Police shoot to kill ?
- Thread starter Agile
- Start date
Sponsored Links
joe-90 said:ellal said:joe-90 said:
Oh sorry..it's all about the money then is it?...
Have they refused compensation?
I must have missed that.
Sorry, my mistake. I take it all back.
So in your book it's about the money or not - nothing to do with the fact that an innocent man was the victim of a state killing?
Funnily enough, people can accept compensation and still care about another thing - justice...the two are not mutually exclusive!
Taking the balance of probabilities into account, the current system gets my vote. There are so many people around that most go through life and never ever make a mistake it's untrue. Yes the consequences here were tragic but so were the consequences when bombs have gone off.
Regards - J
Regards - J
Said above:-
"""Normally police do not shoot to kill, they shoot to stop. If you had ever tried to fire a gun at a moving target you would know how difficult it is to hit. For that reason you have to aim for the biggest mass, ie the torso. Shooting people in the arms or legs is hollywood fiction, and it wont always stop them. WHen an officer makes a decision to shoot he still has to use the minimum force to achieve the subduing of the subject. Therefore if one bullet to the torso will stop him, then that is seen to be better than shooting once in the leg, then again one that doesnt stop him, then again in another part of the body etc etc."""
All I can say is that the lovely big firearms trained lady I used to go out with was trained to shoot to kill. She went out on firearms incidents in Birmingham about once every week or two. They only shoot if an officer or member of the public is at risk. She was not even trained to shoot to disable which is very difficult anyway.
In the case of the Brazilian, the firearms officers only arrived at the station after he had already entered the station. Having both arms held by officers, I dont see why it was necessary to shoot him SEVEN times in the head when he was firmly held.
Another aspect, it would have been safer to have stopped him in the street. He was followed on a bus and into the tube. There were even two uniformed officers at the tube entrance but they knew nothing about the exercise as it was a different department which had not communicated with them. With all the time while he was on the bus they could have been contacted and closed the entrance!
A bomb in the open air does little damage compared with an enclosed space like the tube. He should have been stopped outside!
Their action implies that they did not want to apprehend him but only to SHOOT HIM DEAD !
Tony
"""Normally police do not shoot to kill, they shoot to stop. If you had ever tried to fire a gun at a moving target you would know how difficult it is to hit. For that reason you have to aim for the biggest mass, ie the torso. Shooting people in the arms or legs is hollywood fiction, and it wont always stop them. WHen an officer makes a decision to shoot he still has to use the minimum force to achieve the subduing of the subject. Therefore if one bullet to the torso will stop him, then that is seen to be better than shooting once in the leg, then again one that doesnt stop him, then again in another part of the body etc etc."""
All I can say is that the lovely big firearms trained lady I used to go out with was trained to shoot to kill. She went out on firearms incidents in Birmingham about once every week or two. They only shoot if an officer or member of the public is at risk. She was not even trained to shoot to disable which is very difficult anyway.
In the case of the Brazilian, the firearms officers only arrived at the station after he had already entered the station. Having both arms held by officers, I dont see why it was necessary to shoot him SEVEN times in the head when he was firmly held.
Another aspect, it would have been safer to have stopped him in the street. He was followed on a bus and into the tube. There were even two uniformed officers at the tube entrance but they knew nothing about the exercise as it was a different department which had not communicated with them. With all the time while he was on the bus they could have been contacted and closed the entrance!
A bomb in the open air does little damage compared with an enclosed space like the tube. He should have been stopped outside!
Their action implies that they did not want to apprehend him but only to SHOOT HIM DEAD !
Tony
Sponsored Links
Agile said:
And that is what should be tried in court!!
This fudge/whitewash has left more questions than before, so at the very least there now must be a public enquiry with the fullest remit possible - not yet another useless report for the police and government to hide behind..
There was a thread about this at the time: //www.diynot.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=30320
In which I said this:
I'd just like to say that my opinion has not changed one jot.
In which I said this:
I said:
I'd just like to say that my opinion has not changed one jot.
Its not that simple!
The Police firearms officers have made it clear that they will refuse to carry firearms if anyone officers are prosecuted !
Both the Police and the CPS are aware of that and with the current terrorist threat neither can risk that situation.
They have therefore come up with a "fudge" whereby the Police are corporately charged but not any individual officers. That keeps the firearms officers on duty.
The instruction to the firearms officers was to "stop him" . To a firearms officer that means to shoot him dead ! They generally follow their instructions and it might be difficult to have prosecuted the shooting officer because he was just following his orders!
Tony
The Police firearms officers have made it clear that they will refuse to carry firearms if anyone officers are prosecuted !
Both the Police and the CPS are aware of that and with the current terrorist threat neither can risk that situation.
They have therefore come up with a "fudge" whereby the Police are corporately charged but not any individual officers. That keeps the firearms officers on duty.
The instruction to the firearms officers was to "stop him" . To a firearms officer that means to shoot him dead ! They generally follow their instructions and it might be difficult to have prosecuted the shooting officer because he was just following his orders!
Tony
Strange, all the time i was a police officer, no-one was ever told to shoot to kill. Everyone was told to use the minimum force in line with section 3 of the criminal law act 1967
Any officer that pulls the trigger will find himself in a very lonely place, at the centre of a very detailed investigation going through all the intelligence, information and circumstances behind his decision to pull the trigger in a split second. That is only right and proper. Which basically means if they fired twice, when its decided they only neeeded to fire once then they are in the deep poo poo.
In the case of suicide bombers the ONLY way they have been able to come up with of negating the very real threat is to deal with it in the way they did. That policy is based on a lot of research and advice from other countrys around the world who have faced and dealt with this problem for many years eg Isreal. 7 bullets in the head, whilst held down excessive? No. All the time a suicide bomber has an ounce of life in him, or the ability to perform any sort of involunatry action, there is a risk any bomb could be detonated. They can be wired up in many many ways. That they man was identified wrongly is sad and very regretable, however those officers were placed in a very difficult position and had to make a split second choice, that could have gone badly wrong, had the information been correct and they had not acted the way they did.
A shrapnel bomb, which most suicide bombs are will do a lot of damage wherever it is exploded, but yes it would have been worse on a bus or train.
But supposing the information had been correct, how should or could he have been stopped safely without harming the officers or public?
Any officer that pulls the trigger will find himself in a very lonely place, at the centre of a very detailed investigation going through all the intelligence, information and circumstances behind his decision to pull the trigger in a split second. That is only right and proper. Which basically means if they fired twice, when its decided they only neeeded to fire once then they are in the deep poo poo.
In the case of suicide bombers the ONLY way they have been able to come up with of negating the very real threat is to deal with it in the way they did. That policy is based on a lot of research and advice from other countrys around the world who have faced and dealt with this problem for many years eg Isreal. 7 bullets in the head, whilst held down excessive? No. All the time a suicide bomber has an ounce of life in him, or the ability to perform any sort of involunatry action, there is a risk any bomb could be detonated. They can be wired up in many many ways. That they man was identified wrongly is sad and very regretable, however those officers were placed in a very difficult position and had to make a split second choice, that could have gone badly wrong, had the information been correct and they had not acted the way they did.
A shrapnel bomb, which most suicide bombs are will do a lot of damage wherever it is exploded, but yes it would have been worse on a bus or train.
But supposing the information had been correct, how should or could he have been stopped safely without harming the officers or public?
Actually joe they use a number of differnt ways to do it. Some very simple, some very complex, and some are even remotly triggered, in case the martyr decides he doesnt want to do it. Thats why they have to deal with them in the way they do.
joe-90 said:
so why go on about the police action being justified then, if the result would be the same...
maybe you ought to be asking why the cops who were tailing him allowed him to enter the tube in the first place instead of confronting him earlier - given that their primary concern was suicide bombers in the tube!!..
get real - the whole thing doesn't add up, but as long as there are enough gullible people around the police/government will literally get away with murder!!
yup..... if the police acted unlawfully then punish them.
but if you think for one minute that the general public will be told about the intelligence held on certain people.... dont hold your breath.
grow up... smell the coffee
sometimes.......... there really is NO smoke without fire.
this didnt happen out of the blue!!!!!!!
it is easy to criticise when you know nothing..... nothing of the truth.
do you think the officer shot for the fun of it????
for gods sake.... they were acting in good faith to save your lives and your families lives....
but if you think for one minute that the general public will be told about the intelligence held on certain people.... dont hold your breath.
grow up... smell the coffee
sometimes.......... there really is NO smoke without fire.
this didnt happen out of the blue!!!!!!!
it is easy to criticise when you know nothing..... nothing of the truth.
do you think the officer shot for the fun of it????
for gods sake.... they were acting in good faith to save your lives and your families lives....
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2005
- Messages
- 31,281
- Reaction score
- 1,997
- Country
ellal said:joe-90 said:
so why go on about the police action being justified then, if the result would be the same...
maybe you ought to be asking why the cops who were tailing him allowed him to enter the tube in the first place instead of confronting him earlier - given that their primary concern was suicide bombers in the tube!!..
get real - the whole thing doesn't add up, but as long as there are enough gullible people around the police/government will literally get away with murder!!
It was at a time of chaos. People running around adrenalin charged. They did what they thought was right at the time. I'm sure that lessons have been learned.
Sponsored Links
