easy to mug then, and/or kill after you've handed over your wallet as you'd have seen the muggers face...
You keep mentioning this point, but does it really happen?

As I've asked before, is this a proven MO of muggers in countries that routinely have armed police, or is this an assumption?

Please clarify this one for me.

:)

Originally posted by Cyclone

It's surprisingly difficult to hit a moving target with a handgun...


Baggsie not testing that theory! What happens if their actually a really good shot?
I know for one that if ANYONE pointed a gun a me my arms are going straight in the air!! If they want my cash they can have it, i dont carry much anyway and my life is worth more than a tenner and having to cancle a couple of cards!

But saying that, they better hope they dont get too close because it is suprisingly EASY and safer than you'd think to disarm someone with a gun! ;-)

Sorry, if armed police, tell you to stop and you leggit down a flight of stairs, hurdle a turnstile and dive onto a subway car...

What are the police supposed to think???
So YEP all in favour of shoot to kill.

Dont stop - get shot.. simple as that.
End of.

Not sure if this has been mentioned in this thread before but it isn't a 'shoot to kill policy'!!! its actually a 'shoot to save' policy and i fully back it!

Originally posted by foo_fighter
You keep mentioning this point, but does it really happen?

As I've asked before, is this a proven MO of muggers in countries that routinely have armed police, or is this an assumption?

Please clarify this one for me.

:)

it's just my extrapolation, it's what i'd do if I wanted to mug someone, with or without a gun.

Originally posted by ANGELUS
Sorry, if armed police, tell you to stop and you leggit down a flight of stairs, hurdle a turnstile and dive onto a subway car...

What are the police supposed to think???
So YEP all in favour of shoot to kill.

Dont stop - get shot.. simple as that.
End of.

catch up with the story, he didn't jump a turnstyle, no one has confirmed that they ever shouted anything and it appears that he was simply running to catch his train as he heard it pull in. Which a lot of people do/have done/will do.

as seen in Private Eye:

(Picture - two armed policemen backs to the camera - one with his head turned to the other)

1st Policeman - "Why did you shoot him eight times?"
2nd Policeman - "I ran out of bullets"

Originally posted by Cyclone
catch up with the story, he didn't jump a turnstyle, no one has confirmed that they ever shouted anything and it appears that he was simply running to catch his train as he heard it pull in. Which a lot of people do/have done/will do.

Then why did the police not shoot anyone else then??

Because of the simple reason he did a runner when they shouted for him to stop, which no normal person would do.
Hence bang, bang- Im sorry to say.

Originally posted by Cyclone
you'll be easy to mug then, and/or kill after you've handed over your wallet as you'd have seen the muggers face.
It's surprisingly difficult to hit a moving target with a handgun, but the point appears to be mute as he was simply running to catch his train.
I understand your point, but my point is i would rather stand and fight than try to run. I would not be easy to mug! Hopefully i will never have a gun put in my face! This was not a mugging it was the police shooting a man - nothing to hide why run? what happened to this man was very unfortunate.

you both persist in claiming that he ran after he was told to stop.

That's not what happened according to the most recent reports.

And as I already pointed out, even if someone does shout stop police and waves a gun at you, what guarantee do you have that they are police, none at all.
So whilst it probably is most sensible to stop, it will always be down to a judgement call of the individual.
I don't think standing and fighting someone mugging you who has a gun is a very good plan, best to just hand over your wallet and hope that they don't kill you anyway, unless you have a decent head start in which case legging it is the best option.

The reports that came out the day it happened said - the police chased him, they shouted for him to stop and shouted that they were the police.

They said that he ran into the underground and jumped the barrier ...

they chased him down the underground to the train ...

Eye witnesses said he looked like a frightened rabbit - he wasn't 'just running for the train'.

He may have been running from the police, he may not have realised they were the police (to be honest, when they are shouting, you are running and with all the other noise around you, it would be difficult to hear what they are shouting).

But, I maintain my belief that the police genuinely must have thought he was a very real threat - or they would have tried to arrest him rather than shoot him.

Originally posted by Hels
The reports that came out the day it happened said - the police chased him, they shouted for him to stop and shouted that they were the police.

They said that he ran into the underground and jumped the barrier ...

they chased him down the underground to the train ...

Eye witnesses said he looked like a frightened rabbit - he wasn't 'just running for the train'.

He may have been running from the police, he may not have realised they were the police (to be honest, when they are shouting, you are running and with all the other noise around you, it would be difficult to hear what they are shouting).

But, I maintain my belief that the police genuinely must have thought he was a very real threat - or they would have tried to arrest him rather than shoot him.

and subsequently the police have admitted that he did not jump the turnstyles, they had not tried to stop him until he was actually inside the turnstyles, he was not wearing a bulky jacket as described, but in fact a thin denim one.
So given that they immediately misreported things, how much else are they covering up, did they really shout? Have any witnesses come forward to confirm that they heard them shouting... No they haven't.
Have you got a link to the frightened rabbit report as other eyewitnesses have said that they thought he was running for the train.

Apologies for repeating most of Cyclone's post, but here we go....

Has anyone read the paper or seen/heard the news this morning? Apparently the Brazilian bloke shot by the coppers on the tube:

Wasn't wearing a bulky jacket
Wasn't carrying a rucksack
Was walking slowly to the platform, not running. Even stopping to pick up a free newspaper.
Didn't vault over the ticket barrier, used his travelcard.
Looked around the carriage he was in before choosing a seat, not running in and tripping over.

Also, the copper who was supposed to be carrying out the surveillance didn't start the video equipment when the 'suspect' stepped out of his block of flats because he was too busy 'relieving himself' (I really hope he was taking a p*ss, and nothing else)

But he was still pinned down and shot in the head seven times and once in the shoulder from a range of twelve inches (three other rounds were fired but missed. Rather worrying considering the distance).

To use the professional term; 'a bit of a **** up' then.

Sounds one hell of a mess. A lot of questuiosn to be asked and a lot to be answered. Hopefully lessons will be learn.

However, after learning the lessons, i'd hope that the Police will not soften their stance on this matter as it only takes one person to think twice when we really need him/her to act.

Originally posted by youwhatref
Sounds one hell of a mess. A lot of questuiosn to be asked and a lot to be answered. Hopefully lessons will be learn.

However, after learning the lessons, i'd hope that the Police will not soften their stance on this matter as it only takes one person to think twice when we really need him/her to act.

so despite the fact that the police apparently in this case have basically just walked up and executed someone on the tube who was not behaving in a suspicious manner, you still think that they are responsible enough to use these powers.

So far they've managed to kill 0 suicide bombers, 1 innocent civilian and apparently nearly killed another 7 civilians. At the moment it's looking like they shouldn't be allowed to carry batons, never mind firearms.

I think it would be wise to wait for the full report, rather than relying on snippets of leaked information which may or may not be accurate.

Liencam, if by '**** up' you meant 'cock up', then there was no need to use asterisks. Although the origins of the phrase are still disputed, I think there is general agreement that its genealogy does not lie in a sexual reference. Three of the most commonly mentioned theories is that it derives from the act of (mis) cocking a flintlock pistol, or (mis) aligning the cock feather on an arrow, or from the alarm sound of pheasants when being hunted. So we should be able to 'cock up' on the forum willy nilly.

Originally posted by youwhatref
However, after learning the lessons, i'd hope that the Police will not soften their stance on this matter as it only takes one person to think twice when we really need him/her to act.
On what matter? Shooting innocent Brazilians?

Originally posted by LordChaverly
Liencam, if by '**** up' you meant 'cock up', then there was no need to use asterisks. Although the origins of the phrase are still disputed, I think there is general agreement that its genealogy does not lie in a sexual reference. Three of the most commonly mentioned theories is that it derives from the act of (mis) cocking a flintlock pistol, or (mis) aligning the cock feather on an arrow, or from the alarm sound of pheasants when being hunted. So we should be able to 'cock up' on the forum willy nilly.
Veering slightly off-topic here, but according to h2g2's excellent guide to British swear words (http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A753527):

Although the phrase 'cock-up' might appear to have come about in a similar way to 'balls-up', its origins are actually in beer making. If the batch went bad, they turned the cock (ie tap, or faucet) up to drain the barrel. However, the word 'cock', a Middle and Old English word, is one of the many vulgarities for the penis. In London, though, Cockneys appear to have both terms in mind when they say 'Wotcher cock', which comes from the term 'cock sparrow' (pronounced 'sparrah'). It is a general term for a man, although 'cock sparrow' was usually saved for small boys. It has been used for about 300 years.

Originally posted by LordChaverly
I think it would be wise to wait for the full report, rather than relying on snippets of leaked information which may or may not be accurate.

Liencam, if by '**** up' you meant 'cock up', then there was no need to use asterisks. Although the origins of the phrase are still disputed, I think there is general agreement that its genealogy does not lie in a sexual reference. Three of the most commonly mentioned theories is that it derives from the act of (mis) cocking a flintlock pistol, or (mis) aligning the cock feather on an arrow, or from the alarm sound of pheasants when being hunted. So we should be able to 'cock up' on the forum willy nilly.

LC,

it was actually the name of a high street store that was 'asterkised' out by the forum computer.

Well, we aren't supposed to advertise I suppose.

Thanks for the explenation though :thumbsup:

And you Dan! :thumbsup:

Originally posted by Cyclone
So far they've managed to kill 0 suicide bombers, 1 innocent civilian and apparently nearly killed another 7 civilians. At the moment it's looking like they shouldn't be allowed to carry batons, never mind firearms.

the needs of the many outweight the needs of the few.
unfortunately the "benefits" of the shoot to kill policy cannot be proven.
we all sympathise withe the guys family & more then likely the police will suffer the consequences. however the actual act of the police "may" have served many more lifes than we can actually imagine.

Originally posted by willman
the needs of the many outweight the needs of the few.
unfortunately the "benefits" of the shoot to kill policy cannot be proven.
we all sympathise withe the guys family & more then likely the police will suffer the consequences. however the actual act of the police "may" have served many more lifes than we can actually imagine.

Or it may well give the terrorists a mandate to carry on.

I'm playing Devil's Advocate - we'll not know unless there is another attack, attempted or otherwise.

Originally posted by willman
however the actual act of the police "may" have served many more lifes than we can actually imagine.
I think the point is that it didn't and so far hasn't. Also that the "shoot to kill policy" is brought to you by the same people who gave us the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six.

Originally posted by willman
the needs of the many outweight the needs of the few.
unfortunately the "benefits" of the shoot to kill policy cannot be proven.
we all sympathise withe the guys family & more then likely the police will suffer the consequences. however the actual act of the police "may" have served many more lifes than we can actually imagine.

No there is no may, or might have.
So far it has saved 0, it has endangered 7 and killed 1.

So police score so far, -1.

if the IPCC leak is approaching a true account, then someone has cocked up big time - failing to identify the suspect, failing, even, to identify which door he came out of, failing to stop him entering the tube station, failing to stop him using his swipe card and buying a paper and sitting down on the tube.

This is not the poor judgement of one policeman, as he must have been told that the suspect was a danger. It appears to be, based on this leaked document, a totally systemic failure to ensure the identity of the suspect before opening fire...

In a sense I feel for the officer who pulled the trigger, who was told to stop a suicide bomber, and now has to live with the fact he shot dead an innocent electrician on his way to work.

But 7 shots to the head, 1 to the body and three that missed altogether and ended up in the tube carriage. That's a bit more than a belt and braces approach for a busy public space.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
if the IPCC leak is approaching a true account, then someone has cocked up big time - failing to identify the suspect, failing, even, to identify which door he came out of, failing to stop him entering the tube station, failing to stop him using his swipe card and buying a paper and sitting down on the tube.

This is not the poor judgement of one policeman, as he must have been told that the suspect was a danger. It appears to be, based on this leaked document, a totally systemic failure to ensure the identity of the suspect before opening fire...

In a sense I feel for the officer who pulled the trigger, who was told to stop a suicide bomber, and now has to live with the fact he shot dead an innocent electrician on his way to work.

But 7 shots to the head, 1 to the body and three that missed altogether and ended up in the tube carriage. That's a bit more than a belt and braces approach for a busy public space.

My understanding is that the bullets used may have been low velocity, to prevent collateral damage in confined spaces (such as aeroplanes or public transport vehicles). If this was the case, then this could explain why so many bullets were fired. Moreover, despite rigorous training, and regardless of how many simulations they undertake, the police are human and can still make mistakes when hyped up and facing what they believe to be a genuine terrorist threat. The arm chair pundits should wait for the complete report before piecing together bits of leaked information and making up their minds already.

Originally posted by LordChaverly
My understanding is that the bullets used may have been low velocity, to prevent collateral damage in confined spaces (such as aeroplanes or public transport vehicles)....The arm chair pundits should wait for the complete report before piecing together bits of leaked information and making up their minds already.
Naturally.

Originally posted by Cyclone
so despite the fact that the police apparently in this case have basically just walked up and executed someone on the tube who was not behaving in a suspicious manner, you still think that they are responsible enough to use these powers.

So far they've managed to kill 0 suicide bombers, 1 innocent civilian and apparently nearly killed another 7 civilians. At the moment it's looking like they shouldn't be allowed to carry batons, never mind firearms.

Yes i do Cyclone. I agree with LordChav that we need to wait for the full report. Lessons will be learnt i am sure and something has gone serioulsy wrong somewhere in the loop for an innocent man to die. But i still back the policy 100%

Originally posted by LordChaverly
The arm chair pundits should wait for the complete report before piecing together bits of leaked information and making up their minds already.
And before telling us what type of bullets the police were using?

I certainly haven't made up my mind, I understand that a shoot to kill policy may be justified, but like you said the police are human and given their current record, I'd want to make sure there are plenty of safeguards in place, and would not like to see the UK going down the route of the Israelis (who apparently advised London police on their shoot to kill policy) and implementing a "shoot to kill potential bombers and their entire families, just in case" policy.

Originally posted by LordChaverly
My understanding is that the bullets used may have been low velocity, to prevent collateral damage in confined spaces (such as aeroplanes or public transport vehicles). If this was the case, then this could explain why so many bullets were fired.

Not really - frangible rounds (i.e. those that are designed to break up and not penetrate walls, chairs etc.) are typically composed of something like lead pellets held together by an epoxy resin and break apart on impact causing much more tissue trauma than a standard copper jacketted or ball round.

Originally posted by DanSumption
And before telling us what type of bullets the police were using?

I certainly haven't made up my mind, I understand that a shoot to kill policy may be justified, but like you said the police are human and given their current record, I'd want to make sure there are plenty of safeguards in place, and would not like to see the UK going down the route of the Israelis (who apparently advised London police on their shoot to kill policy) and implementing a "shoot to kill potential bombers and their entire families, just in case" policy.

The point is that I have not made up my mind either, as the drift of my post should make clear. With regard to the information about the (possible) bullets used, I was responding to a specific comment made by Cyclone, to show how unwise it is to speculate or pontificate based on incomplete evidence. If you read some of the posts on this thread however, it would be easy to draw the conclusion that some posters have indeed already made up their minds that the incident already merits categorisation with the Guidlford 4 or Birmingham 6 episodes, those staple cause celebres of knee jerk police bashers everywhere.

But presumably you don't know for certain what bullets were used (and, as evildrneil has pointed out, neither did you know much about the type of bullets you thought were used). The various points made in the press today about the inquiry have at least been "confirmed by a senior police source" which makes them slightly more relevant, to my mind at least, than the "magic bullets" you just invented.

I think i'd said that I wasn't in favour of this policy before an inoccent man was killed, so i'm hardly likely to have my mind now.

Originally posted by LordChaverly
...it would be easy to draw the conclusion that some posters have indeed already made up their minds that the incident already merits categorisation with the Guidlford 4 or Birmingham 6 episodes, those staple cause celebres of knee jerk police bashers everywhere.
Well I don't know where you got that idea from.

;)

Originally posted by DanSumption
But presumably you don't know for certain what bullets were used (and, as evildrneil has pointed out, neither did you know much about the type of bullets you thought were used). The various points made in the press today about the inquiry have at least been "confirmed by a senior police source" which makes them slightly more relevant, to my mind at least, than the "magic bullets" you just invented.

I didn't 'invent' anything. The idea that low velocity bullets may have been used (similar to the ones carried by guards on US and Israeli aeroplanes) was mentioned as a possibility on one of the news channels by a security 'expert', as an explanation of why so many shots were fired. Let us await the outcome of the inquiry to verify or disprove this. However accurate or inaccurate the 'points' you mention are, they are still incomplete and fragmentary. I was commenting on the almost palpable frisson of righteous certitude with with certain posters have seized on these snippets of information in order to condemn the police and their current attempts to combat terrorism.

Originally posted by youwhatref
Yes i do Cyclone. I agree with LordChav that we need to wait for the full report. Lessons will be learnt i am sure and something has gone serioulsy wrong somewhere in the loop for an innocent man to die. But i still back the policy 100%

The policy may well be fine.

But the execution of policy has gone disastrously wrong here - there is no escaping it.

What remains to be established is the level of culpability of the police force.

i.e - was it a tragic death needless death or unlawful killing.

If there is a scintilla of truth in the leaked document - bearing in mind it is not a full disclosure of any kind - it can only add to the bungling oafish reputation that the police occasionally have in many quarters, including government.

And if the document is to be believed, it suggests incompetence, a chaotic mess, and a complete failure of 'Gold Command'.

It's a pity that a single, landmark event like the judicial killing of an unarmed, innocent electrician in his mid twenties by the police can detract totally from all the unseen and invaluable work the British Police Forces actually do. But it's understandable.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
The policy may well be fine.

But the execution of policy has gone disastrously wrong here - there is no escaping it.

What remains to be established is the level of culpability of the police force.

i.e - was it a tragic death needless death or unlawful killing.

If there is a scintilla of truth in the leaked document - bearing in mind it is not a full disclosure of any kind - it can only add to the bungling oafish reputation that the police occasionally have in many quarters, including government.

And if the document is to be believed, it suggests incompetence, a chaotic mess, and a complete failure of 'Gold Command'.

It's a pity that a single, landmark event like the judicial killing of an unarmed, innocent electrician in his mid twenties by the police can detract totally from all the unseen and invaluable work the British Police Forces actually do. But it's understandable.

Although i back the policy, i totally and 100% agree with you.

It seems to me that most people are basing their opinion on one incident. We have only the police view of what happened on that fateful day. There are too many questions being raised to decide just yet.

Already evidence from CCTV suggests that:

a) the man was NOT running;
b) the man was NOT wearing a bulky jacket, but a simple denim jacket
c)Witnesses reported that the police physically pounced on the man rendereing him helpless

Now it's beginning to sound like a scene from the PC game 'Hitman'

All those people who said that the policeman will have to live with what he did for ever and feel sorry for him were merely projecting their own feeling onto him.

I can't describe how angry and upset I am about this.

Do I support the 'shoot to kill policy'?

Surely the only answer to that is each scenario merits individual outcome.

Originally posted by scrolling
It seems to me that most people are basing their opinion on one incident.

There was only one incident.

There is more information - the document leaked from the Independent Police Complaints Comission to Independent Television News.

It's what woke this thread up again (as the other Menezes thread is still closed).

There are at least two incidents (THAT WE KNOW OF) of police confrontation with known terrorists and in both cases the REAL terrorists were arrested without anyone being shot.

Yes there is more information.

How do you know what started this thread when you apparently did not start it?

Do you always comment on other peoples posts Phanerothyme with such ease? ........Yes it seems, you do. Intriguing! Ha-ha

To put this incident in context, let us remember the many terrorist suspects rounded up by the police without a shot being fired, or the many potential terrorist incidents thwarted by them.

I must admit I have a rather favourable (although by no means misty eyed) view of the British police, having lived in countries where the police forces are little better than legalised extortionists and thugs in uniforms.

Originally posted by scrolling
Do you always comment on other peoples posts Phanerothyme with such ease? ........Yes it seems, you do. Intriguing! Ha-ha
Oo, clever self-referential piece of criticism there.

Originally posted by scrolling
There are at least two incidents (THAT WE KNOW OF) of police confrontation with known terrorists and in both cases the REAL terrorists were arrested without anyone being shot.

But the news currently being discussed here, in lieu of the other thread dedicated to the Menezes shooting being reopened, is about one incident. the Menezes shooting. Certainly other incidents should be borne in mind when the policy is reviewed, no question.

But my comments about the police are qualified by the fact that it is a leak, and not full disclosure. However, the leak is being treated as a pretty accurate representation of the events by those who have seen the documents in question. If it turns out to be true even only in parts it points to really dangerous failures in operational command of armed officers.

Now. we can either pretend that the leak didn't happen and we don't have this information, or we can discuss it with the qualifications I mentioned.

I said earlier, the police do a remarkably good job, which is precisely why they need to totally prevent any incident where an innocent person is wrongly identified because an officer was taking a leak, and despatched with 7 bullets to the head whilst sitting on a train - because an incident like the Menezes shooting will explode in their faces like an ALF parcel bomb.

Like LordChaverly says, we have a very good police force in this country, by and large. We have high standards and would be apalled at the police services in other European nations, let alone more obviously corrupt police states.


Yes there is more information.

How do you know what started this thread when you apparently did not start it?

er I looked at the dates on this post and the one before it. http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?postid=548998#post548998
simple

Do you always comment on other peoples posts Phanerothyme with such ease? ........Yes it seems, you do. Intriguing! Ha-ha

Well, I just tap my fingers on these buttons and presto - stuff appears on the forum, which is the whole point, I believe.

If that intrigues you then can look forward to a life full of mystery and wonder. :thumbsup:

Originally posted by LordChaverly
The idea that low velocity bullets may have been used (similar to the ones carried by guards on US and Israeli aeroplanes) was mentioned as a possibility on one of the news channels by a security 'expert', as an explanation of why so many shots were fired.

Unlikely I would have thought? At their inception the air marshal's carried short barelled heavy calliber revolvers (I believe charter arms bulldogs in .44 were favoured) firing reduced load rounds. However these seem to have been superceeded by 9mm automatics firing frangible rounds, reduced load rounds having the problem that they frequently cannot cycle the action of a semi-automatic handgun. Assuming the officers in question were CO19 they would likely be equiped with the standard Glock 17 9mm semi-automatics and unless they were working the slides by hand I would have thought that its unlikely they were using any form of reduced load round???

The recent leaks regarding the tragic death of Mr Meneze have begun to raise concerns in my mind as to the honesty of the Metropolitan Police. Perhaps the details initially released were speculatory [fabricated by the press] but this just doesn't add up.

Why has it taken a leaked document to expose a fuller account of the incident? Why weren't full and truthful corrections released to the public when the authorities discovered that they were incorrect. If, as the leaked document suggests, Mr Menezes was merely sat on the tube train [not wearing a jacket that could easily disguise an explosive device or having wires emerging from it] did he become the target for armed officers? Why did they shoot him seven times in the head with a single handgun?

Things don't add up. If the Metropolitan Police want to restore the public's confidence in their officers and the shoot-to-kill policy they need to start by telling us the truth about what occurred in Stockwell tube station. Otherwise, they are asking us to support a policy of murdering innocent civilians where there is zero accountability.

I agree other things should be looked at, so does anyone remember how the American soldiers in Iraq were painting slogans of revenge for nine eleven on their tanks and Hummers before the invasion there? Maybe the gung ho cops were only avenging the terrorist bombings, and just like the Americans taking it out on the wrong party, with overkill in both situations. Police then gave misleading accounts, protraying the officers in a difficult situation where they had to kill him, and now as in the Iraq case we learn all is not what we are told, why is that? The Police are indeed human and in that tense climate acted as you would expect with anger as humans do, so now it's time to admit to being human and also time to admit to making a mistake.
Strangely enough we still have people suggesting that this shoot to kill policy should not be revisited.

JonJParr, you raise some very interesting points in your post and I agree with what you say.

What is even more scary about the question of police honesty is that there were so many civilian witnesses saying otherwise. I distinctly remember a man talking to news reporters immediately after Meneze was killed (or should I say murdered?After all the evidience suggests he WAS restrained) His evidence supported what the leak is saying.

I have an easy answer to this..All terrorists should wear a uniform,you know so as not to blend in with the people they are about to murder.
Then the said murderers (i mean terrorist )could have a ligitimet right to appeal in a court of law,"i was wearing a uniform"i am a soldier, not a murderer (sorry terrorist)

Then the Police could call out "Hey you in the terrorist uniform stand still we are armed police ".
The then said murderer(sorry terrrorist) would then say "yes gov you've cought me bang to rights" "i was just on my way to blow up 100 people"."was it the uniform that gave me away"?

Untill that happens..the only good terrorist is a dead terrorist.
Do i support the shoot to kill policy..Damn right i do

jt

Originally posted by john t
I have an easy answer to this..All terrorists should wear a uniform,you know so as not to blend in with the people they are about to murder.
Then the said murderers (i mean terrorist )could have a ligitimet right to appeal in a court of law,"i was wearing a uniform"i am a soldier, not a murderer (sorry terrorist)

Then the Police could call out "Hey you in the terrorist uniform stand still we are armed police ".
The then said murderer(sorry terrrorist) would then say "yes gov you've cought me bang to rights" "i was just on my way to blow up 100 people"."was it the uniform that gave me away"?

Untill that happens..the only good terrorist is a dead terrorist.
Do i support the shoot to kill policy..Damn right i do

jt

so in the mean time the police can go around killing people at random, or because they don't like the look of them.
What's the odds they'll get a terrorist, 1/million maybe 1/100,000 at a stretch.
Frankly there are probably more people in London worried about being shot by the police than there are worried about being blown up, afterall there are a lot more police with itchy trigger fingers.

Originally posted by Cyclone
so in the mean time the police can go around killing people at random, or because they don't like the look of them.
What's the odds they'll get a terrorist, 1/million maybe 1/100,000 at a stretch.
Frankly there are probably more people in London worried about being shot by the police than there are worried about being blown up, afterall there are a lot more police with itchy trigger fingers.

Cyclone, I doubt this very much. Over 50 people were killed in the bombings in July, whereas only one person was shot by the police (and in the same period the police have rounded up numerous terrorist suspects without a shot being fired). Moreover, various investigations have been launched with the aim of ensuring that another Meneze type incident does not occur. I think some of the phrases you use (such as 'killing people at random' and 'itchy trigger fingers') show not only that you are overstating your case but are also becoming an teeny weeny bit hysterical in your reaction to this dreadful incident.

There is another disturbing aspect to this incident (apart from causing Cyclone to hyperventilate on his own hyperbole) and that is the hijacking of the Meneze campaign for justice by professional agitators and extremists. When I saw the people flanking Meneze's cousin at the press conference yesterday, I was sure that I had seen some of them before. Sure enough, on Newnight last night it was disclosed that those running the campaign are political agitators of one kind or another (one of them is an organiser for Respect and closely connected to George Galloway and another is a leading light in an agitprop campaign against Western involvement in the Iraq war). One only had to listen to their fulminations and diatribes against the police yesterday to realise that they have a very different agenda to that of seeking justice for the Meneze family.

Untill that happens..the only good terrorist is a dead terrorist. - John t
The police are trained to work together to take suspects alive. Operation cratos is a last resort. And the trouble with a dead terrorist , is that they can not be questioned/interrogated. Those people who love guns would perhaps prefer emmigrate to a country where the bullet rules.

only one person was shot by the police - LordChaverly So if you were the one who was shot instead of Jean Charles Meneze, would you expect your family to say "Oh well these things happen, don't worry about it." Would they do nothing? And by doing nothing allow some people to go on thinking that you were a terrorist?

The whole point is that one person could have been you, me, anybody.....except possibly M. Jackson of course, but even then, it only takes one 'trigger happy' policeman/woman to not like the look of him! "Sorry gov. I thought he was wearing a mask"

I agree with LordC - the Menezes case is no longer a question of right or wrong, but has been taken over for purposes of political point scoring. The police, acting in good faith at a time of crisis, made a terrible mistake, which they've admitted to and apologised for, and indicated that they're prepared to pay compensation for. An inquiry will doubtless follow.

Contrast this with the behaviour of the Brazilian police, of which this is a not untypical example:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4415775.stm

... which makes it amazing to me that the Brazilian government, of all people, are getting on their high horse.

p'haps if the person involved was correctly registered there would have been less chance of confusion.
he was not registered at the address,the only people who were living in those flats "legally" were the suspects. Obviously he wasn't a visitor because he would have been seen entering when surveillance began.

it doesn't really justify being shot but it does muddy the water for the intel on the supsects.

Originally posted by DanSumption
I think the point is that it didn't and so far hasn't. Also that the "shoot to kill policy" is brought to you by the same people who gave us the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six.

unfortunately not quite true unless blair's been in control for longer than i htought.

Originally posted by Cyclone
No there is no may, or might have.
So far it has saved 0, it has endangered 7 and killed 1.

So police score so far, -1.

how can u rationalise the saving of lives when the result is not tangible.
yep an man not guilty of terrorism has been killed, 52 people not guilty of any crime have been killed.
purely by stating numbers u cannot surely believe that a shoot to kill policy may not have changed the mind of some potential bombers.

Originally posted by willman
how can u rationalise the saving of lives when the result is not tangible.
yep an man not guilty of terrorism has been killed, 52 people not guilty of any crime have been killed.
purely by stating numbers u cannot surely believe that a shoot to kill policy may not have changed the mind of some potential bombers.

why would it change the minds of the bombers, they are going to die either way, so they clearly aren't scared of death.

Originally posted by Cyclone
why would it change the minds of the bombers, they are going to die either way, so they clearly aren't scared of death.

Good point. The policy is (I guess) intended not as a deterrent, but as a means of saving lives once a suicide mission is under way.

but not all the cell members are suicide bombers, organisers & asociates are there purely to provide resources & know how. surely they would think twice about association with a bomber cell if they could also get shot just by being close to the action.

Originally posted by willman
unfortunately not quite true unless blair's been in control for longer than i htought.
You're saying it was Blair that shot him? :loopy:

My point was that it was the police force which did this and that they, as pointed out by Lord Chav and as proved by earlier incidents, are human and hence subject to making mistakes and sometimes acting over-zealously.

Originally posted by DanSumption
You're saying it was Blair that shot him? :loopy:

My point was that it was the police force which did this and that they, as pointed out by Lord Chav and as proved by earlier incidents, are human and hence subject to making mistakes and sometimes acting over-zealously.

no u stated that the same people were responsible. i just questioned who could have been around to do all 3 things.

due process unfortunately allowed innocent people to be locked up, things have changed since then & police policy & technical ability has improved.

It makes me sick that you sleep tight at night knowing that you are safe because u live behind the security that is provide by our good old 'shoot to kill' bobbies but question the manner in which they provide that security.

Originally posted by jonyfly
It makes me sick that you sleep tight at night knowing that you are safe because u live behind the security that is provide by our good old 'shoot to kill' bobbies but question the manner in which they provide that security.


is that everyone on here or just those that voted no??

Originally posted by willman
no u stated that the same people were responsible. i just questioned who could have been around to do all 3 things.

due process unfortunately allowed innocent people to be locked up, things have changed since then & police policy & technical ability has improved.

by due process do you mean falsification of confessions and dubious interrogation tactics?

jonfly - I sleep safe at night because no suicide bomber would blow a house with 2 people in it. I don't sleep in crowded tube train.
If we lower ourselves to the level of the people we are fighting, then we've lost and we have become as them.