Originally posted by Bikereddie
This will undoubtedly stop any detonation of any explosive by the person with his finger on the pressle.
That's not taking into account the possibility of a "deadman's switch"...One that must be constantly pressed to prevent
the bomb from going
goal of a suicide bomber is to die anyway. Therefore, if someone is killed by a bullet to the head, then his hand relaxes &
Originally posted by boogyman
Simplicity in itsself "a dead man's switch". Killing the bomber would only result in the bomb detonating once the bomber stops applying pressure to
the switch when he is killed.
Granted, if there's some lunatic with a bomb strapped on, there's no way of knowing for sure whether he should be killed on sight or not. It's just
as easy to make a deadman's switch as it would be to make any other kind of switch. Killing such a terrorist would only set the bomb off, right on
Originally posted by djohnsto77
The best advice is not to run away from cops...
Even if you're not a terrorist with a bomb, but were "merely" a purse-snatcher with no weapons on you at all, wouldn't you want to run from the
cops too? Unfortunately, as the website The Darwin Awards
proves, an idiot will still be shot for such a minor
Originally posted by worldwatcher
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.
And we come back to The Darwin Awards website...Linked above...As proof of the ignorance of some people.
Originally posted by Bikereddie
Very very hard one to call.
Definitely...Because an arbitrary policy like "shoot to kill" cannot possibly
cover any other circumstance.
Originally posted by jsobecky
A deaf person running to get to work? I suppose it could happen. But then that person would not be vaulting turnstiles, IMO.
For example, your deaf man running to catch the train...He may have been valuting barracades to avoid missing the train. Then an innocent
would have been shot dead for no reason other than he happened to be running late (so to speak) to catch a train to work. So what kind of
Civil Rights would have been violated? The only thing I have against such a "shoot to kill" policy is that it's an arbitrary decision
can't begin to cover all the possibilities. This is just begging
for too many mistakes. Think of how a crooked cop could use that to his
However, in cases where the authorities actually see
something strapped to the suspect or the suspect actually displays some kind of weapon,
then there should be no question of shooting to kill. The suspect's intent & circimstances are already known. But there's still the question of a
Originally posted by koji_K
I have nothing against a shoot to kill policy if circumstances warrant it, but isn't the best weapon in the "war on terror"
However, such a failure of the nation's "intelligence" capability can also be faulted for not passing down info of
terrorists to the local authorities. Governments the world over are too "secretive", by instinct & reflex, to make sure that the
have some idea what's going on. The more people are made aware
, the more precautions they can take to avoid getting "caught in
crossfire"...Then again, you'll always have some
people just itching to qualify for a Darwin Award too...
Originally posted by Skibum
Another problem with a bomber using a dead man switch is that there is a good chance that the bomber accidentally detonating himself before he gets to
his intended target, one little slip and his mission is nowhere near as successful as he wanted it to be.
Pardon, but if I was some kind of fanatic terrorist bomber who had wired myself to blow up: As long as I knew beforehand that I had a deadman switch,
my fanaticism alone
would keep my hand on
that damn switch until I die...Even if I had to stay awake for a week
to do it. Even a
suicide bomber has enough "self preservation instinct" to stay alive, at least until he reaches his destination. Even if Jean had been such a
terrorist, he would've been running to avoid getting shot until he reached his destination
Originally posted by dom
I think one thing not discussed so much here is the undercover nature of the officers chasing this guy. Apparently he noticed he was being followed
and started to run. IF I was in London and I noticed 3 guys following me I'd probably run too. If they then shouted "police" at me I'm not sure if
I'd be convinced or not.
Same here...I wouldn't believe them until they showed their badges. Even then, if I had the chance, I'd be calling up the local Precinct to verify
his badge number. Anyone can convincingly flash a forged badge, even if it's only at a distance & flashing a cheap mock-up. Some actually
badges can be pretty convincing on close inspection...That's why I would call up to confirm that badge (if I have the chance, of
Originally posted by ubermunche
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.
Personally, I don't think our Police (& FireFighters too) are getting paid enough to do theri jobs...Because they face this same concern everyday
they show up to work
. Perhaps if Police were paid more, they'd even be less likely to go "corrupt" & start taking bribes, too...
I agree with what boogyman just posted above me...Every cop or fed agent has to be able to make snap-judgment calls for each & every situation they
face. Having a "shoot to kill" policy only enforces
the idea of "guilty until proven innocent" & violates everybody involved, whether an
actual terrorist is caught or not. This whole situation is just another example that indicates that the Terrorists are winning
to spread terror & they're succeeding at turning nations from lawfully-enforced freedom & liberty into states of enforced armed
barbarism. Denying basic civil rights to citizens is only making the terrorism worse, by allowing the law enforcement authorities to act as Hitler's
SS. Thus, terrorism spreads into the very fabric of society.
BTW, there's another thread
that discusses this topic & even has the news link to the
article that shows the man's innocence...I've just cross-linked the two threads together.
[edit on 25-7-2005 by MidnightDStroyer]