News London Shooting: What would you have do?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Delta
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the controversial shooting of a man suspected of being a suicide bomber by undercover police at Stockwell tube station. Key points include the man's suspicious behavior, such as wearing a large coat and running towards the train, which heightened police concerns. The officers involved were plain-clothes, raising questions about whether the suspect perceived them as threats rather than law enforcement. There is significant debate over the decision to shoot, particularly regarding the communication and assessment of the suspect's threat level between different police teams. The incident has sparked discussions about police protocols and the implications of a shoot-to-kill policy in high-stress situations.

What would you have done?

  • Shoot to kill.

    Votes: 17 50.0%

  • Shoot for a body shot.

    Votes: 6 17.6%

  • Allow the person on the train in the hope of pursuing them further at another station, etc.

    Votes: 3 8.8%

  • Remained uncover and monitor the person.

    Votes: 8 23.5%
  • Total voters
    34
  • #51
russ_watters said:
For everyone's info, shooting to disable is not allowed in any rules of engagement I've ever heard of. Guns are meant for one thing, killing, and you can only pull a gun and shoot it in a shoot-to-kill situation for several reasons: one, as enigma said, being "disabled" is not an easy criteria. Two, shooting to disable can permanently maim someone and that's considered cruel and unusual punishment. Third, if you're shooting to disable, you could still end up killing the person, so you can't take the risk of using the gun to disable someone.
Just a minute, we'll have the British police alter their rules of engagement to suit your interpretation then.http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050726/ap_on_re_eu/shoot_to_kill_2
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
russ_watters said:
For everyone's info, shooting to disable is not allowed in any rules of engagement I've ever heard of. Guns are meant for one thing, killing, and you can only pull a gun and shoot it in a shoot-to-kill situation for several reasons: one, as enigma said, being "disabled" is not an easy criteria. Two, shooting to disable can permanently maim someone and that's considered cruel and unusual punishment. Third, if you're shooting to disable, you could still end up killing the person, so you can't take the risk of using the gun to disable someone.
Well you'll never be able to say that again :smile:

Rules of engagement for armed police (ACPO guidelines)
Must identify themselves and declare intent to fire (unless this risks serious harm)
Usually trained to aim for the torso, to incapacitate and for greater accuracy
Should reassess situation after each shot
 
  • #53
The Smoking Man said:
Just a minute, we'll have the British police alter their rules of engagement to suit your interpretation then.http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050726/ap_on_re_eu/shoot_to_kill_2
You must have misunderstood the link, because it does not contradict what I said.

edit: for further clarification, when they said "shoot-to-kill" in the article, that was a poor choice of words and probably what confused you. A better way to say it would be "shoot-on-sight", meaning that you can kill someone even if they aren't a direct threat to anyone. That's the type of policy the UK denies having.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #54
Art said:
Well you'll never be able to say that again :smile:
Jeez, both of you - can you stop with the arguing for the sake of arguing? You're wrong too. :rolleyes:

Shooting someone in the torso is a deadly-force shot. Yes, the goal of shooting is to eliminate the threat: the way to do that is with deadly force. People often suggest that criminals could/should be shot in the knee/leg/gun hand and that's the misconception that I was trying to dispel.

Rereading the poll, its not at all clear what is meant by "shoot for a body shot" since that should be covered by "shoot to kill".

edit: HERE are the DOD guidelines on the use of deadly force. Note first of all the definition of deadly force: "Force that a person uses causing, or that a person knows or should know would create a substantial risk of causing, death or serious bodily harm." Essentially, by definition, shooting means shooting to kill.
 
Last edited:
  • #55
russ_watters said:
Jeez, both of you - can you stop with the arguing for the sake of arguing? You're wrong too. :rolleyes:
I'm wrong? I didn't write the ACPO guidelines I'm just quoting them.

russ_watters said:
Shooting someone in the torso is a deadly-force shot. Yes, the goal of shooting is to eliminate the threat: the way to do that is with deadly force. People often suggest that criminals could/should be shot in the knee/leg/gun hand and that's the misconception that I was trying to dispel.
The reason the guidelines were (secretly) recently changed in the UK was because under the old rules the idea was to disable a target hopefully without killing him / her whereas now in the case of suspected suicide bombers the new rule is to kill outright.

russ_watters said:
Rereading the poll, its not at all clear what is meant by "shoot for a body shot" since that should be covered by "shoot to kill".
It's not for the reasons I just gave above.
 
  • #56
Art said:
I'm wrong? I didn't write the ACPO guidelines I'm just quoting them.
And misunderstanding them.
The reason the guidelines were (secretly) recently changed in the UK was because under the old rules the idea was to disable a target hopefully without killing him / her whereas now in the case of suspected suicide bombers the new rule is to kill outright.
It doesn't say that in the quote you posted. Do you have a source?
 
  • #57
edit: HERE are the DOD guidelines on the use of deadly force. Note first of all the definition of deadly force: "Force that a person uses causing, or that a person knows or should know would create a substantial risk of causing, death or serious bodily harm." Essentially, by definition, shooting means shooting to kill.
These are the US guidelines, surprisingly the UK has it's own. :approve:
 
  • #58
Art said:
These are the US guidelines, surprisingly the UK has it's own. :approve:
Indeed - please post the guidelines where it supports what you said. What you posted doesn't.
 
  • #59
russ_watters said:
And misunderstanding them. It doesn't say that in the quote you posted. Do you have a source?
Ah so you see
Reasess the situation after each shot
as make sure they're dead and if not fire again. :rolleyes:
 
  • #60
Hasn't the UK adopted 'Shoot-to-kill' policies by Israel?
 
  • #61
DM said:
Hasn't the UK adopted 'Shoot-to-kill' policies by Israel?
Yes they have. As of February this year I believe. Russ seems to believe this was always UK policy.
 
  • #63
I fully suppor the shoot to kill policy. It's long overdue.

When the subways are being bombed by religious neo-facists, you
better not bolt when the police tell you to stop. And if you're wearing
a heavy coat in the hot weather on top of it then expect a hot slug.
 
  • #64
Antiphon said:
I fully suppor the shoot to kill policy. It's long overdue.

When the subways are being bombed by religious neo-facists, you
better not bolt when the police tell you to stop. And if you're wearing
a heavy coat in the hot weather on top of it then expect a hot slug.
He was wearing a 'sweat-shirt' with a zipper (fleece Jacket) and it was 20C - 68F.
 
  • #65
The Smoking Man said:
He was wearing a 'sweat-shirt' with a zipper (fleece Jacket) and it was 20C - 68F.

Ok. I'll retract the "expect a hot slug" part. The rest stands.
 
  • #66
Antiphon said:
I fully suppor the shoot to kill policy. It's long overdue.

When the subways are being bombed by religious neo-facists, you
better not bolt when the police tell you to stop. And if you're wearing
a heavy coat in the hot weather on top of it then expect a hot slug.

Hell yeh, and while we are at it, why not introduce Marshal law, and sign all our rights away to the government so they can better protect us, Orwell style! :smile:

The police made a big mistake, another innocent life was lost, the people who did this should be made accountable! Twichy police with Guns only plays into the hands of the terrorists!

You can't go around "shooting" people on the subway without very good reason (Its just not Brittish! :smile: ) ... I'll admit he shouldn't have run, but what is wrong with using a stun gun, until they were 100% sure of the guys motives!
 
  • #67
Antiphon said:
Ok. I'll retract the "expect a hot slug" part. The rest stands.
M'kay ... I don't advise you run for a train then.
 
  • #68
The Smoking Man said:
There is an option you have failed to enter into the poll ...

"Raid the house for which they had the address 24 hous before."

If they thought this was where the bombers may be originating from and they had an address, why didn't they go in and clear the premises?
I haven't read the whole thread yet, but so far this option definitely gets my vote.
 
  • #69
BobG said:
I could definitely see a handover from one team to the other contributing to this. In fact, I can practically imagine the conversation about the suspect and the slowly rising stress as it dawned on them that they might be facing a terribly critical decision instead of just accomplishing routine surveillance.
Good point, BobG - if there was a breakdown of communication at the point of the handover then this could have been a huge contributing factor.
 
  • #70
loseyourname said:
Someone points a gun at me, I'm putting my hands in the air.
Perhaps this would have been the wisest thing to do if we were living in different times, loseyourname, but according to some information located by TSM this would not guarantee you your life any more (this is what I mean about there no longer being rule by law):
...

The SAS members defended their actions in court by claiming all three made threatening moves — either to grab a weapon or to trigger a bomb — in the split second before they were shot. Witnesses, however, claimed they saw two of the IRA members put their hands in the air before they were shot, while a third was "finished off" when lying on the ground.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050726/ap_on_re_eu/shoot_to_kill_2
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #71
russ_watters said:
Here, Art, I'll make it easier for you. http://www.acpo.police.uk/asp/policies/Data/firearms.pdf are the ACPO guidelines. Please show me where it says that police officers may shoot to disable only - ie shoot without the reasonable expectation of killing the target.
You show me where I said police may shoot to disable only. Please don't start creating strawman arguments yet again :rolleyes:

The object of the police is to negate a threat, not to kill the person they believe to be the threat. The guidelines go to great lengths to point this out. Here's some quotes from the ACPO guidelines.

Article 2 – Right to life
“1. Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of acourt following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.
2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of the
Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely
necessary:

The test of using ‘force which is no more than absolutely necessary’ as set out in Article 2 (2) of the European Convention on Human Rights, should be applied in relation to the operational discharge of any weapon.

Officers should constantly assess the need for any further action depending on the threat posed.

In keeping with the principles of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)
the rights of all people must be considered, including those of the subject. Each individual’s right to life is absolute. However, potentially lethal force may be used if it is absolutely necessary for the legitimate aims outlined in Article 2 of the ECHR.
The reason there is currently a hot debate running on this subject in the UK is because the objective has shifted from incapacitating the target to killing him / her in the case of suspected suicide bombers. The new guidelines even have a name Operation Krakos.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #72
Probably just hearsay, but i saw on GMTV this morning michael howard talking about the shoot to kill policy (only whilst dealing with suspected terrorists) and he said that it has been in place for just over 3 years now.
 
  • #73
Oh and for british weather 20 degrees celsius is heat wave.
 
  • #74
Andy said:
Oh and for british weather 20 degrees celsius is heat wave.
Look, my father was of the original knotted hankey set and we went to the beach not to get a tan but to neutralize the blue.

I also know that Billy Connoly talks about the safety announcements on the oil rigs in the North Sea.

"Three minutes in this water and you will die of Hypothermia" ... "And all the time my Mam was 20 miles away on the beach saying, 'Oh, yah big Jessie, go in and have a swim'.

Now, tell a Brazilian 20C is hot.

Take a walk through Southall some time and see what the Girls are wearing over their Punjabi Suits. A lot of it has designer labels like 'North Face'.
 
  • #75
That brazilian had been living in the UK for quite a few years now, he would have been used to the temperature's over here.
 
  • #76
The Smoking Man said:
What part of Alabama are you from where you unload a full clip into the base of a skull of a man being pinned to the ground by two other policemen? This gun was a Glock 18: http://www.glock.com/g18.htm

You do realize that a Glock 18 has a magazine that has 31 bullets?

Even the rednecks around your place might choose to stop before the face and dental records completely disappeared.

Please recognize something ... these were not typecal police men. They were not even the usual suspects who get handed a weapon for standard use.

These were a special tactical unit for terrorist responses.

A glock 18 IS NOT STANDARD ISSUE.
Oh for the love of... even when I'm more or less in agreement with you on an issue you just have to find some reason to insult me and argue with me I see.

I don't know how these officers were trained. I was just mentioning a policy here that may have some parallel there. Perhaps they are trained to loose a certain number of bullets when shooting to kill and in the tension of the moment the officer reacted on instinct and the training that has been ingrained in him without really thinking. Perhaps even he simply did it because he was too caught up with adrenaline and such that he wasn't terribly aware of the number of rounds he had shot.

I Don't Know. And I agree that this was a bad reaction in the situation so lay off with the insults, if you don't mind.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #77
TheStatutoryApe said:
Oh for the love of... even when I'm more or less in agreement with you on an issue you just have to find some reason to insult me and argue with me I see.

I don't know how these officers were trained. I was just mentioning a policy here that may have some parallel there. Perhaps they are trained to loose a certain number of bullets when shooting to kill and in the tension of the moment the officer reacted on instinct and the training that has been ingrained in him without really thinking. Perhaps even he simply did it because he was too caught up with adrenaline and such that he wasn't terribly aware of the number of rounds he had shot.

I Don't Know. And I agree that this was a bad reaction in the situation so lay off with the insults, if you don't mind.
Sounded more like you were making excuses to me.

Like 'That's pretty common in these here parts'.

It also follows that dead men tell no tales ... or sue for compensation.

His parents will though and they have already been offered something as a settlement.

What can I say but so solly ... don't know if you noticed but it has got a bit heated in here and I just reacted to an absurdity. :blushing:

You have to admit ... I have Andy trying to convince me it was okay to shoot this guy for being a terrorist partially because he was guilty of not being used to the temperature and having the audacity to wear a sweatshirt when it was 68 degrees F.
 
Last edited:
  • #78
Art said:
Yes they have. As of February this year I believe. Russ seems to believe this was always UK policy.
One wonders if maybe they picked up a few other tricks from the israelis
 
  • #79
Art said:
You show me where I said police may shoot to disable only. Please don't start creating strawman arguments yet again :rolleyes:
You're the one who started the argument, Art, not me. If that isn't what you meant, why are you disagreeing with me?

My point (again) was that you cannot shoot someone in the leg (for example) for the purpose of disabling them. Any shot taken is classified as "deadly force" because the potential exists to kill the person.

Your new claim is regarding this supposed new "shoot-to-kill" policy and you haven't provided one iota of evidence that it exists. Ie, that police can/must continue shooting until the target is dead (and not just no longer a threat). Such a policy wouldn't even make sense since it would require the officer to check the pulse of the person they shot, then fire again until there isn't any pulse.
 
Last edited:
  • #80
Art said:
The reason there is currently a hot debate running on this subject in the UK is because the objective has shifted from incapacitating the target to killing him / her in the case of suspected suicide bombers. The new guidelines even have a name Operation Krakos.
Sorry Art, I simply won't take your word for it that such a thing exists. I need to see the evidence. Post a link.

A google search for "operation krakos" produces precisely zero hits.
 
  • #81
Since a single shot to the head is more than enough to kill a man, the fact that the police-officers shot 5 is ample proof that they were just trigger-happy boys with poor judgment.

That they also are liars, do not exonerate them.
Every single one of them, along with their superiors deserve jail-for-life.


These types of individuals are a disgrace for any police force.
 
  • #82
And if he had a bomb they would be hero's yet he didnt and they are a disgrace. Don't be soo naive.
 
  • #83
Andy said:
And if he had a bomb they would be hero's yet he didnt and they are a disgrace. Don't be soo naive.
He didn't have any bomb. Don't insinuate that he did have one. Don't be paranoid.
 
  • #84
russ_watters said:
Sorry Art, I simply won't take your word for it that such a thing exists. I need to see the evidence. Post a link.

A google search for "operation krakos" produces precisely zero hits.
Dum
Roy Ramm, former Met Police specialist operations commander, said the rules for confronting potential suicide bombers had recently changed to "shoot to kill".

One terrorism expert said if the shooting was carried out by police - rather than special forces - it would represent a "pretty big departure" for the UK force.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4707781.stm de dum
UK police defend shoot-to-kill in hunt for bombers

LONDON (Reuters) - British police on Sunday defended a policy of shooting to kill suspected suicide bombers despite killing a Brazilian electrician by mistake in the hunt for attackers who tried to set off bombs in London. "I think we are quite comfortable that the policy is right, but of course these are fantastically difficult times," London police chief Ian Blair told Sky Television.

Asked if police instructions were to shoot to kill suspected suicide bombers, he said: "Correct. They have to be that."
http://www.metronews.ca/reuters_international.asp?id=85501 de dum
"If you are dealing with someone who might be a suicide bomber, if they remain conscious, they could trigger plastic explosives or whatever device is on them," said London Mayor Ken Livingstone. "Therefore, overwhelmingly in these circumstances, it is going to be a shoot-to-kill policy."
de dum
Scotland Yard police headquarters refused to discuss operational tactics. But security experts said officers were operating under revised guidelines.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=968218&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312 de dum
POLICE POLICY ON SHOOTING

Met Police chief Sir Ian Blair has warned that more innocent people could be shot by police while the four suspected suicide bombers remain on the run.

He remained defiant over the new "shoot-to-kill" policy and said his officers had to make terrifying, quick and life-threatening decisions.
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,15410-13394645,00.html

ad infintum.....

The reference to the new policy being called operation Krakos came from an aticle I read re a statement from a member of the British gov't but I can't find the link now. However perhaps there is enough in the examples above to convince you there has been a change in policy on use of deadly force.

Edit: - Apologies for my mis-spelling; Smurf has kindly pointed out it is Operation Kratos
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #85
arildno said:
He didn't have any bomb

That wasn't known until it was too late.

And as this poll seems to be showing most people would have shot in that situation, despite the police in general being dubbed trigger-happy boys.

A fatal build-up circumstances on the part of the victim and their actions?
Police incompetence in planning and coommunication?

These are issues I believe.
 
  • #86
Delta said:
That wasn't known until it was too late.

And as this poll seems to be showing most people would have shot in that situation, despite the police in general being dubbed trigger-happy boys.

A fatal build-up circumstances on the part of the victim and their actions?
Police incompetence in planning and coommunication?

These are issues I believe.
There wasn't a single, valid piece of evidence that he ever had any, apart the fact that he was dark-skinned (which actually is invalid).

The so-called "reasons" given in the aftermath, are just a bunch of lies as to what actually happened.

These "officers" showed that at the actual shooting, they had lost all sort of control over their own emotions (that is why they shot 5 times, rather than a single, well-aimed shot).
It is no reason to suppose that they were in any better control of their emotions prior to their execution of an innocent.
 
Last edited:
  • #87
arildno said:
There wasn't a single, valid piece of evidence that he ever had any, apart the fact that he was dark-skinned (which actually is invalid).

He ran from armed police towards a train full of passengers having just left a building under surevliance in a jacket that didn't suit the weather conditions. Again evidence can only be sought after the event.

arildno said:
just a bunch of lies as to what actually happened.

Any sources?

arildno said:
that is why they shot 5 times, rather than a single, well-aimed shot.

I understand this is in the protocol to shoot five times as one shot is not always garaunteed to be on target to kill the brain.

I still find the actions of the officer justifiable, as shown in this poll, its events prior that should be questioned.
 
  • #88
Delta said:
He ran from armed police towards a train full of passengers having just left a building under surevliance in a jacket that didn't suit the weather conditions.
They were in civilian clothes. They say they identified themselves, but that is a complete and utter lie.

He was an innocent, remember that!. He didn't have any bomb on him; nor was he involved in any type of drug traffick; nor was he an illegal immigrant.
In fact, he was in a steady job as an electrician.

He would not have run from policemen who identified themselves in a proper manner towards him.


Hence, it follows that they did NOT identify themselves in a proper manner, but started chasing him as a gang of murderous thugs (which is actually what they were).
If they are saying they followed proper procedure, they are simply lying.
 
Last edited:
  • #89
They say they identified themselves, but that is a complete and utter lie

Where you at the crime scene?

He would not have run from policemen who identified themselves in a proper manner towards him.

So you knew de menzes very well then i gather?

but started chasing him as a gang of murderous thugs (which is actually what they were).
If they are saying they followed proper procedure, they are simply lying.

Anybody have any idea what the procedure was that they where following?
 
  • #90
By this, you have shown that you are utterly unable to:

a) Distinguish verified FACTS from STATEMENTS given by police officers.
I.e, the actual info on De Menzes has been verified, the statements of the policemen involved as to what happened has no independent verification

b) Gauge what is the most probable scenario based solely on FACTS.

Learn to think for yourself, rather than gobble up whatever statements figures of establishment choose to give you.
 
  • #91
Art said:
The reference to the new policy being called operation Krakos came from an aticle I read re a statement from a member of the British gov't but I can't find the link now. However perhaps there is enough in the examples above to convince you there has been a change in policy on use of deadly force.
That's because you spelled it wrong.
Operation Kratos
 
  • #92
Where are these facts that you keep talking about arildino? All i can see around here is speculation.
 
  • #93
Let us take this in detail:
PART 1
Delta said:
He ran from armed police
A severe distortion of reality, since it without foundation insinuates that De Menzes knew they were from the police:

A)The most common reason why people run from others, is that they are frightened by the others, or don't want the others to catch up with them.

B)The second most common reason is that the person is just running, but not running away from these others (i.e, it was a misperception that he was running away from anyone)

C) There has not surfaced any evidence that De Menzes ran away from the police other than due to some reason falling under either A) and B).
Thus, it is most probable that the reason is to be found either under A) or B), and of those the most probable is that his reason falls under A)


Does anyone disagree with this?
 
  • #94
Andy said:
Where are these facts that you keep talking about arildino? All i can see around here is speculation.
So, it was a speculation on my part that he:
1) Didn't have a bomb on him?
2) That he had work permit in the UK?
3) That he had no criminal record, nor no evidence has surfaced that he was engaged in criminal activity?
4) That he held a steady job as an electrician?
5) That he was shot in the head 5 times?
 
  • #95
No speculation, you get 100% top marks :-)

I read somewhere that the train was about to leave the platform? Perhaps he was running to catch the train...

I can't believe people are actually defending the actions of the police.. really amazes me...
 
  • #96
Still waiting for Andy's admission that I have posted lots of facts..
 
  • #97
arildno said:
He was an innocent, remember that!.

arildno said:
1) Didn't have a bomb on him?
2) That he had work permit in the UK?
3) That he had no criminal record, nor no evidence has surfaced that he was engaged in criminal activity?
4) That he held a steady job as an electrician?

How many times! None of this was known at the time.
 
  • #98
I think de menzes was just a scared young man in the wrong place (leaving the flat/apartement/house) at the wrong time. He pannicked and because of that it made the officers assume that he was a terrorist.

With hindsight it is easy to judge, but these guys had to act as quickly as possible to try and prevent another disaster from happening. If the police officers did not react the way they did then de menzes would still be alive.

But ask yourself this, If de menzes had been a terrorist with a bomb hidden under his jacket and the police failed to stop him reaching the subway, then he could have killed hundreds of innocent people. And the police would be being blamed for that aswell.

As much as i think the whole operation was a big **** up, i still believe that it is the only course of action that those officers could have taken at that time under those circumstances.
 
  • #99
I Propose a new poll:

Poll: You are a brazilian electrician who is late for work, you are late for work and the train is almost leaving, you hear someone screaming at you but you don't understand what they tell you so you keep running... What do you do?

1. You get 5 shots in the forehead
2. You get killed with 5 shots in the head
2. You are take down to the ground and shoted 5 times in the head.
 
  • #100
None of your facts have any relevance on why he was shot.

He didnt have a bomb, well if he was a suicide bomber and he did have a bomb it would be pretty stupid to ask him wouldn't it.

Terrorists don't need work permits.

He could have been a a saudi construction worker for all they knew.

How could they check his criminal record when they didnt know who he was until after the incident?
 

Similar threads

Do Movies Teach Us Realistic Life Skills?
Replies
1
Views
10K
What are some interesting facts about America's history and government?
Replies
20
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top