Shoot To Kill Policy Correct?

Originally posted by shaunybaby
the police have not always had a shoot to kill policy. it's only recently the police have even been carrying hand guns. as for the officers losing their jobs...they got off lightly.

What?
Ever heard of SO-19?
Been around for years.
That group has always had the shoot to kill policy.
Also , if a man kills 4 people and then attempts to kill another but an officer shoots him dead, should the officer be charged for murder?

so why let him get in a crowded area in the first place? they followed him for atleast 10 minutes untill he reached the tube, he even got on a bus. they had so many chances to arrest this man quietly.

They where watching him, when he got ot the tub station they would have got really worried and no doubt acted.
b

it's not an eye witness statement, that's called a post-mortem, which details were released to the man's family.

7 shots to head does not mean they where fired while he was held down.

''if he did act''... what does that mean?

If he was going to blow himself up they would take him down.

there's only one action a suicide bomber makes and that is to blow himself up.

Yeah and if he was they would have stopped him.

if police thought this guy was a threat or were following him then why did they not arrest him as he left his house, as he got on the bus, as he left the bus etc etc etc. also if they wanted to talk to him...why wait untill he's in a crowded area?

They where watching him, you dont always act first then ask questions when dealing with a threat.
When he got the tube station they would have got worried incase he was part of something bigger like 7/7 or 21/7.
The police acted in defence of the citizens around them, what would you prefer?
40 dead or 1 dead?

the 'police' have not always had a shoot to kill policy. as i said they only just got handguns. it's only recently that the police have been patrolling with handguns.

Also , if a man kills 4 people and then attempts to kill another but an officer shoots him dead, should the officer be charged for murder?

that's neither here nor there and has nothing to do with the topic in question. if there is no threat from the 'man who killed 4 people' then i don't think the officer should shoot him. however, if the man threatened police then the officer would be within all his rights to shoot the man dead.

They where watching him, when he got ot the tub station they would have got really worried and no doubt acted.

If he was going to blow himself up they would take him down.

Yeah and if he was they would have stopped him.

i'm not sure you're really thinking about this too much. time and time again people are saying on this forum that the man could have blown himself up in a split second, hence there would be no warning. so no the police cannot wait for the suicide bomber to make any sort of move. if they were worried when he got in to the train station, then why not make the arrest during the 10 mintutes it took him to get there??

7 shots to head does not mean they where fired while he was held down.

eye witness statements are consistent that the man fell/tripped/pushed down and then the shots were fired. you may be able to discount one or two statements but there are numerous accounts of the man falling and then the police fired. according to you this man took shots in his head, yet carried on running??

They where watching him, you dont always act first then ask questions when dealing with a threat.
When he got the tube station they would have got worried incase he was part of something bigger like 7/7 or 21/7.
The police acted in defence of the citizens around them, what would you prefer?
40 dead or 1 dead?

the police didn't need to take lethal action when dealing with this threat. they could have quietly approached the man before he got anywhere near the tube station, two plain clothed officers behind him apprehend him, grabbing an arm each...problem solved. the police were not thinking, the were incapable of rational thought, the whole opporation was a sham. even the initial 'shouting' of the police...why shout?? why not go up to the man quietly grab his arms... what are they hoping to do by shouting, apart from scaring the public around and scaring the brazilian guy?

i would prefer 0 dead. saying 'what would you prefer, 40 or 1 dead?' does not make the killing of an innocent life right, nor does it justify it.

[url=http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050726/ap_on_re_eu/shoot_to_kill_2;_ylt=Aq9YC99i6jvAhe551pDT7XW9Q5gv;_ylu=X3o'___'BiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl]source[ /url]

Throughout the 1980s, undercover police and soldiers repeatedly ambushed IRA units — and killed both unarmed IRA members and civilians in the process. Those events inspired decades of legal action and international criticism, particularly from Irish Americans, who argued that deadly force was not justified.

Now, as then, the questions bedeviling the British government and their security forces are twofold: When is it defensible, legally and morally, to shoot a suspected terrorist? And what should the punishment be when an operation goes too far?

British authorities have denied ever sanctioning a "shoot-to-kill" policy in their campaign against the IRA, which killed 1,800 people and repeatedly bombed towns and cities in England and Northern Ireland before calling a cease-fire in 1997.

In about a dozen ambushes, British security forces exceeded their shooting rules in bitterly disputed circumstances that mirror Friday's slaying in London of Jean Charles de Menezes, a 27-year-old electrician.

While British troops targeted Irish guerrillas, police have said the killing of Menezes was a tragic mistake. He was shot eight times on a London Underground carriage.

Another major difference is that today's al-Qaida-inspired extremists appear willing to blow themselves up, while IRA members never intended to be suicide bombers.

But the British army's elite Special Air Service mounted several brutally effective ambushes that involved covert SAS units watching IRA members. They opened fire, allegedly, only at the moment that an IRA member picked up a gun or committed another action that could threaten the lives of others.

The biggest ambush happened in October 1987, when an SAS unit acting on an informer tip-off surrounded a village police station that the IRA planned to bomb. The soldiers did allow the IRA unit to blow up the station, then obliterated all seven IRA men with more than 600 rounds of ammunition. They also killed an innocent Catholic civilian wrongly identified as part of the gang.

The SAS fueled an international furor in March 1988, when it trailed an IRA unit to the British territory of Gibraltar, and shot to death three IRA members at close range. All three had been planning a bomb attack on a British military parade but were unarmed when killed.

The SAS members defended their actions in court by claiming all three made threatening moves — either to grab a weapon or to trigger a bomb — in the split second before they were shot. Witnesses, however, claimed they saw two of the IRA members put their hands in the air before they were shot, while a third was "finished off" when lying on the ground.

The British army mounted its last lethal ambush in Northern Ireland in 1992, when four IRA men were gunned down after raking a police station with machine gun fire.

problem is that u are dealing with unpredictable enemy that are willing to die, so theres the problem of if the person is trying to blow him or herself up. its war, and civilians do get involved in the crossfire because terrorists usually do not follow the rules, and cheating is the best way to win, in a way. terrorists aint stupid to wear uniforms. and right now we seen people willing to blow themselves up, so if u in a position where u are a police officer and the guy refuses to surrender and is trying to run or getting ready to press the button, shooting a person does not automatically kill him or her and could still take somebody with them to paradise. its controversial but thats how the world works wen dealing with terrorism.

"Shoot to kill", if you want to term it that, is perfectly justified in my opinion and I don't think this one event, tragic as it is, can change that. The shooting in Stockwell was the result of so many differing factors that it is extremely unlikely to be repeated. Those of you talking as if in London you run the risk of having yourself shot in the head simply because you had your ipod up loud and didn't hear the police are so misguided it is unture.

You will not get shot by armed police simply for having you ipod turned up rather loud. You might get shot, tragically, however if you had your ipod on loud and also:

1) Live at an address associated with the prime suspects in an attempted suicide attack in London the day before.
2) Decide to wear a thick padded jacket in 25C heat.
3) Have an expired visa and as such are living in the UK illegaly.
4) Ignore explicit orders from armed police officers.
5) Take off like a greyhound and run into the nearest tube station.
6) Vault the ticket barriers.
7) Run down the escalators and throw yourself on to the tube that just happened to have pulled into the station.

You'd have to consider yourself extremely unlucky to tick all those boxes though, and tragically this bloke did.

As for shooting to disable or to knock detonators out of hands or the like? Anyone suggesting this as some kind of idea has simply been watching too many movies. We actually live in the real world.

Shooting the suspect in the head is making the best of a bad job, it is the only half practical way to deal with a suicide bomber, it is designed to eliminate the threat. The fact that the suspect is dead at the end of it is incidental.

Would any member of the public could get away with those sort of justifications for Murder? (he dressed funny, moved too fast, looked like an Asian, might have been a bomber)

No.

How are we supposed to respect authority when those in authority operate at a lower moral standard than we do?

We can't.

Some of you people who are supporting the killing are (IMO) here because you love violence and death. . . . . it excites you and for many of you this site is just a way of satisfying your lust for violence. You don't actually want peace.

Well I must say that after a long absence from ATS, I am suprised upon my return to find some people who claim to support this "shoot to kill policy".

An innocent man is shot dead (and joins many other slaughtered innocents) because politicians have abandoned over 2000 years of carefully thought out legal principles.

Lets not forget that the proponents of these so called "anti-terror laws", assured us that "Innocent people have nothing to be concerned about".

And to all those who think our police forces (whether in the UK, the US or here in Australia) can be trusted with this absurd power, lets not forget that these same police forces have been found guilty of drug dealing, gun running, graft, murder, verbaling planting evidence, framing innocent people.......a long list of diabolical crimes

And not just once or twice, but found guilty frequently over many many years.

And not just an isolated police force, but the majority - in nearly every major city in the western world.

And YOU trust these people?

How much easier is it going to be for crooked cops to murder people when all they have to say to avoid being called to account is, "I thought she had a bomb"



[edit on 26-7-2005 by thepresidentsbrain]

Originally posted by shaunybaby
the 'police' have not always had a shoot to kill policy. as i said they only just got handguns. it's only recently that the police have been patrolling with handguns.

They had them after 9/11 and in some areas before that.

that's neither here nor there and has nothing to do with the topic in question. if there is no threat from the 'man who killed 4 people' then i don't think the officer should shoot him. however, if the man threatened police then the officer would be within all his rights to shoot the man dead.

So what about the poor number 5 man? Leave him to die?
This has everything to do with the topic since this is about self defence of others.

i'm not sure you're really thinking about this too much. time and time again people are saying on this forum that the man could have blown himself up in a split second, hence there would be no warning. so no the police cannot wait for the suicide bomber to make any sort of move. if they were worried when he got in to the train station, then why not make the arrest during the 10 mintutes it took him to get there??

They where worried when he entered the station, once he crossed that barrier he became a threat.
Also I dont think they wanted him onto a tube incase he did kill himself in 2 seconds.
Even if you cant stop them , you can atleast get info to stop the next lot.

eye witness statements are consistent that the man fell/tripped/pushed down and then the shots were fired. you may be able to discount one or two statements but there are numerous accounts of the man falling and then the police fired. according to you this man took shots in his head, yet carried on running??

You would be suprised at what the human body can take.
If he fell and was reaching into his jacket then as you said, he could have been trying to blow himself up in half a second.
So in that half a second the police acted.

the police didn't need to take lethal action when dealing with this threat. they could have quietly approached the man before he got anywhere near the tube station, two plain clothed officers behind him apprehend him, grabbing an arm each...problem solved. the police were not thinking, the were incapable of rational thought, the whole opporation was a sham. even the initial 'shouting' of the police...why shout?? why not go up to the man quietly grab his arms... what are they hoping to do by shouting, apart from scaring the public around and scaring the brazilian guy?

What???
Quietly calm the guy down?
That might work in a normal situation BUT this was by no means a normal situation.
A) They observed him from his house; this means he was under suspiscion but was not a threat so no need for aprehension.
B) He entered a station; a suspected terrorist walks into an area known to have had 2 major attacks before, this brings the "wait a minute" metre up to yellow.
C) After being stopped he ran towards a crowded area; if he was a terrorist he would be going after the most casualties so a crowded tube train is perfect.
D) He did not respond to officer commands; if a man with a weapon shouts at you to stop, you stop. Period.
E) He was struggling with the officers even though they displayed police signatures (hats); possibly going for a bomb, action needed.

i would prefer 0 dead.

That doesnt happen in the world, people cant take the risk of have 41 people dead rather than 1.
If this had happened before 7/7 , he would be alive.

saying 'what would you prefer, 40 or 1 dead?' does not make the killing of an innocent life right, nor does it justify it.

Oh really?
So defending someone from a very real and possible threat is now a crime?
Guess what , its not.
I'm sorry, I do see how you would like this to go, believe me I used to believe in it.
But you have to relise , officers need to react and make a decsion when lives might be in danger, good or bad they have to make a decsion.

Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart

Would any member of the public could get away with those sort of justifications for Murder? (he dressed funny, moved too fast, looked like an Asian, might have been a bomber)

Theres a bit more than the way he loooked to this.
No normal person is a suspected terrorist and no normal person jumps barriers and dives onto a crowded train while police are following him.

How are we supposed to respect authority when those in authority operate at a lower moral standard than we do?

What?
The police barly have any powers , You relise now that they are very restricted in what they cant do and how they do it.

Some of you people who are supporting the killing are (IMO) here because you love violence and death. . . . . it excites you and for many of you this site is just a way of satisfying your lust for violence. You don't actually want peace.

Your opinion is flawed.
I feel sad for this mans death but he has himself and the terrorists of 7/7 + 21/7 to blame.
I for one hate violence, shouting alone I dont like.
IMO you hate police, thats the only reason I can come up with.

thankyou for messing up the width of the thread deltaboy, not only do i now need to scroll up and down but you've very nicely made me have to scroll left and right

i've heard people use the argument in justifying 'shoot to kill' by saying, ''what would you prefer, 40 dead or 1 dead''. using this ideology is like saying, what would you prefer, 40 dead or 10 dead?... surely that's just the same? 10 innocent people dead to save 40...surely that's alright? no. it's just as absurd as saying one innocent life is o.k to take, if it could have prevented 40, when it turns out there was no threat in the end.

A) They observed him from his house; this means he was under suspiscion but was not a threat so no need for aprehension.

why wait untill there is a threat, that is my whole point. you don't need to wait untill the guy gets on a train. they should have arrested him and searched him as soon as he came out of his house.

[edit on 26-7-2005 by shaunybaby]

Originally posted by shaunybaby
thankyou for messing up the width of the thread deltaboy, not only do i now need to scroll up and down but you've very nicely made me have to scroll left and right

sure no problem, think of it as an extra exercise for yer wrist. try to fix the link but didnt work. ill try fix it again later on.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
i've heard people use the argument in justifying 'shoot to kill' by saying, ''what would you prefer, 40 dead or 1 dead''. using this ideology is like saying, what would you prefer, 40 dead or 10 dead?... surely that's just the same? 10 innocent people dead to save 40...surely that's alright? no. it's just as absurd as saying one innocent life is o.k to take, if it could have prevented 40, when it turns out there was no threat in the end.

What?
You'd prefer to see everyone dead than 10 dead?
Ever heard of the needs of the many outwiegh the needs of the few?
One life is not ok to take but it needs to be done sometimes, in WW2 would you have prefered the entire british army to have died on dunkirk or most of it got away while a few had to stay?
Or mabye if there's only enough food for 20 people and 10 people have to starve?
There was no threat in the end BUT there was a very possible threat at the start and frankly to save how many lives there was on that train plus the other officers there I would shoot that man.
He didnt follow orders and he acted just like a terrorist would, that makes him a threat.

Originally posted by devilwasp
He didnt follow orders and he acted just like a terrorist would, that makes him a threat.

wrong. a terrorist/suicide bomber upon hearing the shouted words 'stop, or stop police', would have blown himself up there and then. suicide bombers are not fussy, as long as they take atleast one life, not including their own, they have doen their job. on that day, if there was a suicide bomber police would not have had a chance to shoot him as the man would have already blown himself up.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
wrong. a terrorist/suicide bomber upon hearing the shouted words 'stop, or stop police', would have blown himself up there and then. suicide bombers are not fussy, as long as they take atleast one life, not including their own, they have doen their job. on that day, if there was a suicide bomber police would not have had a chance to shoot him as the man would have already blown himself up.

Uh no, a suicide bomber would have gone for the tube, why?
Bigger casualties. They are not stupid and will not give up thier lives worthlessly in the name of thier god.
It brings no honour to thier god.

some kid in Idaho that was hopped up on crack got shot, and died, for attacking a police officer with a knife.

The kids perents had called the police ofrce asking for someone to restriane their hopped up son. The offircers show up, and as they proceed to the door, the kid charges out of the bushes. The police fire, and the kid dies

The perents are now sueing the local police deparment for a large amount of money.

Who is in the wrong in this True story

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer
This alone is definitely a "party line" handed out to the public at large. How many people have forgotten Ben Franklin's words that, "Those who exchange freedom for security deserves neither"? Or, as an alternative, which I did mention already, is that the national intelligence agencies share info about known terrorists on the local level, so that "msitakes" like this will be less likely to happen.

Party line? It's my personal opinion not some party rhetoric that i'm spouting. Indeed your stance could be similar to a conspiracy theorist chasing shadows when there are none. Perhaps i could use the phrase "better to be safe than sorry". Or how about these following quotes...

"Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security." - Edmund Burke

"The superior man, when resting in safety, does not forget that danger may come. When in a state of security he does not forget the possibility of ruin. When all is orderly, he does not forget that disorder may come. Thus his person is not endangered, and his States and all their clans are preserved." - Confucius

The problem i would guess in disclosing known terrorists to the general public is that it could expose their operatives and contacts. If their activities were only known to a handful of people it wouldn't force them to go underground and disappear. Don't you think if their identities were released they wouldn't try and change their appearance perhaps?

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer
In the end, the government (at least in the US) is sworn to an oath to "defend & uphold the Constitution" & if that very government seeks to countermand any portion of it does not deserve to continue operating under those conditions. In the end, the government (federal level anyway) is suppossed to provide protection against invasion, not be a source & cause for innocent citizens to die.

By not giving up certain liberties are we not giving the Terrorists more free reign in which to operate? Would it not simply give them more unrestricted access to conduct their business? For instance the issue of I.D cards has caused a lot of controversy here in the UK. Since people believe that the Government could misuse them and 'spy' on the general public. However if they can be used to better track criminals and terrorisrs would it serve us better in the end? If i'm correct they were used successfully to track the Madrid Bombers, which may have taken longer otherwise and possibly incurred more attacks.

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer
If you need additional security, provide it yourself, for yourself instead of depending on an ineffectual governmental system that seeks only to undermine your freedoms & liberties.

How would one provide 'personal safety' as you suggest? It is the Government who have the intelligence and resources to tackle Terrorists, nt us. It would surely be a waste of Tax payers money if they didn't ensure the security of the nation and the population, the responsibility of Government is to the PEOPLE first.

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer
Unfortunately, USA has the same problem with our government...Offering to trade our liberties for their security, when the government has no right to compromise our liberties for any reason. So, in essence, my comparison to Hitler's SS is becoming more & more accurate by the day.

Again i have to disagree, the comparison to Hitler's SS is grossly unfair. We do not have a Reichssicherheitshauptamt, Totenkopfverbände, Einsatzgruppen or Gestapo that engages in genocide or any other illegal acts. Nor are we even remotely headed towards creating/forming such organisations.

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer
Take note of the idea of "plastic boxcutters" used aboard the planes on 9/11.

I assume you meant they were not detected? But then didn't news come out that they weren't even searched properly by security? Who clearly weren't doing the job they were suppose to be.

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer
Sure, EMP could knock out any electronic bomb trigger...And also knock out computers, telephones even watch batteries anywhere within its field of effect...Then again, not only would that threaten all electronic devices in the area, but it would also encourage terrorists to start using mechanical triggers on different types of explosives...Such as a match introduced at the gas pumps.

There is EMP protection, i believe that due to their construction some buildings have a natural 'farraday cage' employed within their construction. However i was talking about limited/very localised EMP that could be used against an individual/group with harming the surrounding environment, if at all possible.

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer
You see what I'm getting at? The government...Indeed, no government...can come up with any type of effective protection against terrorists. So you must provide for your own security & strive to keep your civil liberties intact. By letting your government take away your liberties, you encourage them to become tyrants, just as bad (or worse) than the terrorists themselves.

I admit there isn't a final or total solution to the Terrorism problem, but by continiously harassing Terrorists and employing new methods in which to track, detain perhaps kill them and stop their ability to kill it makes life harder for the Terrorists. We cannot just say "our liberties are more important, therefore we mustn't change them". Wouldn't such a 'free' and unrestricted society make it even easier for Terrorists to committ their acts of terror? What would you propose?

The justifications for this "shoot to kill policy" - shoot some one in the head to stop them detonating a bomb - is simply absurd.


We have all seen the movies where the terrorist holds the world to ransom, red sticks of dynamite strapped to his chest, the red LED flashing onimously, his finger hovering over the bright red button - in this situation, a fatal shot to the head MIGHT prevent innocent deaths.

However the justification becomes absurd when one considers some of the many ways of detonating a device:



Dead man switch - where the bomb explodes if the person takes his finger OFF the button. (like after being shot)

Mercury tilt switch - where the bomb explodes if the person collapses (like after being shot)

Delayed detonation cancel switch - where the bomb explodes if the person DOSN'T press the switch at regular intervals. (like after being shot)

Heartbeat monitor switch - where the bomb explodes if the persons heart stops. (like after being shot)

Gunfire detection switch -where the bomb explodes at the sound of a gunshot. (like the one to the head)

OK this is just a few. Anyone with half a brain could think up many more ways to detonate a bomb that would thwart the police officer and his "shoot to kill" policy.

Add to this that the trigger (switch) could also be radio linked to a remote bomb located in a crowded place and you have a "shoot to kill policy" that is a recipe for disaster


So if you want to know who the "anti-terror laws" really benefit and who is really behind the bombings maybe you might like to look at these exellent documentaries from the BBC


www.propagandamatrix.com...

Its better to take the risk of saveing peoples lives rather than just letting it happen.
Period, and BTW a ste which has "propaganda" in the name I dont find very believable.
I would also like to see the actual BBC links and mabye some back round evidence to those videos before I believe them.

Here are the links devilwasp.

"In the concluding part of the series, the programme explains how the illusion was created and who benefits from it"

news.bbc.co.uk...

news.bbc.co.uk...

news.bbc.co.uk...

All they tell you is how its spun, thats all...
Terrorism is real, just how real and dangerous is the question....

Originally posted by devilwasp
All they tell you is how its spun, thats all...
Terrorism is real, just how real and dangerous is the question....

Terrorism is real alright devilwasp. But the real question is - WHO ARE THE TERRORISTS?