WAR: International Chiefs of Police Back Shoot-to-Kill Policy

The International Association of Chiefs of Police has issued new guidelines backing the policy that suicide bombers should be shot in the head; the same policy that was adopted in Britain after the 7/7 London bombings. The recommendations are the first out of the international organization that changes policy to suit a post-9/11 world.



The International Chiefs did the right thing here, I think the policy is a necessary one for the new world in which we live. Although there's certainly the possibility that some innocents could be killed, like what happened in London, the risk to life of allowing a terrorist to set off bombs is far greater.

[edit on 8/4/2005 by djohnsto77]

what a bunch of pathetic idiots to place the lives of their community in the assumption that terrorists are too stupid or cheap to spend the $1.25 it costs to manufacture a deadman switch. They must just like killing random people for sport.Hmmm, sounds like they are the terrorists.

I don't think the British police or the International Chiefs of Police did the right thing.

I think the execution of that young man was one of the most disturbing reactionary things I've seen take place.

Wait till your teenage son gets multiple rounds pumped into his head because he had his headphones on and didn't hear some one demand he drop to the ground - then we'll see how neat you think this is.

Terrorists 1, Freedom -1

[edit on 8-5-2005 by Valhall]

Need more coffee...I first read international chefs back shoot to kill policy. As a former chef myself and having had to deal with more than my fair share of drunk dishwashers, incomptent servers and obnioxious customers...I thought it was idea who's time had come.

``

this can only mean that the traditional knitted ski-mask is obsolete.

perhaps someone will introduce a line of various colored skin toned
head coverings.
these Kevlar* masks, having a impact absorbing substrate, would
give the impression the wearer was just another bald or head shaved person going about their business.

The markets' allready saturated with torso protection bulletproof vests,
this is part of the natural evolution of product. -wink-

Originally posted by Valhall
I don't think the British police or the International Chiefs of Police did the right thing.

I think the execution of that young man was one of the most disturbing reactionary things I've seen take place.

Wait till your teenage son gets multiple rounds pumped into his head because he had his headphones on and didn't hear some one demand he drop to the ground - then we'll see how neat you think this is.

Terrorists 1, Freedom -1

[edit on 8-5-2005 by Valhall]

Yes it was tragic what happened to an innocent man. However, as I have been reminded, that is the horror of war. The man ran during a time of fear among a city thus he caused confusion and panic. It was a terrible accident, accidents which are simply a part of war.

The policy seems appropriate and I suspect nothing new, just a re-statement.

Information from soldiers in Iraq and antiterrorist specialists in my milsim games groups say otherwise.

Most devices are timed, or even activated by remote if there's concern the bomber may chicken out. A friend who almost lost hearing permanently in one ear and had his driver injured by a bomber in Iraq found that device and others were manually operated. Seems they don't trust the bomber to not accidntally trigger a deadman by dropping the pickle or spoon too soon.

(two guys with M-16's and a mounted M-60 didn't stop the bomber until he was too close anyways. Basically the M-60 ground the guy up enough so he couldn't get closer) None attempted a head shot because they were trained to react with a "center of mass" aiming response.

Devices in car bombs, or deployed in Malaysia and Africa were either simple electrically detonated devices manually fired, or IEDs with cell phone triggers.

You gotta remember the point of devices like this isn't reliability, tactical results, or efficiency-it's terror. A failed device causes almost as much an effect. Also there's the psychology of the bombers. They want the ability to scream their war-cry and end it all with a definitive push button action.

If the terrorists change plans and incorporate deadman switches, then the CNS (central nervous system) shot makes sense because it allows you to stop the device before it gets to it's intended target. Destroy the guidance system, as it were, and the missile detonates elswhere. If a bomber is heading for a train or an airplane, forcing the device to explode before it gets into the confined space, or airborne, will definitely cause less casualties. On a plane, a small explosive kills everyone on board, hundreds. Set it off in a packed crowd and the same device kills half as many. Ugly arithmetic, but if instead of losing 200 you lose 100, it's a good choice.

If a hundred dead is still too many, then blame the terrorists in the first place for bringing the device. Not the officer in charge who is going to have to make that call, and suffer the guilt and the harassment from the Media after. I would not want to be in these officers' shoes.

Originally posted by Sistinas
what a bunch of pathetic idiots to place the lives of their community in the assumption that terrorists are too stupid or cheap to spend the $1.25 it costs to manufacture a deadman switch. They must just like killing random people for sport.Hmmm, sounds like they are the terrorists.

[edit on 5-8-2005 by Phugedaboudet]

Dead terrorists are ok. Dead non-terorrists absolutely 100% not ok unless you are a terrorist. I think if they want results, the terrorists will overcome their bravado issues and adapt quickly enough. In the meantime the innocent have to worry as much about being gunned down by their supposed protectors who may possibly trigger the device inadvertantly anyway and also fail to gain any meaningful information from the would be bomber. If one assumes that the terrorist are as lacking in commitment and intelligence as the "authorities," then perhaps the random shooting of anyone suspicious is justified. Why would that terrify anyone?

[edit on 7-8-2005 by Sistinas]

[edit on 7-8-2005 by Sistinas]