The current climate in the War against terrorism has risen to new heights in the domestic World. We have had, in the UK major attacks and also plenty of scares/false alarms.

The security forces of our nations have got their work cut out in trying to protect us all.We have our forces in Iraq and elsewhere, which leaves the police and secret service personnel to sort out the issues regarding the terrorists. This leads me onto the next paragraph.

The shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes by either the police or special forces proves how jittery as a nation we have become. He was shot because he ran away when asked to stop. The fact he ran away is open to speculation, but the fact is, and still remains that a 'shoot to kill' policy was enforced. I understand why they shoot to kill, so as not to detonate any suspected bomb wrapped around the suspect.

I was discussing this last night over a beer with some friends, when one of them said ' if a deaf person was running for the tube because he was late for work etc. would the security forces have shot him?' Obviously he wouldn't have heard any warning from them, and would have continued towards the tube train. OK, this was just a scenario, but it could happen.

Basically, is a 'shoot to kill' policy the right thing to do? I have my own opinions of this issue, but would be interested to hear others opinions of this.

hi Eddie,

yeah, i personally think there right to shoot to kill, aiming at the head, if the bombs hit by a bullet in a body shot.....its going to go tit's up.....

its an interesting and some what distressing idea of the deaf guy running for the train, i totally see your point but lets remember this guy jumped down escalators and vaulted a barrier...(apparentley)....even if he was deaf, he was acting super weird at a time when police are on the look out for anything even slightly suspicious.

regards.

Cheers
Like i said, it was just a scenario, but it could happen. Scary stuff though eh?

The guy who ran was allegedly acting suspicious. IE, he ran and vaulted as you said. Why do that if you have nothing to hide?

I do know that when they shoot to kill, they shoot to the head. Either through the mouth or the back of the neck shooting upwards to destroy the spinal nerve. This will undoubtedly stop any detonation of any explosive by the person with his finger on the pressle.

The mistaken London shooting was a tragedy, but I don't fault the police nor the shoot to kill policy. This is a war on terror and unfortunately there will be some collateral damage.

The best advice is not to run away from cops...

Edit, went off topic,



[edit on 24-7-2005 by asala]

I didnt want this to get onto the shooting on Friday, though it does have some relevance to what i asked.

Is a 'shoot to kill policy' correct?

Originally posted by Bikereddie
Is a 'shoot to kill policy' correct?

I think it is, in the limited situation of a suspected terrorist on the mass transit system who could kill dozens of people.

Shoot to kill is very right. In this type of situation you shoot first and ask questions later. Sorry for the short post.

OK, shoot to kill is right in the current climate of things, but if you shoot to kill , how do you know you have killed the right person? After all, you cannot ask questions later once they are dead.

I suppose this is a very hard subject to be able to give a realistic answer to. Each of us has our own views on it.

It all goes back to 'how can you spot a terrorist?' No one can, even with evidence to back things up, mistakes can and will continue to happen, so do we carry on shooting people just in case they look like a terrorist or they have the wrong clothing on? Very very hard one to call.

I'm just glad that i don't have to make that decision.

Nice topic ed, as usual.

I think its needed, as one said, even a wounded terrorist is still a dangerours one.
But sometimes killing one everytime is stupid.
BTW
Can you send me a link to the post in your sig.

It should be "shoot to disable", "shoot to hurt", not "shoot to kill".

Death is final.

What if you had the wrong person, or there was confusion on your part. Shoot the perp's hands, shoot his legs out, don't take his life.

Originally posted by worldwatcher
It should be "shoot to disable", "shoot to hurt", not "shoot to kill".

Death is final.

What if you had the wrong person, or there was confusion on your part. Shoot the perp's hands, shoot his legs out, don't take his life.

The problem with this WW, is that a wounded terrorist can still set off a bomb by pressing a button or pulling a cord or whatever. Even bullets shot into a bomb could set it off. Therefore clear head shots to take out the person permanently seems logical.

Originally posted by worldwatcher
It should be "shoot to disable", "shoot to hurt", not "shoot to kill".

Death is final.

What if you had the wrong person, or there was confusion on your part. Shoot the perp's hands, shoot his legs out, don't take his life.

A wounded terrorist can still blow up, a wounded sniper can still take the shot, etc.

Originally posted by worldwatcher
What if you had the wrong person, or there was confusion on your part. Shoot the perp's hands, shoot his legs out, don't take his life.

The problem if he's a suicide bomber, and he's disabled he'll just blow himself which might still do some damage

i understand the logic, but i rather shoot a guy's hand, and jump him and take my chances, rather than have a death on my hands that could be unjustified. If i go with him, at least I'd be a hero.

did anyone think that perhaps that Brazillian dude probably didn't speak english? while we here are all informed about current events, there are many people who never watch or read news and know nothing about what is going in the world other than their daily lives.

If the Brits are going to have a shoot to kill policy, they need to make it a public campaign to inform everyone what is happening, not only on tv news and radio, but in flyers, posters etc... heavy campaigning before actually taking action. The situation there was definitely tragic and a shoot to kill policy will probably mean that more tragedies will occur.

Where you have a suspect with bombs strapped to his body, shooting to kill, and specifically head shots, make perfect sense.

If an unarmed/unstrapped suspect is merely running away, shoot to disable is the correct response.

The suspect that was shot was dresed suspiciously and did not respond to police orders. The police took the correct action ni that situation.

A deaf person running to get to work? I suppose it could happen. But then that person would not be vaulting turnstiles, IMO.

a little o/t but i thought British cops don't have guns and only their special operation forces carry weapons? a little clarification might help for me, and sorry for keeping tying the incident into your thread, but obviously it's relevant so it keeps coming back.

Other than from people who don't know much about firearms, I don't think I've ever heard of a shoot to wound policy. If you are justified in shooting someone, you are justified in killing them. I would hate to shoot someone in the leg, just to have them shoot me in the chest afterwards.

My personal policy is if I have to shoot someone, they will get at least two in the chest.