Police on shoot to kill
22 July 2005, 10:14 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: The Sunshine State !!!
Posts: 1,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Police on shoot to kill
Looking at the current stories surrounding Thursday and Today it seems that armed police are on a shoot to kill order [though not confirmed].
Personally I think it's good. Though it has flaws. My opinion is the police should do whatever they can to protect civillians. In this case it seems they had some cause to open fire and if they guy was trying to detonate a bomb then reasonable force was used.
I'm sure there are a few that disagree.
Roo
Personally I think it's good. Though it has flaws. My opinion is the police should do whatever they can to protect civillians. In this case it seems they had some cause to open fire and if they guy was trying to detonate a bomb then reasonable force was used.
I'm sure there are a few that disagree.
Roo
23 July 2005, 12:01 AM
#2
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Here and there but mainly here...
Posts: 6,738
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe the ruling is that if police believe that the suspect is about to detonate a bomb then they are instructed to shoot to kill on the grounds that it will save the lives of the people nearby.
23 July 2005, 12:29 AM
#5
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mmm, despite what I have seen in the news, I'm not convinced the police have a generic "shoot to kill" policy. Generally speaking, when shooting someone, you aim for the centre of mass (the torso). This gives the greatest chance of hitting your target because even the best marksman may not hit their point of aim.
Forget the Hollywood bull$hit about shooting someone in the legs with a pistol at 500 yards.
To "shoot to kill" with a pistol, you have to be damned close, and utterly convinced that it is the last possible resort. With the recent court cases surrounding armed police, I doubt any of them will be prepared to put 5 shots into a person from point blank range (as has been reported).
If the shooting today was performed by a secret service type character, then we are talking a whole different ball game.
Forget the Hollywood bull$hit about shooting someone in the legs with a pistol at 500 yards.
To "shoot to kill" with a pistol, you have to be damned close, and utterly convinced that it is the last possible resort. With the recent court cases surrounding armed police, I doubt any of them will be prepared to put 5 shots into a person from point blank range (as has been reported).
If the shooting today was performed by a secret service type character, then we are talking a whole different ball game.
23 July 2005, 12:29 AM
#6
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: In the garage or in bed
Posts: 7,278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by darren...
I believe there were about 10 of them - but I'll pay for half the round if you like...
Trending Topics
23 July 2005, 01:24 AM
#9
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Kaiser Soze
I pray for a day that our law enforcers carry firearms visible for all to see 
23 July 2005, 01:42 AM
#10
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Epsom
Posts: 5,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Scooby Roo
.....it seems that armed police are on a shoot to kill order [though not confirmed].
23 July 2005, 07:46 AM
#12
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: The Sunshine State !!!
Posts: 1,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Jerome
Mmm, despite what I have seen in the news, I'm not convinced the police have a generic "shoot to kill" policy. Generally speaking, when shooting someone, you aim for the centre of mass (the torso). This gives the greatest chance of hitting your target because even the best marksman may not hit their point of aim.
Forget the Hollywood bull$hit about shooting someone in the legs with a pistol at 500 yards.
To "shoot to kill" with a pistol, you have to be damned close, and utterly convinced that it is the last possible resort. With the recent court cases surrounding armed police, I doubt any of them will be prepared to put 5 shots into a person from point blank range (as has been reported).
If the shooting today was performed by a secret service type character, then we are talking a whole different ball game.
Forget the Hollywood bull$hit about shooting someone in the legs with a pistol at 500 yards.
To "shoot to kill" with a pistol, you have to be damned close, and utterly convinced that it is the last possible resort. With the recent court cases surrounding armed police, I doubt any of them will be prepared to put 5 shots into a person from point blank range (as has been reported).
If the shooting today was performed by a secret service type character, then we are talking a whole different ball game.
The reason why they used 5 shots was that the handguns they use have low velocity bullets to prevent serious injury...or death to the public.
Roo
23 July 2005, 07:49 AM
#13
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Armed police will shoot to kill any time they are forced to open fire. In the case of suspected suicide bombers they are now trained to go for a head shot instead of the torso shot, which is normal which might detonate the bomb.
Les
Les
23 July 2005, 07:53 AM
#14
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 922
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite rightly the SOP is now shoot to kill if it is believed the suspect is about to detonate a bomb. There is no other option for obvious reasons.
Well done to the police yesterday,their gloves are clearly off now and not a day too early. I just hope the PC do-gooders don't start demanding enquiries/prosecutions because some scumbag Muslim terrorist had his human rights infringed by a hail of bullets.
Well done to the police yesterday,their gloves are clearly off now and not a day too early. I just hope the PC do-gooders don't start demanding enquiries/prosecutions because some scumbag Muslim terrorist had his human rights infringed by a hail of bullets.
23 July 2005, 08:35 AM
#15
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Home to a T25 and a WRX PPP
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it was in any way linked to the regiment or military CQB trained I would have expected a double tap, 5 shots? nah, two to the head, rapid succesion, anyone who thinks any policy but a shoot to kill policy exists will believe the shoot to disable line, side effect being killed, tough but if life is considered to be at risk then that risk of killing has to be taken.
23 July 2005, 08:52 AM
#16
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A young asian guy is shot dead in london for running away from 3 guys with guns dressed in civilian clothing.
The police had 3 guys on top of the lad! Why shoot him 5 times?? he was already restrained! He did not have a bomb on him. He may have not understood english, not everyone in london can!
I think there will be hell to pay over this and the 3 policemen should be suspended following investigation.
They cant go shooting every young asian guy in london because they 'believe' him to be carrying a bomb!
The police had 3 guys on top of the lad! Why shoot him 5 times?? he was already restrained! He did not have a bomb on him. He may have not understood english, not everyone in london can!
I think there will be hell to pay over this and the 3 policemen should be suspended following investigation.
They cant go shooting every young asian guy in london because they 'believe' him to be carrying a bomb!
23 July 2005, 09:06 AM
#17
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Jaguar 3.0 sport now bought, Am loving it!!!!!
Posts: 7,653
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mitchy260
A young asian guy is shot dead in london for running away from 3 guys with guns dressed in civilian clothing.
The police had 3 guys on top of the lad! Why shoot him 5 times?? he was already restrained! He did not have a bomb on him. He may have not understood english, not everyone in london can!
I think there will be hell to pay over this and the 3 policemen should be suspended following investigation.
They cant go shooting every young asian guy in london because they 'believe' him to be carrying a bomb!
The police had 3 guys on top of the lad! Why shoot him 5 times?? he was already restrained! He did not have a bomb on him. He may have not understood english, not everyone in london can!
I think there will be hell to pay over this and the 3 policemen should be suspended following investigation.
They cant go shooting every young asian guy in london because they 'believe' him to be carrying a bomb!
No Sorry they wore visable police flak jackets on and if he had nothing to fear Why did he run?? Well done boys in blue, If I knew who you were as Huxley said I'll buy you a pint, It's about time this scum knew what they were dealing with.
Cheers
Colin
23 July 2005, 09:10 AM
#18
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,759
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He was followed out out a flat being watched, he was already a suspect ,he went into the a packed tube ,every body knows the command STOP POLICE even non english speakers
The police did the right thing
Difficult times require extreme measures
Thankfully it seems the police are now using them
The police did the right thing
Difficult times require extreme measures
Thankfully it seems the police are now using them
23 July 2005, 09:11 AM
#19
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wouldn't you run from 3 'civilians' with guns.
Where did it say they were wearing police flak jackets? Hardly undercover if they were and why not just wear police uniform?
The guy may have been completely innocent. No bombs found on body i would assume he was!
5 shots into him when he was restrained! Surely by bundling on top of him they would have felt if he was wrapped in explosives?
If he was followed out of a flat, why wait until he was in a populated area and not deal with him as he left his residence?
This will now be an excuse for the jihad mob to react!
Where did it say they were wearing police flak jackets? Hardly undercover if they were and why not just wear police uniform?
The guy may have been completely innocent. No bombs found on body i would assume he was!
5 shots into him when he was restrained! Surely by bundling on top of him they would have felt if he was wrapped in explosives?
If he was followed out of a flat, why wait until he was in a populated area and not deal with him as he left his residence?
This will now be an excuse for the jihad mob to react!
Last edited by Mitchy260; 23 July 2005 at 09:14 AM.
23 July 2005, 09:24 AM
#21
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mitchy260
A young asian guy is shot dead in london for running away from 3 guys with guns dressed in civilian clothing.
The police had 3 guys on top of the lad! Why shoot him 5 times?? he was already restrained! He did not have a bomb on him. He may have not understood english, not everyone in london can!
I think there will be hell to pay over this and the 3 policemen should be suspended following investigation.
They cant go shooting every young asian guy in london because they 'believe' him to be carrying a bomb!
The police had 3 guys on top of the lad! Why shoot him 5 times?? he was already restrained! He did not have a bomb on him. He may have not understood english, not everyone in london can!
I think there will be hell to pay over this and the 3 policemen should be suspended following investigation.
They cant go shooting every young asian guy in london because they 'believe' him to be carrying a bomb!
This from Scotsman shows otherwise.
The Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, said the shooting was "directly linked" to an ongoing and expanding anti-terrorist operation: "I need to make clear that any death is deeply regrettable, but as I understand the situation, the man was challenged and refused to obey police instructions."
It appeared, however, that the man was not one of the four identified by police in the CCTV images. Police said that he had been "under police observation because he had emerged from a house that was itself under observation because it was linked to the investigation of [Thursday's] incidents".
"He was then followed by surveillance officers to the station. His clothing and his behaviour at the station added to their suspicions."
23 July 2005, 09:34 AM
#22
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In a court of law, 'I thought' isn't good enough!
Did he ignore the warning as they were dressed as civilians or did he have trouble understanding english?
Weren't the police officers prosecuted for the incident where they shot a man believed to have been carrying a shot gun when it was indeed a table leg!
Why shoot 5 rounds into him! Not 1 or 2 but 5!
Why did they kill him as he was restrained with 3 men on top of him! You would be able to feel if he was wrapped in explosives! Why did they jump on him if they 'believed' he was a suicide bomber? Why not shoot him from a distance to protect themselves?
Lots of questions that probably wont be answered.
Did he ignore the warning as they were dressed as civilians or did he have trouble understanding english?
Weren't the police officers prosecuted for the incident where they shot a man believed to have been carrying a shot gun when it was indeed a table leg!
Why shoot 5 rounds into him! Not 1 or 2 but 5!
Why did they kill him as he was restrained with 3 men on top of him! You would be able to feel if he was wrapped in explosives! Why did they jump on him if they 'believed' he was a suicide bomber? Why not shoot him from a distance to protect themselves?
Lots of questions that probably wont be answered.
23 July 2005, 09:58 AM
#24
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Hants
Posts: 1,489
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mitchy260
A young asian guy is shot dead in london for running away from 3 guys with guns dressed in civilian clothing.
The police had 3 guys on top of the lad! Why shoot him 5 times?? he was already restrained! He did not have a bomb on him. He may have not understood english, not everyone in london can!
I think there will be hell to pay over this and the 3 policemen should be suspended following investigation.
They cant go shooting every young asian guy in london because they 'believe' him to be carrying a bomb!
The police had 3 guys on top of the lad! Why shoot him 5 times?? he was already restrained! He did not have a bomb on him. He may have not understood english, not everyone in london can!
I think there will be hell to pay over this and the 3 policemen should be suspended following investigation.
They cant go shooting every young asian guy in london because they 'believe' him to be carrying a bomb!
23 July 2005, 10:01 AM
#25
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Stamford
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by warrenm2
Who said it was the Police? Much more likely to be SAS, police dont tend to use pistols, SO19 tend to use an MP5....
Considering the guy could have had a bomb, was headed for the underground where the bombers have been targeting, linked to the fact that the bombers accept they will die in the process ............. what real choice did the guys giving have exactly????????????? It could have been a very different report on the news, with more INNOCENT people blown up.
23 July 2005, 10:11 AM
#26
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Taff107
"....and the award for **** of the year, goes to....."
Innocent until proven guilty or does that not count for young asian lads!
No bomb= no threat
23 July 2005, 10:19 AM
#27
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Mitchy260
A young asian guy is shot dead in london for running away from 3 guys with guns dressed in civilian clothing.
The police had 3 guys on top of the lad! Why shoot him 5 times?? he was already restrained! He did not have a bomb on him. He may have not understood english, not everyone in london can!
I think there will be hell to pay over this and the 3 policemen should be suspended following investigation.
They cant go shooting every young asian guy in london because they 'believe' him to be carrying a bomb!
The police had 3 guys on top of the lad! Why shoot him 5 times?? he was already restrained! He did not have a bomb on him. He may have not understood english, not everyone in london can!
I think there will be hell to pay over this and the 3 policemen should be suspended following investigation.
They cant go shooting every young asian guy in london because they 'believe' him to be carrying a bomb!
This suspect had been trailed due to beliefs he was linked to the Oval tube bombing. It was 72 degrees outside and he was walking around in a very heavy/thick coat heading for Stockwell tube station, right next to the oval tube station. They had very good reason to believe he was about to detonate anohter bomb carried under his coat. Once he started running they had no choice but to follow. As for the restraint, they had just jumped on a bloke who they thought had explosives wrapped round him, they didn't have a choice to search him unless they wanted to risk him detonating any possible device and being blown sky high with him so they shot him dead to eliminate that risk.
You are a fool if you think they had any other choice ffs.
23 July 2005, 10:26 AM
#28
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shot an innocent you mean
No bomb was found FFS.
Why let him walk into the rail network when he had been pursued from his home address? Why not deal with him on his doorstep?
Your the fool if you think its alright to go gunning down 'innocent' people.
We dont live in israel ffs
The coppers will be suspended due to further investigation! I'd put my house on it!
No bomb was found FFS.
Why let him walk into the rail network when he had been pursued from his home address? Why not deal with him on his doorstep?
Your the fool if you think its alright to go gunning down 'innocent' people.
We dont live in israel ffs
The coppers will be suspended due to further investigation! I'd put my house on it!
Last edited by Mitchy260; 23 July 2005 at 10:30 AM.
23 July 2005, 10:30 AM
#30
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Farnborough, Hants
Posts: 917
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by DocJock
If they are operating a blanket "shoot to kill" policy then they are very, very stupid.
I find it hard to believe personally.....
I find it hard to believe personally.....
How often do you ever hear of police pulling the trigger in this country...a couple of times a year maybe??? They must have had a damn good reason this time round.....but shoot to kill, no way.....the bloke is much more useful as a source of intelligence to stop further problems