Shoot To Kill Policy Correct?

Originally posted by Mirthful Me

Originally posted by Bikereddie
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.

The mistake was in the term "shoot to kill." The "safe" term is "use of deadly force."

The terminolgy is correct. The British Government used the same words.

news.bbc.co.uk...

I'll rephrase mine to say shoot with intent to disable. Death as a result is a form of disabling.

4 hits out of 120 shots? Pathetic. It says more about the shooter's incompetence than it does about the difficulty of the task.

Originally posted by worldwatcher
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.

The British police have a special fire arms unit that do carry weapons. They are a minority in the police force, but can be called on when the need arises.
The regular police on the streets do not carry guns. They have batons and CS gas.

Originally posted by Bikereddie
The terminolgy is correct. The British Government used the same words.

news.bbc.co.uk...

The error I was pointing to was the British government's, no aspect of American government (city, county state or federal) would ever be so foolish to use the term "shoot to kill," and all of their officers are armed. I would suggest that this SNAFU was born of inexperience in the matter of an armed constabulary. I expect that inexperience is soon to be remedied.

it is the basic routine, if a suspect has been warned clearly but did not obey, you as a security enforcer have the right to shoot the suspect from his/her legs or foot, to immobilize the suspect. even then if the suspect continues to pose a threat the second shot whould be aimed to the torso to shock the suspect physically where s/he will lose consicousness. at this point the wounded suspect is taken care of by medics. the headshot should be the very last option.

however in case of a suicide bomber it is different if it is certain that the suspect is carrying a bomb, if you are a cop you cannot shoot an x person in the head and say " so what?, I thought he was a suicide bomber" since the trial and punishmnet is actually done by judges in courts.

Originally posted by Mirthful Me
The error I was pointing to was the British government's,

Fair point. No offence taken

Originally posted by Skibum
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.

The UK police have always had a shoot to disable policy.

Anyone who is wondering about whether or not the shoot to kill policy is correct would make up their mind rather fast if asked to find out by testing the policy on themselves.

Just run down the road, yell at yourself to stop, and then shoot yourself 5 times in the body.

This will convince you one way or the other

What I dont understand is why they would KILL a man who could provide them with more information.

The only reason I can see is if they thought he was a suicide bomber trying to detonate. Im sure you would see signs of this though.

So really, why did he have to be shot 5 times in the head ?

Originally posted by xu
it is the basic routine, if a suspect has been warned clearly but did not obey, you as a security enforcer have the right to shoot the suspect from his/her legs or foot, to immobilize the suspect. even then if the suspect continues to pose a threat the second shot whould be aimed to the torso to shock the suspect physically where s/he will lose consicousness. at this point the wounded suspect is taken care of by medics. the headshot should be the very last option.

In New Zealand the regular police shot dead (4 shots to the body) Steven Wallace, a drunk with a baseball bat. They did it from 5 metres away and made no attempt to disable him or avoid him. There were no bystanders present only the victim and the police. This was in a quiet town where terrorists don't exist (except for the Police)

Did you even read any of the monkey's postings?
How about signs on the entrance to every public transit station / stop:
"Don't run from the police, Deadly force authorized!"
Would that make you all warm and fuzzy?
The fact of the matter is that this guy was obviously going for the "Darwin award". Why on earth would you run from the police in the subway only two weeks after subway massacres occured? Ignorance? Living under a rock for two weeks? Nope. Language barrier? It seems this guy had lived in London for three years.... Guess not. Stupidity? Perhaps. OR
Criminal intent / Guilt. That's my guess...along with a dose of stupidity.

No matter how you look at it, The "deadly force" policy is absolutely correct in the current environment. Blowing a whistle at someone prepared to die is going to have little effect.

Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart
In New Zealand the regular police shot dead (4 shots to the body) Steven Wallace, a drunk with a baseball bat. They did it from 5 metres away and made no attempt to disable him or avoid him.

No attempt to avoid? Maybe your recollection is a bit fuzzy.

www.police.govt.nz
That Constables A and B retreated over a distance of 60 metres during which time WALLACE significantly reduced the distance between himself and Constable A from approximately 20 metres to approximately 5-6 metres.

www.police.govt.nz...

I expect a "well that's the police covering up what really happened" rebuttal.

If you are drunk, and armed with a deadly weapon (which a golf club is, it wasn't a baseball bat, which also is), don't chase after the police.

Words of Wisdom Monkeys, not just for how to keep yourself from getting "capped" anymore...

Well i am interested in the oringal concern of this thread with what would happen if a deaf person could not hear what is being said. I am profoundly deaf myself and have been following the debate on this very issue on some deaf forums i frequent:

s2.phpbbforfree.com...

(You need to log in to see this thread)

and also at RNID

www.rnid.org.uk...

www.rnid.org.uk...

Personally i side with the view that there will be casualties of war. But i think we could carry an emergency I am deaf card to show the Police in an emergency? In anycase no deaf person would be vaulting a ticket barrier....or wearing a heavy winter coat in the summer so hearing or deaf we have to use our common sense !! But it is a legitimate concern though !

And as additional aftethought perhaps our Police here in the UK could adopt an FBI style of uniform where they pull down the identity markings at the last minute during a raid etc to show who they are...

Originally posted by Mirthful Me

[i
No attempt to avoid? Maybe your recollection is a bit fuzzy.

www.police.govt.nz
That Constables A and B retreated over a distance of 60 metres during which time WALLACE significantly reduced the distance between himself and Constable A from approximately 20 metres to approximately 5-6 metres.

www.police.govt.nz...

They still shot him dead, when they could have disabled him.

Originally posted by Wirral Bagpuss
In anycase no deaf person would be vaulting a ticket barrier....or wearing a heavy winter coat in the summer

Surely this is nonsense!

A deaf athlete from the tropics might!

Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart

Originally posted by Wirral Bagpuss
In anycase no deaf person would be vaulting a ticket barrier....or wearing a heavy winter coat in the summer

Surely this is nonsense!

A deaf athlete from the tropics might!

Huh? Dont understand what you mean ! Were you joking

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.

Proten Here!

This is my first post on this site. In this war on terrorism, shoot to kill is justified. Base this on my military experience. Spent two tours in South Korea in the mid to late seventies. The South Korean goverment has been fighting a shadow war with North Korea for over 50 years! My last tour was being attached to the ROK military. It was impressed upon me by the senior officers that I worked with, no prisoners are taken! If you speak the wrong dialet, they plant you six feet under where you stand. They leave the bodies lay on the side of the road, or in the market place to serve as a reminder.

Originally posted by Dulcimer
What I dont understand is why they would KILL a man who could provide them with more information.

The only reason I can see is if they thought he was a suicide bomber trying to detonate. Im sure you would see signs of this though.

So really, why did he have to be shot 5 times in the head ?

Bingo. Exactly what I find troubling about this. I have nothing against a shoot to kill policy if circumstances warrant it, but isn't the best weapon in the "war on terror" intelligence? If they thought this man was a terrorist, why did they shoot him 5 times in the head... with a pistol? Requiring 5 separate, aimed shots?

If they were concerned that he was carrying a bomb, why didn't they stop him before he got to the train station, where presumably the police assumed he intended to detonate his bomb? They could have taken him out on the street. I know the neighborhood they were trailing him in, and the streets have people in them but they're not exactly teeming. Seems like it would have been safer to stop him before he got to a crowded area.

I'm not saying it was some kind of conspiracy, just that whatever cop shot him messed up in a big, big way.

-koji K.