Shoot To Kill

[yrwyddfa]

Is British police's 'shoot-to-kill' policy - with reference to terrorists - justified?

[Pino]

Yes either shoot them or them blow you up.

[grilkip]

How terrible it may be, there is probably is no other option. When you have reason to believe that someone has bombs strapped to his body and can blow them up at any time you can't very well shoot him in the leg. You have no idea what means he has to detonate, so you must exclude all options and kill him.

[Pino]

*nods*

[yrwyddfa]

Do you think that resorting to the 'shoot-to-kill' policy reduces our moral highground?

[Pino]

Do you think people blowing themselves up is better?

[grilkip]

Do you think that resorting to the 'shoot-to-kill' policy reduces our moral highground?

To the fanatics that are willing to murder and die for something abstract you have no moral highground.

[grilkip]

Don't get me wrong though, in the whole civil liberties vs security debate I usually lean towards civil liberties. But when it comes down to a shot in the head of one individual vs an imminent (deadly) threat to a large group... Shoot for the head.

Oh, and moral highground... As if you're MI5 and MI6 have never 'executed' anyone.

[MasterBlaster]

Is British police's 'shoot-to-kill' policy - with reference to terrorists - justified?

No it is not.

[demotivater]

Sure it is. I've never seen a shoot to wound policy. If someone poses enough of a threat to be shot, you'd better hope you kill them.

[dannymking]

There was a case in england when a man was shot dead for swinging a samurai sword about, he was of no threat to anyone as he was in the middle of a motorway, however a terrorist carry a nail bomb with the intention of setting it off on a bus hoping to kill or maim everyone around them including themself deserves to be shot..

They were going to commit suicide anyway

[yrwyddfa]

Well, the first time the 'police' (that was what was reported in the UK) fully implemented and acted out that policy they got it wrong. They killed what amounts to an innocent man.

[demotivater]

Similar sword type situation in Seattle (I think, saw it on t.v.). They blasted the guy with a water cannon and pinned him against a wall with a ladder then disarmed him.

Lot's of situations can be defused without shots being fired, but if the trigger is pulled, the logical outcome would be the death of the person on the receiving end. Aiming for the leg isn't the best idea, especially when it comes to a would be bomber.

[grilkip]

Well, the first time the 'police' (that was what was reported in the UK) fully implemented and acted out that policy they got it wrong. They killed what amounts to an innocent man.

That was a strange story, they followed him from his house to finally shoot him inside the station. This however does not disqualify the legitimacy of the shoot to kill policy. What choice is there when your responsibility is to protect the public?

[demotivater]

An innocent man running from the police by the accounts I've read. Does seem a little fishy though, if they suspected he had a bomb (which they may not have) why allow him to make it to the station?

[Pino]

I knew somone would bring this up. The fact is the guy ran away, either he is hiding somthing or is stupid. He ran and I would have shot him as well. so waht they laoded 8 bullets into him, make sure he's not going to move.

[grilkip]

A simple case of 'poor unlucky fool'

[Shaggy Hiker]

I suspect that every trained police force is trained that if they have to shoot, they shoot to kill, terrorist or not. Even our Fish and Game officers are trained with the "one to the body, one to the head". The key question is whether or not to shoot. If you do shoot, the outcome is a corpse.

NY police shot a kid when he pulled a wallet out of his pants. They made the wrong choice, but once they fired, they continued firing till there was no possible threat from the target. Shooting someone is considered use of deadly force, no matter what you intend. When it is valid to use that is where the question should arise, not what the outcome should be. If you shoot someone in the leg and hit an artery, they could die before any help could arrive.

[MasterBlaster]

The problem is that english cops are a bunch or gun carrying rednecks. Now cops children will steal their parents guns and go into a school and shoot everybody. Why can't we all be just like Canada.


If guns kill people, spoons made Michael Moore a fat arse.

[grilkip]

Spoons don't cause many lethal accidents now do they?

[Pino]

The problem is that english cops are a bunch or gun carrying rednecks. Now cops children will steal their parents guns and go into a school and shoot everybody. Why can't we all be just like Canada.


If guns kill people, spoons made Michael Moore a fat arse.

this is from a guy who lives in america......

[szlamany]

Is British police's 'shoot-to-kill' policy - with reference to terrorists - justified?

You certainly are a word-smith

Two carefully crafted questions in one sentence.

"shoot-to-kill" as a policy is standard training for anyone using a gun in law enforcement, that's been stated several times in posts here...

But I think your real, underlying question - if you read carefully...

is...

Should the cops be shooting who they think are terrorists? Is that because of some "profiling" methods they are using? Color of your hair? Way you dress?

We are such a vast melting pot of different people in the US, that we were very careful after 9/11 to make sure that rejecting anyone that appeared muslim was a bad thing to do.

Recently, after the London bombings, I heard the police commissioner of NYC tell people that they should all be on the lookout for suspicious activity. How nuts that request is - everyone on a subway in NYC looks suspicious to me. Backpacks? Strange or large packages? Trucks double parked... That's everyone.

Seems like the "shoot-to-kill" public policy might be more "boasting" and "posturing" then anything else - what do you think?

[visualAd]

It is a very diffucult choice. In any case one must employ some kind of logical reasoning in a situation which is very stressful. The office needs to access the situation, how much of a threat the suspect is, do they look like a terrorist, what are they saying, are they near other people who could be in danger. They must mkake they decision in a split second and it is inevitable that there will be mistakes.

I dread to think how the family of that guy who was shot in London feel, I also dread to think how the police office feels about making the wrong call. There are victims on both sides.

[intraman]

Yes, but not when wearing plain-clothes and running after someone with little idea of who you are. They could have taken him down first by shooting his legs and then take it from there. They were wrong to shoot the guy 5 times in the back when wearing plain (non-police) clothes. However, the guy did vault a ticket barrier, - but who wouldn't when 5 men are runninhg after you carrying MP5's and semi-automatic rifles.

Jord

[eyeRmonkey]

Good points from everyone.

I don't know the whole policy that British Police go-by. But if it is something as simple as "If you think you are dealing with a terrorist with a bomb who is likely to set it off, then shoot them" then I don't think it justified. I'm sure it is a little more detailed than that, though.

I think everyone has a right to live. The police have a difficult decision to make in a situation like that. Possibly kill an innocent man or let him live and allow him to blow him self up.

I think that if they are going to use a policy like that then there should be extensive training on assessing the situation.

[dannymking]

The office needs to access the situation

Too much work then eh!

That's going straight into The Quote Thread

[szlamany]

MB - are you having bad day???

[MasterBlaster]

MB - are you having bad day???

I didn't think any one would notice. I figured all the english guys were busy running a princess into a guardrail so they could find out what color underwear she was wearing today.

Damn man, you try to crack one joke and someone turns it into an invitation to bash an american.

[grilkip]

It wasn't all that obvious that you were joking MB. Noteme gave his response because rednecks don't exist outside of the US.

[MasterBlaster]

It wasn't all that obvious that you were joking MB. Noteme gave his response because rednecks don't exist outside of the US.

Never been to woodbridge huh?

[grilkip]

No, but redneck is an American entity, there is no such things as a European redneck. Idiots? Sure. Religious zelots? Sure. Generally backward people? Sure. Country music lovers? fraid not

*Edit: This is not the point. I'm just saying your sarcasm wasn't apparent (to everyone), that's all.

[MasterBlaster]

No, but redneck is an American entity, there is no such things as a European redneck. Idiots? Sure. Religious zelots? Sure. Generally backward people? Sure. Country music lovers? fraid not

Bull. I heard from an english reporter that princess diana had a tattoo of Willie Nelson on her colon. How he got his head so far up her arse without her knowing it just baffles me.

edit* this was the pre "Momma don't let your babies grow up to be cowboys" willie nelson.

[grilkip]

Just had to look up who Willie Nelson is.

She did?? Well... whatever.

This is the second post in which you mentioned her. Obsession?

[MasterBlaster]

Just had to look up who Willie Nelson is.

She did?? Well... whatever.

This is the second post in which you mentioned her. Obsession?

Nope, I was just researching colon tattoos. I was thinking of getting a tattoo of the french flag on my colon.

[grilkip]

Nope, I was just researching colon tattoos. I was thinking of getting a tattoo of the french flag on my colon.

hehe, and you complain about Americabashing . Give the example man .

[szlamany]

Nope, I was just researching colon tattoos. I was thinking of getting a tattoo of the french flag on my colon.

Doesn't a colon already look like the french flag?

[MasterBlaster]

hehe, and you complain about Americabashing . Give the example man .

Like my redneck daddy used to say while we watched Jerry Springer "Fight Fire with Fire or get a colon tattoo."

[grilkip]

Your father sounds like a wise man. Must be weird when your mother is your aunt as well (we're talkin' rednecks, so..)

[szlamany]

No, but redneck is an American entity, there is no such things as a European redneck. Idiots? Sure. Religious zelots? Sure. Generally backward people? Sure. Country music lovers? fraid not

*Edit: This is not the point. I'm just saying your sarcasm wasn't apparent (to everyone), that's all.

It's not an entity at all - it's silly slang and I think Europeans think that it's a real group of people - what a laugh!

red•neck (r d n k )
n. Offensive Slang
1. Used as a disparaging term for a member of the white rural laboring class, especially in the southern United States.
2. A white person regarded as having a provincial, conservative, often bigoted attitude.

Actually, most people I would label as redneck are wasps - white-anglo-saxon-protestants - basically english and french imports...

But then again, I'm an Italian/Czech from NYC - so what would I know!

[szlamany]

No, but redneck is an American entity, there is no such things as a European redneck. Idiots? Sure. Religious zelots? Sure. Generally backward people? Sure. Country music lovers? fraid not

*Edit: This is not the point. I'm just saying your sarcasm wasn't apparent (to everyone), that's all.

Country music lovers?

Country music is rooted in the folk traditions of the British Isles. In the new world, those roots became entangled with the ethnic musics of other immigrants and African slaves. Many gospel hymns were also popularized in the nineteenth century South, while tent shows and blackface minstrelsy introduced folk-sounding tunes written by northern professionals. Played on fiddles or homemade banjos, all this music would one day sound as if born in the southern hills.

I prefer music with more then 2 beats myself...