News London Shooting: What would you have do?

[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 government so they can better protect us, Orwell style!

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! ) ... 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!

 

[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

 

[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.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

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.

 

[The Smoking Man]

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.

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.

 

[Smurf]

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

 

[russ_watters]

You show me where I said police may shoot to disable only. Please don't start creating strawman arguments yet again

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.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

 

[arildno]

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.

 

[Andy]

And if he had a bomb they would be hero's yet he didnt and they are a disgrace. Don't be soo naive.

 

[arildno]

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.

 

[Art]

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

 

[Delta]

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.

 

[arildno]

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.

 

[Delta]

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.

just a bunch of lies as to what actually happened.

Any sources?

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.

 

[arildno]

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.

 

[Andy]

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?

 

[arildno]

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.