Police and Shooting to kill
Discussion
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4708373.stm
[quote=bbc]The shooting of a suspected bomber at Stockwell by armed officers marks a watershed in the security of London.
A police confrontation with a suspected suicide attacker has been anticipated since 11 September and discussions have taken place at senior levels of Scotland Yard to determine the appropriate tactics.
Concern has also been expressed by the present commissioner and his immediate predecessor that the legal position regarding use of police firearms needs to be urgently reviewed in the light of the suicide threat.
The police deployment of firearms is governed by a manual published by the Association of Police Officers, last revised in February 2005.
It is not true to say that police officers must identify themselves or shout a warning when confronting a suspect believed to pose a grave and imminent threat.
The manual says that that procedure "should be considered" but recognises that the key aim of an operation is to "identify, locate, contain and neutralise" the threat posed.
In many situations, this would require the suspect to stop moving and put his hands in view.
'Central body mass'
That would not necessarily apply when the police are faced with a suspected suicide bomber.
The aim of opening fire is to stop an imminent threat to life. The most effective means of incapacitating a suspect is to shoot at the central body mass which contains the central nervous system.
This is what the police mean by "shooting to stop".
A head shot against a possibly moving target is more difficult to achieve.
However, the police have taken advice from officers in countries such as Israel and Sri Lanka which have long experience of suicide attacks.
Their advice is that if a suspect clearly has no intention of surrendering, the armed officer should attempt to aim for the head or lower limbs to prevent a suicide belt being detonated.
Lethal force
A former Home Office adviser, Dr Sally Lievesley, points out that suicide bombers represent the nightmare scenario for the police.
"A suicide bomber can kill four or five times more people than a conventional bomb because they can get so close to their targets, so different precautions and tactics are needed," she said.
The appropriateness of the tactics deployed at Stockwell and the intelligence on which they were based will now be considered by the Independent Police Complaints Commission.
Its inquiry may well redefine the ground rules for the use of lethal force to protect Britain against the threat from suicide terrorism.
[/quote]
I noticed there were a few people a wondering about why police didn't shoot to wound or whatever or were otherwise ignorant of such things, but I just noticed this article on the bbc website which might explain some things for some people.
[quote=bbc]The shooting of a suspected bomber at Stockwell by armed officers marks a watershed in the security of London.
A police confrontation with a suspected suicide attacker has been anticipated since 11 September and discussions have taken place at senior levels of Scotland Yard to determine the appropriate tactics.
Concern has also been expressed by the present commissioner and his immediate predecessor that the legal position regarding use of police firearms needs to be urgently reviewed in the light of the suicide threat.
The police deployment of firearms is governed by a manual published by the Association of Police Officers, last revised in February 2005.
It is not true to say that police officers must identify themselves or shout a warning when confronting a suspect believed to pose a grave and imminent threat.
The manual says that that procedure "should be considered" but recognises that the key aim of an operation is to "identify, locate, contain and neutralise" the threat posed.
In many situations, this would require the suspect to stop moving and put his hands in view.
'Central body mass'
That would not necessarily apply when the police are faced with a suspected suicide bomber.
The aim of opening fire is to stop an imminent threat to life. The most effective means of incapacitating a suspect is to shoot at the central body mass which contains the central nervous system.
This is what the police mean by "shooting to stop".
A head shot against a possibly moving target is more difficult to achieve.
However, the police have taken advice from officers in countries such as Israel and Sri Lanka which have long experience of suicide attacks.
Their advice is that if a suspect clearly has no intention of surrendering, the armed officer should attempt to aim for the head or lower limbs to prevent a suicide belt being detonated.
Lethal force
A former Home Office adviser, Dr Sally Lievesley, points out that suicide bombers represent the nightmare scenario for the police.
"A suicide bomber can kill four or five times more people than a conventional bomb because they can get so close to their targets, so different precautions and tactics are needed," she said.
The appropriateness of the tactics deployed at Stockwell and the intelligence on which they were based will now be considered by the Independent Police Complaints Commission.
Its inquiry may well redefine the ground rules for the use of lethal force to protect Britain against the threat from suicide terrorism.
[/quote]
I noticed there were a few people a wondering about why police didn't shoot to wound or whatever or were otherwise ignorant of such things, but I just noticed this article on the bbc website which might explain some things for some people.
I guess the police manual has to be turned upside down against suicide bombers... I pity the guys that have to pull the trigger. Not knowing if its the end of their career or back home in time for tea and medals.
Makes sense to aim for a kill. In the same situation with the same training, I wouldn't hesitate... one blokes life vs countless innocent commuters?
Makes sense to aim for a kill. In the same situation with the same training, I wouldn't hesitate... one blokes life vs countless innocent commuters?
I agree with it if there is a direct threat to others, whether it be a suicide bomber or some guy with a gun. If they are willing to kill others I have no sympathy for them being killed to protect people.
Has to be a brave thing for any police officer to do and I take my hat off to them (well I would if I was wearing one!).
Still believe that if they catch the other suicide bombers they shouldn't be killed though (unless of course they still had explosives about their person). I think this is when torture comes into play the *&£#@*<s
Has to be a brave thing for any police officer to do and I take my hat off to them (well I would if I was wearing one!).
Still believe that if they catch the other suicide bombers they shouldn't be killed though (unless of course they still had explosives about their person). I think this is when torture comes into play the *&£#@*<s
groucho said:
I don't know why some people whinge about it, not saying anybody has here. We shouldn't tie the hands of the cops that are only trying to protect us from these scum.
Totally correct, the aformentioned scumbag had run onto a packed tube train, maximum force was necessary and in this instant it meant not only shot to drop but shoot to kill.
Zero tolerance.
FourWheelDrift said:
I don't know why some people whinge about it, not saying anybody has here. We shouldn't tie the hands of the cops that are only trying to protect us from these scum.
Totally correct, the aformentioned scumbag had run onto a packed tube train, maximum force was necessary and in this instant it meant not only shot to drop but shoot to kill.
Zero tolerance.
Bad news if they are mistaken though, which I suppose is why they have a shoot to stop policy instead of shoot to kill. Still have to maintain a degree of professionalism, and respect from the general public.
If you knew a copper had the power to gun you down in the street, would that worry you? Leave the double tapping to the SAS boys they are trained for it and don't have to sit on a fence as the police do.
2P
When it comes to terrorists and i remember the little mercy shown to Ken Bigley,the thuds as people fell from the WTC landing on nearby roofs and the victims of 7/7 then i have no reservations of the way the authorities want to handle terrorists aslong as these tactics dont apply to normal everyday unarmed crime.
KingRichard said:
groucho said:
I don't know why some people whinge about it, not saying anybody has here. We shouldn't tie the hands of the cops that are only trying to protect us from these scum.
Totally correct, the aformentioned scumbag had run onto a packed tube train, maximum force was necessary and in this instant it meant not only shot to drop but shoot to kill.
Zero tolerance.
Bad news if they are mistaken though, which I suppose is why they have a shoot to stop policy instead of shoot to kill. Still have to maintain a degree of professionalism, and respect from the general public.
If you knew a copper had the power to gun you down in the street, would that worry you? Leave the double tapping to the SAS boys they are trained for it and don't have to sit on a fence as the police do.
2P
What is a ' shoot to stop policy ' ? Are you saying the police are trained to just 'wing' a suspect, just take his leg out or something ? There maybe talk of such a policy, I doubt any trained firearms officer or the SAS are going to do that. Would you ?
Although the police can't just go around shooting suspicious people... I think that if someone A) runs from the police and B) it's during a time of such tension in the country C) he's wearing clothing that is characteristic of a suicide bomber and D) he completely disregards the fact that the police are armed, then he should know what's coming, even if he isn't a terrorist.
If he is indeed "innocent", I would love to know what was going through his mind at the time. "Hmm I'm wearing a large coat even though no one south of Alaska is wearing one right now, and I'm being chased by armed police 2 weeks after a deadly series of bombings that targeted the city's mass transport system. I know! I'll run into a subway!"
If he is indeed "innocent", I would love to know what was going through his mind at the time. "Hmm I'm wearing a large coat even though no one south of Alaska is wearing one right now, and I'm being chased by armed police 2 weeks after a deadly series of bombings that targeted the city's mass transport system. I know! I'll run into a subway!"
bmgm3 said:
What is a ' shoot to stop policy ' ? Are you saying the police are trained to just 'wing' a suspect, just take his leg out or something ? There maybe talk of such a policy, I doubt any trained firearms officer or the SAS are going to do that. Would you ?
I'm only going by whats been posted on other threads throughout the day... Shoot to stop is supposedly a shot to the torso, and the officer is trained to keep shooting until the suspect 'stops' I'm sure its just a way of putting it that doesn't sound so terrifying to general numpty tolerant society.
I personally think that the police should shoot to kill.
It sends a message to the would be bomber, and who ever else, that there is a mothod of dealing with the situation.
This country is manby pamby in its aproch to alot of things. If people thought their lives were at stake, hoaxers would think twice at least.
It sends a message to the would be bomber, and who ever else, that there is a mothod of dealing with the situation.
This country is manby pamby in its aproch to alot of things. If people thought their lives were at stake, hoaxers would think twice at least.
i dont think the police today had a choice, if the suspect isnt respoding to their threats they have to do everything in their power to stop the suspect and if that means killing him well so be it i would rather see them kill one of them rather than them kill 50 of us. The suiside bombers from yesterday will be very unstable at the moment and are very likely to try blowing themselves up again in the very near future.
Lord Elmo said:
I personally think that the police should shoot to kill.
It sends a message to the would be bomber, and who ever else, that there is a mothod of dealing with the situation.
This country is manby pamby in its aproch to alot of things. If people thought their lives were at stake, hoaxers would think twice at least.
Here Here
Shoot the F
Dead. That way they dont have a chance to hurt any more innocent people. You cannot talk these people into "handing" themselves in.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff