Is anyone else fed up with
#61
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by davegtt
Come on, its not like its happening every week. its been a month ago now since this happened. Every single 1 of us agree it was a tragic incident. No matter how many times I hear it on the news or read it on a forum will make it any less of a tragedy....
I'm not saying that there is no place for a S2K policy, I just don't see much benefit in the case of suicide bombers, it won't deter them, it may stop them, but equally it may well result in a detonation. On it's first outing the policy has been shown to have flaws, I think the benefits of suspending the policy and fixing them far outweigh any benefit we have from keeping them active as they are.
#62
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Next door to the WiFi connection
Posts: 16,293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
But it is being investigated so I fail to see your point? ![Confused](images/smilies/confused.gif)
Olly, theyre gonna detonate a bomb what ever happens. least theres a chance of stopping the bomb going off by shooting them int he head dont you think? the chances of a bullet setting the bomb off are quite small....
![Confused](images/smilies/confused.gif)
Olly, theyre gonna detonate a bomb what ever happens. least theres a chance of stopping the bomb going off by shooting them int he head dont you think? the chances of a bullet setting the bomb off are quite small....
#63
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The Terry Crews of moderation. P P P P P P POWER!!
Posts: 18,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by fast bloke
the news about de Menezes.
NS04
#64
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by davegtt
But it is being investigated so I fail to see your point? ![Confused](images/smilies/confused.gif)
![Confused](images/smilies/confused.gif)
Olly, theyre gonna detonate a bomb what ever happens. least theres a chance of stopping the bomb going off by shooting them int he head dont you think? the chances of a bullet setting the bomb off are quite small....
You now set it so that you have to keep a sprung switch depressed to stop the detonator going off. As soon as you get shot (head or otherwise) you'd release the pressure on the switch detonating the bomb (hence the term dead man trigger). The shoot to kill policy now guarentees the bomb is detonated, probably killing the officer doing the shooting at the same time. The policy has lost almost all its value as it is now known and can be countered accordingly. You still want the police shooting suspected bombers?
#66
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The Terry Crews of moderation. P P P P P P POWER!!
Posts: 18,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by OllyK
Think about this. Now they know there is a shoot to kill policy, what modification do you think they will make to the detonation mechanism?
Also I don't think its the effectiveness of the S2K policy in stopping a SB that's in doubt, its the circumstances under which it was enacted which would appear to have lead to an innocent being killed. i.e. it's not the watch that's broken, it was the decision to put it on!
NS04
Last edited by New_scooby_04; 23 August 2005 at 04:09 PM.
#67
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 1,219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by New_scooby_04
Then its a case of Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't surely. It then just becomes a question of who decides where the thing goes off, the police man or the suspect. Unless we're to believe that the suspect might have changed his mind and not gone through with it given no interference.
NS04
NS04
#68
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Disco, Disco!
Posts: 21,825
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Exclamation](images/icons/icon4.gif)
Originally Posted by New_scooby_04
Then its a case of Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't surely. It then just becomes a question of who decides where the thing goes off, the police man or the suspect. Unless we're to believe that the suspect might have changed his mind and not gone through with it given no interference.
NS04
NS04
In which case we might as well give up if we cannot prevent them from building the bomb or finding weak-minded-cowards to detonate them.
or
Option 2)
There will always be weak minded cowards who will do this so - Throw out all Muslims from the UK - you never know!
or
Option 3)
Shoot them in the head, they are gonna detonate it anyway best it is in a place/space of 'our' chosing as much as possible.
I vote for option 3
I still have faith in our Police (if not the judges and legal system).
I am sorry that young man died but sometimes sh*t hapens to people.
#69
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
If he had returned to Brazil when his visa expired then it seems pretty obvious to me that he would not have been shot - at least not by our coppers (i've read they're even more trigger happy over there).
So he was shot as a direct consequence of overstaying his visa limit in this country.
D.
So he was shot as a direct consequence of overstaying his visa limit in this country.
D.
#70
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by New_scooby_04
Then its a case of Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't surely. It then just becomes a question of who decides where the thing goes off, the police man or the suspect. Unless we're to believe that the suspect might have changed his mind and not gone through with it given no interference.
NS04
NS04
It also makes the point that the S2K policy is of little value any more, so if there is no benefit from having it, is it worth the risk to innocent people to maintain it in it's current form?
You also have to consider that there is no negotiating with a dead man. Assuming they change the trigger mechanism, a swift head shot is no longer a solution to the police. However, stalling a potential bomber and trying to engage him in dialog "may" allow you to establish what he has and disarm him or talk him out of it, not much chance, but more than shooting him.
#71
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 1,219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
just a damn horrid situation to be in...im off to iraq for the third time in november...cant wait...better not see anyone in a padded jacket or hes getting proper brassed up...!!!
#72
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by Paul Habgood
Option 1)
In which case we might as well give up if we cannot prevent them from building the bomb or finding weak-minded-cowards to detonate them.
or
Option 2)
There will always be weak minded cowards who will do this so - Throw out all Muslims from the UK - you never know!
or
Option 3)
Shoot them in the head, they are gonna detonate it anyway best it is in a place/space of 'our' chosing as much as possible.
I vote for option 3
I still have faith in our Police (if not the judges and legal system).
I am sorry that young man died but sometimes sh*t hapens to people.
In which case we might as well give up if we cannot prevent them from building the bomb or finding weak-minded-cowards to detonate them.
or
Option 2)
There will always be weak minded cowards who will do this so - Throw out all Muslims from the UK - you never know!
or
Option 3)
Shoot them in the head, they are gonna detonate it anyway best it is in a place/space of 'our' chosing as much as possible.
I vote for option 3
I still have faith in our Police (if not the judges and legal system).
I am sorry that young man died but sometimes sh*t hapens to people.
#74
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The Terry Crews of moderation. P P P P P P POWER!!
Posts: 18,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by brihoppy
they know all about the shoot to kill policy anyway...its standard in theatres such as iraq and afghanistan to shoot suspected suicide bombers in the head if possible...you really are in a no-win scenario when dealing with them...!
NS04
#75
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by Dave!
If he had returned to Brazil when his visa expired then it seems pretty obvious to me that he would not have been shot - at least not by our coppers (i've read they're even more trigger happy over there).
So he was shot as a direct consequence of overstaying his visa limit in this country.
D.
So he was shot as a direct consequence of overstaying his visa limit in this country.
D.
#76
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 1,219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by New_scooby_04
If I understand it correctly, Std practice for armed officers is not S2K, it's "stop the threat"! Marksmen usually aim for the torso to minimise chances of missing and balance with stopping power! Unfortunately with SBs stopping them is not enough, as even a severely wounded SB may be able to flick a switch, thus the S2K- dead people can't operate butons! Actually, IIRC owning to advice from middle eastern police, instructions are even more gory, they operate a destroy the brain (DTB) policy to try and minimise the chances of an involuntary movement setting off a device. One shot to the medulla would be effective, but thats a difficult shot for a stationary target, let alone a moving one.
NS04
NS04
#77
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by New_scooby_04
If I understand it correctly, Std practice for armed officers is not S2K, it's "stop the threat"! Marksmen usually aim for the torso to minimise chances of missing and balance with stopping power! Unfortunately with SBs stopping them is not enough, as even a severely wounded SB may be able to flick a switch, thus the S2K- dead people can't operate butons! Actually, IIRC owning to advice from middle eastern police, instructions are even more gory, they operate a destroy the brain (DTB) policy to try and minimise the chances of an involuntary movement setting off a device. One shot to the medulla would be effective, but thats a difficult shot for a stationary target, let alone a moving one.
NS04
NS04
#78
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by brihoppy
yeah, thats what is SOP on suicide bomber briefs on pre deployment training these days...it is specific for suspected suicide bombers, and suicide bombers only...i know it doesnt take into account a dead mans trigger, but these are extremely unreliable and not in widespread use AFAIK...
#79
#80
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by Dave!
If he had returned to Brazil when his visa expired then it seems pretty obvious to me that he would not have been shot - at least not by our coppers (i've read they're even more trigger happy over there).
So he was shot as a direct consequence of overstaying his visa limit in this country.
D.
So he was shot as a direct consequence of overstaying his visa limit in this country.
D.
or as a direct result of coming to Britain in the first place.
Where does you logic end ?
#82
![Red face](images/icons/icon11.gif)
Originally Posted by OllyK
His visa status is irrelevant, the fact that it has turned out that his visa had expired, just happens to suit your bias.
If he had left the country when legally obliged to do so the British Police would not have shot him and this thread would not exist.
![Smile](images/smilies/smile.gif)
He did not deserve to be shot; of course he didn't, but the wrong place, wrong time circumstances were entirely of his own making! It's not that difficult to understand, surely??
Suresh
#83
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The Terry Crews of moderation. P P P P P P POWER!!
Posts: 18,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by OllyK
Sure, it just makes the point that intelligence is so important, something that was somewhat lacking in this case it would seem. .
Originally Posted by OllyK
It also makes the point that the S2K policy is of little value any more, so if there is no benefit from having it, is it worth the risk to innocent people to maintain it in it's current form? .
Originally Posted by OllyK
However, stalling a potential bomber and trying to engage him in dialog "may" allow you to establish what he has and disarm him or talk him out of it, not much chance, but more than shooting him.
a) They try and talk and SB does it anyway, lots die
b) They shoot and make a mistake, one innocent dies.
c) They shoot and get it right, eveyones happy, one SB dies
d) They shoot correctly SB has DMT and device goes off anyway (in my mind this is a very unlikely scenario, esp given the crudity of the devices used previously)...at least the police decided when best to do it, SB dies, so do innocents, but not as many as might have if SB had been allowed to do it at intended time, which, presumably, would have been planned to cause maximum carnage.
e)They shoot the SB when they could have been talked out of it talk, one SB dies.
What a horrid position to be in.
Originally Posted by OllyK
You also have to consider that there is no negotiating with a dead man. Assuming they change the trigger mechanism, a swift head shot is no longer a solution to the police. .
NS04
#84
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by Suresh
WTF. His visa status is totally relevent.
If he had left the country when legally obliged to do so the British Police would not have shot him and this thread would not exist.![Smile](images/smilies/smile.gif)
He did not deserve to be shot; of course he didn't, but the wrong place, wrong time circumstances were entirely of his own making! It's not that difficult to understand, surely??
Suresh
If he had left the country when legally obliged to do so the British Police would not have shot him and this thread would not exist.
![Smile](images/smilies/smile.gif)
He did not deserve to be shot; of course he didn't, but the wrong place, wrong time circumstances were entirely of his own making! It's not that difficult to understand, surely??
Suresh
![Mad](images/smilies/mad.gif)
#85
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by Suresh
WTF. His visa status is totally relevent.
If he had left the country when legally obliged to do so the British Police would not have shot him and this thread would not exist.![Smile](images/smilies/smile.gif)
If he had left the country when legally obliged to do so the British Police would not have shot him and this thread would not exist.
![Smile](images/smilies/smile.gif)
If he had left, who is to say he wouldn't have re-applied, been accepted and been in exactly the same place at the same time? While the events are sequential, the former did not cause the latter.
#87
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by New_scooby_04
Agreed, prevention is better than cure. But we don't know if there was an intelligence breakdown yet, or a communication breakdown, or an operational error, or all three!
I don't see that's a tennable argument. There are two issue here 1) the cirumstances under which s2k is enacted (critical of course) and 2 the effectiveness of s2k assuming correct threat identification.
Yes, but here police are merely acting on a worse case scenrio
a) They try and talk and SB does it anyway, lots die
b) They shoot and make a mistake, one innocent dies.
c) They shoot and get it right, eveyones happy, one SB dies
d) They shoot correctly SB has DMT and device goes off anyway (in my mind this is a very unlikely scenario, esp given the crudity of the devices used previously)...at least the police decided when best to do it, SB dies, so do innocents, but not as many as might have if SB had been allowed to do it at intended time, which, presumably, would have been planned to cause maximum carnage.
e)They shoot the SB when they could have been talked out of it talk, one SB dies.
What a horrid position to be in.
Ok, then see scenarios a, c d and e. Whats the worse case?
NS04
Yes, but here police are merely acting on a worse case scenrio
a) They try and talk and SB does it anyway, lots die
b) They shoot and make a mistake, one innocent dies.
c) They shoot and get it right, eveyones happy, one SB dies
d) They shoot correctly SB has DMT and device goes off anyway (in my mind this is a very unlikely scenario, esp given the crudity of the devices used previously)...at least the police decided when best to do it, SB dies, so do innocents, but not as many as might have if SB had been allowed to do it at intended time, which, presumably, would have been planned to cause maximum carnage.
e)They shoot the SB when they could have been talked out of it talk, one SB dies.
What a horrid position to be in.
Ok, then see scenarios a, c d and e. Whats the worse case?
NS04
b) That's bad news.
c) That's better news - but better yet to take them alive for questioning IMO.
d) Again - this should if possible be done in a controlled location or one where the impact will be at a minimum. A DMT is no harder to produce than an ordinary switch really, it's just sprung loaded.
e) Again - better to take them alive if we can
Potentially a, b or d depends on a host of other things, some of which I have covered above.
#88
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by Reality
No Suresh - this thread would exist as the British police would have shot the next dark skinned male to come out of the flats ![Mad](images/smilies/mad.gif)
![Mad](images/smilies/mad.gif)
#89
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by Stupid
why?
Unless of course they just thought "let's shoot the next commuter getting on a train" - but even our "intelligence" services would stop at that !
#90
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Croydon (ish)
Posts: 1,887
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
Im sick of this story.
Mainly because the media have jumped on it and used it to slate the Police from day 2 onwards. There has been no proof either way as to the events in Stockwell Tube station. But the media believe that the Met emptied 6000 shells into this guy. And report it as FACT. Which it clearly cant be at this time.
It was a **** up, without a shadow of a doubt. But the various media groups are getting sanctimonious about the whole thing with their reconstructions and leaked (read: Made up) reports.
Only a matter of time before the ITV news anchors (silent W
) hold Glocks and show how the Mets firearms officers killed the Brazillian guy, then shot 6 innocent kittens in the face for good measure! ![EEK!](images/smilies/eek.gif)
I hate the manipulation of our thoughts far more than anything else.
Mainly because the media have jumped on it and used it to slate the Police from day 2 onwards. There has been no proof either way as to the events in Stockwell Tube station. But the media believe that the Met emptied 6000 shells into this guy. And report it as FACT. Which it clearly cant be at this time.
It was a **** up, without a shadow of a doubt. But the various media groups are getting sanctimonious about the whole thing with their reconstructions and leaked (read: Made up) reports.
Only a matter of time before the ITV news anchors (silent W
![Wink](images/smilies/wink.gif)
![EEK!](images/smilies/eek.gif)
I hate the manipulation of our thoughts far more than anything else.
![Roll Eyes (Sarcastic)](images/smilies/rolleyes.gif)