Shoot To Kill Policy Correct?, page 3


Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times


reply posted on 25-7-2005 @ 02:05 AM by whita
Interesting questions.

Personally I have no problem with it as such. I think in any policy like this there will be "what if?" questions. However, all this talk about shooting to wound, disabling with a shot to the leg is to me rather niave. Aimed shots like that would likely pose more danger to the nearby public than the bomb, especially if they are on the move.

Just to clarify the comment on the shooting in NZ that was referred to. The reason for the comment about the police making no effort to "avoid him" was from memory because the guy advanced toward the policeman who shot him. It has been suggested that the cop could have simply stepped out of his way rather than shoot him. I don't intend to second guess the cop on that. In NZ a police officer that shoots someone gets to go through so much crap privately and publicly in the aftermath I doubt any of them would take the option if they felt they had any choice.

The bottom line to me in this whole debate is should you have to obey the law on pain of death. The answer is yes (imho). If a cop tries to pull you over while driving but you take off, proceding to run over some old lady crossing the street, who is to blame? We as a society seem to assume that blame lies with the police (certainly here in NZ) for not doing things differently. However if cop says stop you should stop, end of story. Obey instructions immediately and carefully and you are safe, mess with the "rules" and you could get shot. Your choice, not the cops. If someone dies because you choose to run from the police it is your fault not the police.

In the deaf person scenario above I think there certainly is a danger but it is minimal. "Minimal" doesn't mean it is a small danger, but I don't think this policy will mean that cops will shoot on sight/suspicion/ bad hair day because they feel like it. I am sure that the policy also has checks and balances in it to make less likely to impact the innocent. This guy wasn't spotted running, he ran from the cops. There is a big difference between the two. His choice.


reply posted on 25-7-2005 @ 02:34 AM by ubermunche
Originally posted by crisko
I don't know if it is the right thing to do in Britan, however here in the states is would be absolutely unacceptable. It would undermine our constitution, our judical process and the very foundation that our country is built on.

It would also mean that the Terrorists are winning, if they are not already. How would you have reacted to this 5 years ago? If there were no "London Bombings" and this occured, how would you feel about it? Likely not the same, maybe even a little outraged.

I used to want to visit London, not anymore. Might do the wrong thing, might not be able to hear the officers cause my iPod is on, or maybe not even notice them due to the noise / crowd. Hell, I may not even understand what they are trying to get at. Seems these sorts of things are all that are need to be executed in that country.

I guess I'll try the cheese and wine in France, as that's the most I'll have to worry about.


Right now this very morning tens of thousands of people are leaving their homes to commute into the city and at the back of their minds is the nagging possibility that they might not ever come back, or see their loved ones again. They will deal with this today, tomorrow and in the coming weeks and months to come because some evil ***** somewhere have made it their goal to bring about as much death and carnage as they can. There is a far greater risk of this happening compared to the frankly remote risk of you or any other visitor being 'executed' on our steets, whatever that means, and I'm grateful that there are those ,fallible as they may be, who are prepared to put themselves on the front line to try and afford us all some degree of protection.

Critcism is one thing but I'm tired of this knee jerk, emotive sniping. If you want street executions there are plenty of other places in the world where this occurs on a far more regular basis.


reply posted on 25-7-2005 @ 03:26 AM by crisko

Right now this very morning tens of thousands of people are leaving their homes to commute into the city and at the back of their minds is the nagging possibility that they might not ever come back, or see their loved ones again. They will deal with this today, tomorrow and in the coming weeks and months to come because some evil ***** somewhere have made it their goal to bring about as much death and carnage as they can.


It has always been like this. If it's not one group, it's another.



There is a far greater risk of this happening compared to the frankly remote risk of you or any other visitor being 'executed' on our steets, whatever that means, and I'm grateful that there are those ,fallible as they may be, who are prepared to put themselves on the front line to try and afford us all some degree of protection.


Really? How so? There are checks and balances in place to prevent acts of terror, sadly they don't always work, but they are in place. It will happen again, if not to your country then to another.

What checks and balances are there with these plain clothed cops? What system do they have in place to ensure they get the right guy, other than he is dark, running and has a back pack?

Maybe he had illegal drugs on him, maybe he had an unpaid traffic ticket, maybe is was foreign and scared and thought a random mob was after him. There are a hundred reasons I could think of, none of which warrant ending a human life. I'd rather lock them up and throw away the key, which my country does, that shoot first and ask later. Because in that siuation, there is not later. It's final.



Critcism is one thing but I'm tired of this knee jerk, emotive sniping.


Welcome to the club.


If you want street executions there are plenty of other places in the world where this occurs on a far more regular basis.


London isn't Bahgdad or Beruit.


reply posted on 25-7-2005 @ 04:12 AM by Cilandak
The problem with this incident was the cop's faulty intelligence had them believing this poor Brazilian was intimately involved in suicide terrorism, and then he kept on ticking all their boxes for them. Being Brazilian he felt the cold more so he wore what to a native would seem excessive clothing, just like terrorist with a vest full of explosives would. On being challenged, he fled into the tube system, as a terrorist on a mission might. Who knows why he did this? Ordinarily this would not have led to his fatal shooting, but at this point the cops in question thought they were dealing with an identified terrorist trying to carry out his mission, and shot to kill. The circumstances are very specific to this case and the error was in the initial intelligence that tagged this guy as a terrorist and predisposed the cops to view his actions from then on in a certain light.

In this context, where a suspect has been identified by intelligence as being intimately involved in suicide attacks and behaves as if he is about to carry out such an attack then a "shoot to immdeiately kill and not set off the bomb" policy would be appropriate. As far as I know most pistol's are not accurate enough to allow the shooter to aim for hands etc., and most shooters aim for the body because it is the largest target, and such hits are often fatal. Shooting for the head is a more difficult shot in most circumstances but is a specific requirement in the case of a suicide bomber for reasons already discussed. A disabling shot would be to the legs.

You've just got to hope that the intelligence you're using to inform your decisions is right or you end up shooting Brazillian electricians in cold blood.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>    ^^TOP^^