Young woman shot by Police in terrror op.
Discussion
pgh said:
MarshPhantom said:
why a 20 year old woman?
Why does that part have any relevance at all?Are females not capable of committing crimes?
Are 20 year olds always beyond reproach?
A human being has been shot. There will be an investigation to reveal the circumstances. If there was wrongdoing it will be established.
ETA: quoting fails.
Edited by jjlynn27 on Friday 28th April 17:07
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.
Because they can't. These days everyone expects instant twitter updates, but procedures prevent that. 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.
Details won't be released to afford the investigation protection and more often than not protection for suspects involved also. Or simply, because it's no one else's business.
It usually means the police are sitting ducks for 'how dare they', 'over reaction' comments/criticism.
Maybe something better could be sorted out, but in some cases there won't be official releases until matters are dealt with in court. Which obviously doesn't sit well with the instant news era.
The fact it is a terrorism operation will shut down updates even further.
Sylvaforever said:
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...
Trouble with ammunition in terms of predicting their behaviour once they make contact with something is that it is very unpredictable!So the police operate with amunition outwith the stipulations of the Geneva Convention... Interesting indeed...
You can design rounds to act in a certain way on contact, but there is always a degree of unpredictability. There are so many different types of rounds though. One type of 9mm will react completely differently to another.
Police 5.56 rounds are generally 'jacketed soft point' and most 9mm now 'hollow point'. 5.56 will likely be 'tac bonded' for penetrating glass and therefore designed to stay in tact. The aim of this ammunition being to hit an object and stop, not over penetrate. They are meant to 'mushroom' on impact not sail through like a 'full metal jacket' might more likely do.
All the rounds are approved for police use at government level, so forces won't be using anything which isn't allowed.
There isn't really any 'nice' ammunition you shoot at anyone.
Edited by DS240 on Friday 28th April 17:13
Derek Smith said:
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.
Blunkett was obviously blind to the good work of your old Chief Constable 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.
Likes Fast Cars said:
Derek Smith said:
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.
Blunkett was obviously blind to the good work of your old Chief Constable 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.
Whitehouse was one of the most approachable CCs I've worked under. He would listen, and listen to all ranks, and civilian staff. He had his own views and most of these were unassailable, but at least you'd get a reply. According to his bag carrier, I was criticised twice by superintendents when I'd followed SOPs and they were the right option. Both times the super was told to apologise to me.
The odd thing is that he was corporate as well. If given a directive, he'd support it. Other CCs would give lip service to it and then ignore it.
I liked the bloke.
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.Some training needed perhaps?
They'll be trained to shoot the big part of the body and whatever happens injury wise is down to luck.
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.
Elroy Blue said:
MarshPhantom said:
Yet the Police involved managed to keep Lee Rigby's killers alive.
Because they gave him immediate first aid after firing, when they were no longer considered a threat. It's really not diffiicult to work out.
- Lucky (or unlucky depending how you view it)
- A gunshot wound will not always be fatal, even if it does hit centre mass.
They would not have been aiming at arms and legs! No one aims at the arms and legs with a conventional firearm in these scenarios. It's not trained and not done in practice. Let's get this stupid theory cleared up...
As said, not difficult.
I would say the noises initially heard was either a distraction device being put through the door or they were shotgun breaching the front door. Or combo of both.
The door breaching would likely also involve the CS element.
It's quite possible the person was shot with the after effects of the door breaching rounds rather than shot how everyone would think.
..... Edited earlier comment to add;
Looks like long range RIP (CS) rounds used into upper windows. Probably used RIP and Hatton rounds on the front door also.
The door breaching would likely also involve the CS element.
It's quite possible the person was shot with the after effects of the door breaching rounds rather than shot how everyone would think.
..... Edited earlier comment to add;
Looks like long range RIP (CS) rounds used into upper windows. Probably used RIP and Hatton rounds on the front door also.
DS240 said:
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.
Because they can't. These days everyone expects instant twitter updates, but procedures prevent that. 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.
Details won't be released to afford the investigation protection and more often than not protection for suspects involved also. Or simply, because it's no one else's business.
It usually means the police are sitting ducks for 'how dare they', 'over reaction' comments/criticism.
Maybe something better could be sorted out, but in some cases there won't be official releases until matters are dealt with in court. Which obviously doesn't sit well with the instant news era.
The fact it is a terrorism operation will shut down updates even further.
I'm guessing that if she had a gun or a home made explosive we would certainly have heard about it by now.
When the PC was killed a few weeks ago, the details came out within a very short time (although there were obviously more witnesses).
This thread is most unfair to our police.
If they have found it necessary to shoot someone, then there will be a very good reason.
For instance, the person may have been using a mobile phone to pay at a McDonalds drive through. Or perhaps they weren't wearing a seatbelt. They could even have been on a station platform looking elusive.
If they have found it necessary to shoot someone, then there will be a very good reason.
For instance, the person may have been using a mobile phone to pay at a McDonalds drive through. Or perhaps they weren't wearing a seatbelt. They could even have been on a station platform looking elusive.
MarshPhantom said:
Elroy Blue said:
MarshPhantom said:
Yet the Police involved managed to keep Lee Rigby's killers alive.
Because they gave him immediate first aid after firing, when they were no longer considered a threat. It's really not diffiicult to work out.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff