If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Shoot To Kill
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Did anyone watch BBC1's documentary on the shooting in Stockwell?
The police chief they interviewed said are policy isn't to shoot people in the head to kill them ... just to disable them from setting off a bomb.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/4779602.stm
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=1&threadID=1251&start=0&tstart=0&edition=1&ttl=20060310000107&#paginator
I really hate the way people in these positions talk to the public like we're all stupid and will except what they say as being correct. If you shoot people in the head the results of your actions is either death or permenant brain damage.
The police chief they interviewed said are policy isn't to shoot people in the head to kill them ... just to disable them from setting off a bomb.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/4779602.stm
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=1&threadID=1251&start=0&tstart=0&edition=1&ttl=20060310000107&#paginator
I really hate the way people in these positions talk to the public like we're all stupid and will except what they say as being correct. If you shoot people in the head the results of your actions is either death or permenant brain damage.
0
Comments
Shortly after 9/11 the government realised there was a real possibility of suicide bombers striking in the UK and that a policy on how to deal with them was needed. Old bill representatives travelled to Israel and talked to officials there who obviously have a long experience in such matters.
After consultation with Israel as well as other countries the shoot-to-kill policy, named Kratos, was created.
And incredibly the policy goes a lot further than the Israelis themselves (!) are authorised to do. There was an expert on the radio the other day and he said Mr. de Menezes would have never been shot in Israel (at least not if police there were following procedure). In Israel there must be a visual contact with a suicide belt or any other explosive device, or reasonable suspicion that the suspect might be hiding one under a heavy coat. Mr de Menezes was wearing a thin-as-rolling-paper denim coat that was not buttoned up anyway. There was no chance he could have had explosives attached to him unless he was carrying them up his arse.
The Israelis themselves said as much at the time and disassociated themselves with de Menezes' killing at the time. That the procedures of our police force are seen as excessive by Israel goes to show how wrong we have it.
I saw part of it including that interview - that police chief was a completely weaselly bastard.
"No, the order is to incapacitate them by shooting them in the head, not to shoot to kill..." :rolleyes:
I hope the people who fucked up in the Menezes shooting face some serious consequences for their actions, criminal incompetence causing death isn't permitted in any other line of work so I don't see why cops should get away with it.
The shoot to kill policy is well easy for a real terrorist to get around, they simply need to start using a deadman's trigger like the same way a hand grenade works so if they are killed (such as by a shot to the head) the bomb goes off regardless.
The whole incident is scarey because it highlight how stupid the police can be throughout the whole chain of events starting from the policeman in the survalience van outside the man's flat who said he was taking a leak at the time he came out, to them using radio's that cannot work underground.
I'd be shocked if anyone ever gets disaplined or demoted becuase of it.
We live in the kind of country where you can get instantly fired for passing along 1 joke email form a company work address but if you give the order to kill someone then that's fine.
I miss Bon Scott.
When I heard him my jaw dropped, I think he did his cause more harm than good and just made himself look foolish.
I suspcet his problem is one of Human Rights legislation which prohibits the death penalty within the EU. A shoot-to-kill policy for our law enforcement agency, I suspect, would breach that.
shoot to incapacitate, even if by incapacitate it means kill
still a stupid policy, if i were a wannabe suicide bomber ill use a pressure release trigger, no fucking hope then
Well why don't they use pressure release triggers? And what's the option let them blow themselves up where they want?
we have wmp in custody now for glorification of terroism
j/k
seriously though, there are ways around everything including a shoot to kill policy, and a pressure release ie intelligence to clear a path
Yes, but still the question - what is the better alternative way of stopping a suicide bomber?
it depends on their method etc
thats why the met are idiots, they talk of intelligence led policing, and fail on all accounts at getting good intelligence
Sorry, but that's not an answer. You have a man with a suicide bomb - how do you stop him?
'Intelligence led' is a soundbite, because in the real world you often don't have that luxury...
What makes you so certain that you do ?
EDIT:
Back to the OP. i didn't see the thing on BBC. It was a horrid mistake that happened. but i'm all for the shoot-to-kill thing. If the terrorist are willing to die and say they are soldiers in a war against us (or whoever their targeting) then they should be targetted as soldiers. ok yes it would be good to get afew alive for questioning. but imho they are cowards they target the public and dont go for government or military target half the time. But as i said this is just my opinon
Never mind that, what you don't do is shoot someone 7 times in the head because he looks foreign then lie about it afterwards and smear him in the press to try and save your arse. :mad:
I'd agree with that - but that's not really the point. Unless you're agreeing with Clandestine that the suicide bombings don't really happen you need some way of stopping them and shooting them in the head seems the best (of some pretty awful) option.
Often you can't, but if you don't even make the effort you're never going to stop them.
I certainly don't agree with Clandestine. However, if the police are going to have a shoot to kill policy (extremely dodgy if you ask me - we don't have the death penalty in this country and we also have a judicial system - its not the police's job to decide if someone is guilty or innocent), then they need to make damn sure their intelligence is up to scratch (i.e. have more than one person on surveillance so if one has to go for a pee it doesn't fuck the whole op up), apprehend the suspect before they get on a bus or tube and don't lie to cover up if they get it wrong.
Again I wouldn't disagree. The shooting on the tube was an absolute fuck-up.
Speaking just after it happened to a old friend of my who is an army lawyer his view is that a blanket shoot to kill is illegal. Whilst the chances are if you're shot in the head you're going to die, its not always true. If they are alive, but no longer a threat shooting to kill them is murder.
And if the IPPC claims that the log was altered is true that's perverting the course of justice and someone needs to be held to account for that (and by being held to account I mean jail).
However, whilst there are lessons to be learnt from the shooting I do not know whether the individual officers should be held to account. If they did everything by the book (and honestly believed he was a suicide bomber) they shouldn't be prosecuted, but the system need to be drastically revised.
If they broke the rules and paniced or shot him because they weren't sure and decided to err on the side of caution they do need to be prosecuted.
Does anyone have concrete evidence of that ? :chin:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4745867.stm
That looks like evidence of 26 people who were NOT protected.Add to them the guy called Menezes and you have at least 27 people who might not care much for this line of alleged benevolent protection.
point is, it isn't always effective, and since when have police been the judge, jury and executioner
if these terroists are sophisticated they'll get around a shoot to kill policy, if they aren't sophisticated there's better ways of stopping them, like gathering better intelligence to truly prevent
Would you shoot to kill either/both of these ?