London Shooting: What would you have do?

[The Smoking Man]

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 [Broken]

 

[Art]

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

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

 

[russ_watters]

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 [Broken]

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.

 

[russ_watters]

Well you'll never be able to say that again

Jeez, both of you - can you stop with the arguing for the sake of arguing? You're wrong too.

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.

 

[Art]

Jeez, both of you - can you stop with the arguing for the sake of arguing? You're wrong too.

I'm wrong? I didn't write the ACPO guidelines I'm just quoting them.

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.

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.

 

[russ_watters]

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?

 

[Art]

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.

 

[russ_watters]

These are the US guidelines, surprisingly the UK has it's own.

Indeed - please post the guidelines where it supports what you said. What you posted doesn't.

 

[Art]

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. :uhh:

 

[DM]

Hasn't the UK adopted 'Shoot-to-kill' policies by Israel?

 

[Art]

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.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

 

[Antiphon]

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.

 

[The Smoking Man]

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.

 

[Antiphon]

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.

 

[Anttech]

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 goverment so they can better protect us, Orwell style! :rofl:

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 cant go around "shooting" people on the subway without very good reason (Its just not Brittish! ) ... I'll admit he shouldnt have run, but what is wrong with using a stun gun, untill they were 100% sure of the guys motives!

 

[The Smoking Man]

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.

 

[alexandra]

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.

 

[alexandra]

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.

 

[alexandra]

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 [Broken]

 

[Art]

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

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.

 

[Andy]

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.

 

[Andy]

Oh and for british weather 20 degrees celsius is heat wave.

 

[The Smoking Man]

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'.

 

[Andy]

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.