Shoot to Kill

[Steveo]

I've just had an argument at woek abot the events unfolding today, with a colleague who doesn't believe that the police shold shoot to kill. I, on the other had, believe that killing these dispicable individuals/groups who want to blow themselves and innocent people into small pieces is the best way to deal with the threat.

Anyone else think that 5 shots is justified? Also remember, he was apparently wearing an explosive belt device.

[Oli]

I believe that in order to stop people committing these offences, the Police need to be able to use whatever force necessary.

If this means shooting to kill, so be it.

Obviously they need to be certain of their target, and can't go around shooting all and sundry, but I believe it is a necessary force.

[the racing tortoise]

I would say shoot to disarm. unfortunately if your target is wearing an explosive vest you can only stop them using it by shooting for the head. shooting to wound is not an option, even shooting for the chest is not an option as I can only guess the effect of shooting home made explosives. As for five shots, you can't be sure that the first one will kill and five is as good as two. Don't forget that these people are trying to blow themselves up as it is.

[hr]

It could be worse, your hair could be on fire.

if your hair is on fire it still could be worse, your other hair could be on fire.

[flarewearer]

If a suicide bomber intends to die as a "martyr" as is so often trumpeted by radical Islam, then this is the way to grant them their wishes, a martyr dies for their cause, but does not kill other people in the process - those would be murderers, and I sincerely hope they get what's waiting for them on "the other side" (be they Christian, Muslim, Hindu or whatever). So yeah, if they are a suicide bomber, grant them their wish and blow them into next week...

[hr]

image:www.magnificentoctopus.com/x/stormy.png

[Haunted]

In this case I think the man would have been much more valuble if he was kept alive.
However, if he iss suspected to have a bomb belt and is ignoring warnings then by all means blow him away.
I think the five shots here may have been a case of nerves on the part of the officer.
I'm rather interested in what type of weapon they had.

[Big X]

i'm fairly sure that i've heard a number of british police officers saying that the whole 'shoot to kill' thing is a hollywood misnoma. If they shoot, they shoot to kill all of the time. this whole idea of shooting someone in the arm/leg seems to be a complete waste of time. police officers only shoot people if they feel in imminent danger or feel that the public are in danger, if that occurs i doubt they are going to take a chance of either missing (an arm/leg is obviously much harder to hit that the torso) or allowing the person to still be able to shoot someone/detonate a bomb etc.

and on the subject of the 5 shots, i would not be surprised if the police were using a slightly less powerful bullet as they were in such a confined space. perhaps a similar size bullet (9mm etc) but with a lower velocity? thus reducing the chance of a bullet going through someone and hitting a member of the public, but possibly increasing the number of bullets needed to stop someone

[hr]

"Never apologise for showing feeling, in doing so you apologise for truth" Disraeli

[Ben Reilly]

As far as I know, the standard issue police sidearm is the Glock 9mm. I was surprised to hear that five shots were fired, as I believe that for aimed shots the procedure is to "double tap".

[hr]

University of St Andrews Clothing - http://www.standrewsclothing.com

[Prophet Tenebrae]

Surely you're assuming that it was a single officer that fired then Ben - from the BBC news website, it sounds as if more than one officer was firing.

I for one think that if someone in this situation is essentially primed to explode, it's best to shoot the fucker than let him kill any innocents.

Unless of course you're so stupid that you genuinely think that it's worth risking the lives of good men and women to try and non-lethally restrain somone carrying explosives. Or think that they actually know anything about the greater machinations of the machine that they work in.

The cell organisation of terrorism is extremely effective at obfuscating greater plans of the organisation and as any watching the news will know, the search for the "al'qaeda british mastermind" is still continuing. The people that are blowing themselves up are mere pawns. To put the lives of police officers in danger of death to capture them is simply a poor trade.

[hr]

IMAGE:www.btinternet.com/~brother.war/white10-2.gif

[Ben Reilly]

Well, unless the officers decided to stop in the middle of shooting and share the handgun, the eyewitness accounts read to me like it was a single officer: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706787.stm

Edit: Richard, I was not commenting on the right or wrong of the police actions, merely on usual procedure.

If they correctly identified the person as a bomber, then as far as I'm concerned, they acted absolutely correctly.

[hr]

University of St Andrews Clothing - http://www.standrewsclothing.com

[n01]

The biggest issue I have here, is that they haven't actually said the guy had a bomb or anything of that nature on him. Yes, very strange that he was wearing a winter coat, but I haven't read anywhere that he was carrying a bomb. Maybe I haven't been reading the correct articles... but has anyone else noticed this?

It seems all to much like they are trying to seem as if they are making progress, when really they are not. To subdue the public anxiety of course... but its frightening to think they'd attack an innocent person (Of course I'm not claiming that this guy was innocent, just generally speaking).

[Lyeta]

Quoting n01 from 18:56, 22nd Jul 2005
The biggest issue I have here, is that they haven't actually said the guy had a bomb or anything of that nature on him. Yes, very strange that he was wearing a winter coat, but I haven't read anywhere that he was carrying a bomb. Maybe I haven't been reading the correct articles... but has anyone else noticed this?

Yeah exactly I was noticing the same. Surely if they were sure enough to shoot the guy dead they are sure enough to give their reasons. Personally Id have thought if he was connected to yesterday's attacks he would have been a hell of a lot more valuable alive than dead (unless of course he was about to blow himself up). They havent even identified the guy yet.

[Happy-Go-Lucky]

I can't help but have a bit of a nagging feeling that should they have the opportunity, such as man pinned on floor, they should try to "disable" the person, eg, shoot them in the hands to prevent them activating any switch of theirs. But the likelihood of this opportunity are incredibly slim. Did they really have to shoot him 5 times in the head? just one shot in the head would definately stop any bomber doing anything, and you never know, they might even survive, but 5 times in the head seems, to use a pun, overkill.

But in the end, if a person in these hightened alerted times, is stupid enough to ignore and run away from police in this circumstance, can hardly blame others for what happened to him. And the likelihood of someone pulling such a stunt who wasn't in fact up to something dispicable, is extremely unlikely, and shooting him is surely the most logical action.

[hr]

http://standrews.thefacebook.com/profil ... d=37100117

[novium]

I've heard that too.
That if there was an alternative to not killing them (i.e. using some other means to get them) they would have already taken it. And shooting them is a last resort, but if they have to shoot them, it's not the time to be futzing around.

Quoting Big X from 15:23, 22nd Jul 2005
i'm fairly sure that i've heard a number of british police officers saying that the whole 'shoot to kill' thing is a hollywood misnoma.
[hr]

"Never apologise for showing feeling, in doing so you apologise for truth" Disraeli

[hr]

I have no witty signature.

[Eliot Wilson]

Israeli security officials have apparently advised British police that suicide bombers should be shot with the intent to kill, as they will often detonate their devices even if very badly injured.

[hr]

Bill and Ted beat the Grim Reaper at Twister

Bill: "You played very well, Death, especially with your totally heavy Death robes."

Death: "Don't patronise me."

[Maidmarion]

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/050722/325/fnysb.html

Still think it was justified?

[Guest]

Quoting Steveo from 14:08, 22nd Jul 2005
I've just had an argument at woek abot the events unfolding today, with a colleague who doesn't believe that the police shold shoot to kill. I, on the other had, believe that killing these dispicable individuals/groups who want to blow themselves and innocent people into small pieces is the best way to deal with the threat.

Anyone else think that 5 shots is justified? Also remember, he was apparently wearing an explosive belt device.

i read a report on cnn that said if the officers have clear evidence that the person is wearing explosives then they are trained to shoot to kill via headshots, as a torso shot could detonate the device that they are wearing

its all a bit grim

[Hungry Jo]

Shooting 'to wound' or 'disarm' is really something reserved for hollywood.

If you shoot at someone, you may not kill them but realisticly if you want to stop them (especially with a hnad gun) you have to shoot to kill.

Especially true of when you have a guy who could quite well be carrying a large amount of explosives.

[Delilah]

When dealing with suicide bombers the only way to ensure that they are unable to activate their device is basically to completely destroy their brain. That's the assumption that the police work on and that's what they're trained to do in dealing with these situations. If this was a suspected suicide bomber then the guys from the Met acted exactly as their training dictated.

[Guest]

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/050722/325/fnysb.html

Still think it was justified?

[novium]

ok, that link basically says that might have been the case. It's not really been verified.

But what *I* find fishy is the fact that they had wrestled him down, pinned him to the ground, and THEN shot him five times. At the very least, it's a bit excessive.

[hr]

I have no witty signature.