Police shoot to kill ?

[Softus]

the thieving scum

How do you know he was a burglar and not someone in need of some kind of help?

Try telling that to the Americans and their right to bear arms.

Hey! Americans! CAN YOU HEAR ME?

If so, then "how do you know he was a burglar and not someone in need of some kind of help"?

 

[Thermo]

I would also not have executed him AFTER disabling him..

so how would you have disabled him?


Agile, i find it incredible that you are able to come on and make such sweeping statements about what a typical policemans attitude is. As in all walks of life there are some good and some bad, some very effective and some a waste of space, but they all take a risk. Just for your info i was fire armed trained, in line with the national ACPO policy on firearms. I would suggest that if your ex was as clued up about firearms policy and training as she appears to be about legal advice she has given you then i would take it with a pinch of salt

 

[Agile]

Thermo!

That "Policeman's view" was not my invention. It was copied from another forum and I have no reason to believe that it was not genuine. Perhaps it is not typical but it does seem to me to be fairly typical as everything I hear tends towards those views. When the two "chairleg" police were suspended, 110 other armed officers refused armed duties.

She has never given me any legal advice as her knowledge was very minimal.

Her explanation was that they were only called to situations where the suspect was armed and threatening the life of officers or the public and in that case the suspect had to be shot before he killed anyone else. Thats fair enough in the case of a genuine gunman.

In the case of the Brazillian there was no evidence which the armed officers were presented with to indicate that he posed any threat at all. He was behaving just like any other person using public transport.

Tony

 

[joe-90]

In the case of the Brazillian there was no evidence which the armed officers were presented with to indicate that he posed any threat at all. He was behaving just like any other person using public transport.

Tony

...and so were the 7/7 bombers. Just ordinary backpackers.

 

[Agile]

Since Thermo has referred to the ACPO Policy and also implied that my lady friend was not very accurate with her interpretation of her role as an AFO, I have reproduced the appropriate part below for those who are interested in detailed aspects. I have highlighted and underlined topical parts.


"""6. OPENING FIRE

6.1 When it is considered necessary to open fire on a subject, using conventional ammunition, police officers need to shoot to stop an imminent threat to life. The imminence of any threat should be judged, in respect to the potential for loss of life, with due regard to legislation and consideration of necessity, reasonableness and proportionality. Research has indicated that only shots hitting the central nervous system (which is largely located in the central body mass) are likely to be effective in achieving rapid incapacitation. Shots which strike other parts of the body cannot be depended upon to achieve this.

6.2 Research has also shown that the accuracy of shots fired under training conditions is generally greater than in operational circumstances. Police officers are therefore normally trained to fire at the largest part of the target they can see which in most cases will be the central body mass.

6.3 Alternative points of aim will be appropriate for approved less lethal technologies in accordance with guidelines, i.e. the use of baton rounds with the intention that they should strike the lower part of a subject’s body. As no such technology can be guaranteed as non-lethal, opening fire with such weaponry should only be considered within existing legislation in respect to necessity, reasonableness and proportionality
and should only be with the intention to stop an imminent threat to life or of serious injury. This acknowledges that, in law, consideration of proportionality would indicate that it may be lawful to use less lethal technologies before weapons firing conventional ammunition. This is not intended to be a hierarchy in respect to use of force, however, AFOs may be able to justify use of less lethal technologies at an earlier stage during the escalation of any threat."""


I would also like readers to consider the question of should the officers have shot someone without warning ( "Armed Police Officer!" ) when they displayed no visible threat. In that case there was also the distinct possibility that they had chosen the wrong man compared with the surveilance target.

Tony

 

[Thermo]

which is exactly what i said earlier, shoot to stop and aiming at the largest part of the body. A big difference between shoot to kill and shoot to stop. Now that youve highlighted them in bold i hope you can now understand the difference! Thank you for providing the written poliy to back up my statement that apart from in the case of suicide bombers police do not shoot to kill, and nor are they trained to shoot the gun out of peoples hands in a hoolywood style.

you can consider not shouting a warning to a suicide bomber or doing so. I know which i wouldnt have done had i been acting in that situation under those circumstances. The shouting of a warning in most caese is preferable, however not doing so is also acceptable in others, where the doingf so would carry with it an immediate threat to the officer, other officers or the public. Maybe thats the difference between actually understanding the situation, and every thing that goes with it and looking at it in retrospect from the lay persons point of view.

Still intrested that nobody has said what they would have done had they been in the situation at the time.

 

[johnny_t]

Still intrested that nobody has said what they would have done had they been in the situation at the time.

With respect, isn't that partly because no-one actually knows what the situation was at the time. Speaking personally, I may have shot him, or I may have radioed in and said "'ere Sarge, he doesn't look like he's carrying a bomb to me". As there are no facts out in the public domain, who can say ..?

 

[Softus]

Still intrested that nobody has said what they would have done had they been in the situation at the time.

With respect, isn't that partly because no-one actually knows what the situation was at the time. Speaking personally, I may have shot him, or I may have radioed in and said "'ere Sarge, he doesn't look like he's carrying a bomb to me". As there are no facts out in the public domain, who can say ..?

In terms of being rational and full of common sense, this is second only to Thermo's posts on the topic.

 

[joe-90]

The only problem is that the radios didn't work underground.

 

[jbonding]

which is exactly what i said earlier, shoot to stop and aiming at the largest part of the body. A big difference between shoot to kill and shoot to stop. Now that youve highlighted them in bold i hope you can now understand the difference! Thank you for providing the written poliy to back up my statement that apart from in the case of suicide bombers police do not shoot to kill, and nor are they trained to shoot the gun out of peoples hands in a hoolywood style.

you can consider not shouting a warning to a suicide bomber or doing so. I know which i wouldnt have done had i been acting in that situation under those circumstances. The shouting of a warning in most caese is preferable, however not doing so is also acceptable in others, where the doingf so would carry with it an immediate threat to the officer, other officers or the public. Maybe thats the difference between actually understanding the situation, and every thing that goes with it and looking at it in retrospect from the lay persons point of view.

Still intrested that nobody has said what they would have done had they been in the situation at the time.

I said in a previous post what i would of done "If i was an armed copper and was told that, i would shoot to kill, regardless of the masons and other spooky goings on i would want to know afterwards why was i told to kill an innocent man ."

would you want to know the facts if you had killed him?
still cannot understand how he made it on the tube if he was such a threat.

 

[jbonding]

The only problem is that the radios didn't work underground.

The only problem to what?

They didnt work underground,so what.

 

[joe-90]

Do keep up.

 

[jbonding]

Do keep up.

Enlighten me (he wont)

 

[joe-90]

Do keep up.

Enlighten me (he wont)

You have to read the posts prior to understand what's going on. Are you drunk?

 

[jbonding]

Do keep up.

Enlighten me (he wont)

You have to read the posts prior to understand what's going on. Are you drunk?

Do you mean this prior post


quote joe
"As far as the armed police were aware, the suspect had been accurately identified. He WAS a suicide bomber on his way to blow up a train load of people.

The radios wouldn't work under ground so they were on their own.

So what would YOU have done?


The radios wouldnt work underground another good reason to not let him get there, they were intent on shooting him dead before they went underground. A terrible excuse for shooting someone dead. Are you saying that maybe the order not to shoot, because they had made a mistake, was not recieved on the radio due to bad reception.