Young woman shot by Police in terrror op.

[London424]

battered said:

London424 said:

battered said:

TTmonkey said:

5 shots fired and no ones died.... (yet)

Some training needed perhaps?

On the contrary. Shooting to immobilize is preferable to shooting dead, where possible, and this seems to have happened here. That's what the training should be for.

It really isn't. This is action movies where the hero shoots the gun out of their hand or shoots them deliberately in the leg or some nonsense.

They'll be trained to shoot the big part of the body and whatever happens injury wise is down to luck.

So all the documented UK and USA cases where real police shoot a suspect in the leg are just because they can't point it straight? Do me a favour.

I'm not talking Hollywood here, police are trained to stop. Of course, and in most cases that means kill given the distances involved and the need to hit the centre of the target. But if they can avoid killing, they will.

Yes, they missed what they were aiming at. They don't deliberately aim at legs!

They don't try to avoid killing people, they plan on shooting them where all the squishy organs are that will stop them...then it's up to luck about which bit they end up hitting.

[vsonix]

I used to live in Willesden round the turn of the millenium. Actually quite a nice area I thought. Leafy, big detached houses between Willesden Green and Cricklewood. Was very popular with the Aussie/Kiwi/South African contingent in those days.

[Europa1]

MarshPhantom said:

Someone has been shot by The Police, we have no idea why.

As you say in your thread title, it was a terror op. I'd take a wild stab in the dark and say that might be why.

I have no idea what your beef with the Police is, but your opening post does make you come across as a world class onanist.

[PurpleAki]

Loyly said:

battered said:

On the contrary. Shooting to immobilize is preferable to shooting dead, where possible, and this seems to have happened here. That's what the training should be for.

You need to educate yourself on firearma. 'Shooting to immobilise' is a fantasy concept from action movies where guns are shot out of the bad guy's hand. If you're shooting someone with a gun, you shoot to stop. That is, to stop the threat that made it necessary to use potentially lethal force against them. There are a good number of less-lethal options which are always considered and ruled out first. Trick shots, winging legs and such are not part of that. They're nonsense.

I've been stopped by armed police.

At no point did I think if I react badly here, they will just pop a cheeky one into my thigh to settle me down...

I knew to do what I was told or I'd be shot. I can assure you they were extremely clear on that point!

[Sylvaforever]

London424 said:

It really isn't. This is action movies where the hero shoots the gun out of their hand or shoots them deliberately in the leg or some nonsense.

They'll be trained to shoot the big part of the body and whatever happens injury wise is down to luck.

Hollywood bullets!
Seriously though the overpenetration of 9mm fmj is considerable interior walls etc. The 5.56 battlefield round is strangely better as it's construction and vhigh velocity means it breaks up rather than staying a solid lump

[DS240]

Sylvaforever said:

Hollywood bullets!
Seriously though the overpenetration of 9mm fmj is considerable interior walls etc. The 5.56 battlefield round is strangely better as it's construction and vhigh velocity means it breaks up rather than staying a solid lump

Both handgun and carbine, no one is going to choose to shoot in the arm or leg. In unique circumstances someone may try with carbine or rifle, but not as normal practice. Might be times someone deliberately goes for the head though.

Centre body mass as standard. It is not that surprising, particularly with handgun that rounds intended for the body do end up in the legs or arms in the heat of the moment.... no matter how well trained you are.

No one would have been using FMJ. 9mm or 5.56 can and will over penetrate. The 5.56 will be worse, 9mm designed to be less likely. Either will whistle through doors, stud walls etc. Both will generally stay intact unless firing through glass.... unless it's tac bonded rounds.

[MarshPhantom]

London424 said:

battered said:

London424 said:

battered said:

TTmonkey said:

5 shots fired and no ones died.... (yet)

Some training needed perhaps?

On the contrary. Shooting to immobilize is preferable to shooting dead, where possible, and this seems to have happened here. That's what the training should be for.

It really isn't. This is action movies where the hero shoots the gun out of their hand or shoots them deliberately in the leg or some nonsense.

They'll be trained to shoot the big part of the body and whatever happens injury wise is down to luck.

So all the documented UK and USA cases where real police shoot a suspect in the leg are just because they can't point it straight? Do me a favour.

I'm not talking Hollywood here, police are trained to stop. Of course, and in most cases that means kill given the distances involved and the need to hit the centre of the target. But if they can avoid killing, they will.

Yes, they missed what they were aiming at. They don't deliberately aim at legs!

They don't try to avoid killing people, they plan on shooting them where all the squishy organs are that will stop them...then it's up to luck about which bit they end up hitting.

The question is why was she shot, not how they should have shot her.

[hajaba123]

MarshPhantom said:

The question is why was she shot, not how they should have shot her.

Probably because she wasn't doing what she was told to do

[MarshPhantom]

Europa1 said:

MarshPhantom said:

Someone has been shot by The Police, we have no idea why.

As you say in your thread title, it was a terror op. I'd take a wild stab in the dark and say that might be why.

I have no idea what your beef with the Police is, but your opening post does make you come across as a world class onanist.

Why the fk does anyone think I have a beef with The Police?

What you been smoking?

The point was countless terror raids must have gone on up and down the country over the years without a single shot being fired, so why now and why a 20 year old woman?

[iphonedyou]

MarshPhantom said:

The question is why was she shot, not how they should have shot her.

If you're insisting on asking questions at this point, then you'll be happy with supposition - because as you know, there are no facts and won't be for a while. And the most apparent supposition, which you'll presumably also be happy with, would be that she represented an immediate threat to life at the point the officer faced her. That would explain why he shot her.

[mac96]

MarshPhantom said:

Europa1 said:

MarshPhantom said:

Someone has been shot by The Police, we have no idea why.

As you say in your thread title, it was a terror op. I'd take a wild stab in the dark and say that might be why.

I have no idea what your beef with the Police is, but your opening post does make you come across as a world class onanist.

Why the fk does anyone think I have a beef with The Police?

What you been smoking?

The point was countless terror raids must have gone on up and down the country over the years without a single shot being fired, so why now and why a 20 year old woman?

Fair enough question-and the answer is- we don't know, but there will be a full investigation, and then we will.

[WinstonWolf]

MarshPhantom said:

Europa1 said:

MarshPhantom said:

Someone has been shot by The Police, we have no idea why.

As you say in your thread title, it was a terror op. I'd take a wild stab in the dark and say that might be why.

I have no idea what your beef with the Police is, but your opening post does make you come across as a world class onanist.

Why the fk does anyone think I have a beef with The Police?

What you been smoking?

The point was countless terror raids must have gone on up and down the country over the years without a single shot being fired, so why now and why a 20 year old woman?

My guess, they believed they had a bloody good reason. Every firearms officer knows those few seconds will be deliberated over from the comfort of desks in the minutest detail. It's a bit like being a bee, you pull the trigger you know you'll immediately be off duty and thoroughly investigated.

[MrBrightSi]

MarshPhantom said:

Why the fk does anyone think I have a beef with The Police?

What you been smoking?

The point was countless terror raids must have gone on up and down the country over the years without a single shot being fired, so why now and why a 20 year old woman?

You knight in shinning armour you. Bet it drops all the ladies knickers.

[princealbert23]

MarshPhantom said:

Why the fk does anyone think I have a beef with The Police?

What you been smoking?

The point was countless terror raids must have gone on up and down the country over the years without a single shot being fired, so why now and why a 20 year old woman?

If you can't see why even moderate people like DS are exasperated with your posts you need to look at improving your self-awareness.

[MarshPhantom]

princealbert23 said:

MarshPhantom said:

Why the fk does anyone think I have a beef with The Police?

What you been smoking?

The point was countless terror raids must have gone on up and down the country over the years without a single shot being fired, so why now and why a 20 year old woman?

If you can't see why even moderate people like DS are exasperated with your posts you need to look at improving your self-awareness.

Give it a rest. There are some anti-police PHer's but I certainly wouldn't say I'm one of them.

And it certainly isn't fake news to say the police don't always cover themselves in glory at times like this.

[DS240]

MarshPhantom said:

princealbert23 said:

MarshPhantom said:

Why the fk does anyone think I have a beef with The Police?

What you been smoking?

The point was countless terror raids must have gone on up and down the country over the years without a single shot being fired, so why now and why a 20 year old woman?

If you can't see why even moderate people like DS are exasperated with your posts you need to look at improving your self-awareness.

Give it a rest. There are some anti-police PHer's but I certainly wouldn't say I'm one of them.

And it certainly isn't fake news to say the police don't always cover themselves in glory at times like this.

'So why now and why a 20yr old women'

'Don't always cover themselves in glory at times like these'

The facts aren't out and probably won't be for a while. Likely to be;
a. In response to a threat from the female (gun, knife, bomb)?
b. 'Accidental' collateral from door breaching rounds.
c. Negligent discharge. Hopefully not though.

Age, sex is irrelevant if justification for use of force is there.

What have the police done wrong here then, with your limited information on the matter?

[Derek Smith]

DS240 said:

'So why now and why a 20yr old women'

'Don't always cover themselves in glory at times like these'

The facts aren't out and probably won't be for a while. Likely to be;
a. In response to a threat from the female (gun, knife, bomb)?
b. 'Accidental' collateral from door breaching rounds.
c. Negligent discharge. Hopefully not though.

Age, sex is irrelevant if justification for use of force is there.

What have the police done wrong here then, with your limited information on the matter?

a. In response to a threat from the female (gun, knife, bomb)? Do you mean Police overreacted to a threat that was unlikely to kill only a few people and end up killing a 20-year-old woman.

b. 'Accidental' collateral from door breaching rounds. You must mean: Police deliberately use entry policies designed to kill a 20-year-old woman.

c. Negligent discharge. Hopefully not though. Obviously not. Police go out deliberately to target everyone, including a 20-year-old woman.

[TTmonkey]

Interesting that coming up to 24 hours and we still don't know much about this.

The police haven't said how many rounds were actually fired have they? or why they were fired.

The longer 'facts' take to come out, the more suspicious I tend to get. Not suggesting cover up, just that sometimes when things go wrong it takes a long time to clearly state what actually happened.

[Sylvaforever]

DS240 said:

Sylvaforever said:

Hollywood bullets!
Seriously though the overpenetration of 9mm fmj is considerable interior walls etc. The 5.56 battlefield round is strangely better as it's construction and vhigh velocity means it breaks up rather than staying a solid lump

Both handgun and carbine, no one is going to choose to shoot in the arm or leg. In unique circumstances someone may try with carbine or rifle, but not as normal practice. Might be times someone deliberately goes for the head though.

Centre body mass as standard. It is not that surprising, particularly with handgun that rounds intended for the body do end up in the legs or arms in the heat of the moment.... no matter how well trained you are.

No one would have been using FMJ. 9mm or 5.56 can and will over penetrate. The 5.56 will be worse, 9mm designed to be less likely. Either will whistle through doors, stud walls etc. Both will generally stay intact unless firing through glass.... unless it's tac bonded rounds.

Not according to the testing carried out by the Feds...

So the police operate with amunition outwith the stipulations of the Geneva Convention... Interesting indeed...

[Derek Smith]

TTmonkey said:

Interesting that coming up to 24 hours and we still don't know much about this.

The police haven't said how many rounds were actually fired have they? or why they were fired.

The longer 'facts' take to come out, the more suspicious I tend to get. Not suggesting cover up, just that sometimes when things go wrong it takes a long time to clearly state what actually happened.

Yet there was massive criticism, and not only by the lurkers on here, of the police in past incidents where information was given out before being checked as correct. Once the initial stages are over the police will not be in control of what information is given to the press.

My chief constable was severely criticised for giving out information immediately post incident, yet he had been praised for his press-friendly programmes, including allowing a local 'crime reporter' free access to the nick, less the cells block and interview rooms. It was later used by Blunkett, probably the worst post war HomSec we'd had up until then, as an excuse to sack him.