Shoot To Kill Policy Correct?

Sure, it's the right policy...IF...they shoot somone who is guilty, but when an innocent is killed, there will all sorts of "what ifs..."

Witnesses said he was wearing a heavy padded coat when plainclothes police chased him into a subway car, pinned him to the ground and shot him five times in the head and torso in front of horrified passengers.

Why shoot? He was pinned?

[edit on 25-7-2005 by crisko]

Of course not...it was all done in the name of "national security."

Once the guys pinned cuff the man, Other wise it killing a un-armed man in other words colded blooded murder

At first I thought that this shooting was warranted then I actually thought about it. At first glance the most logical tactic to use when confronting a suicide bomber is to shoot the person dead before they have a chance to react in a manner that will eliminate the threat instantly (headshot in other words just like the police did). Then I thought from the perspective of a terrorist about how I would design my bomb to counter this tactic. 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.

In conclusion short of tackling the bomber and wrestling away control of the detonator like that hero Israeli Bus driver did there is no effective counter tactic against suicide bombers. Meaning a policy of "Shoot to Kill" as applied in this scenario as a antisuicide bomber tactic is unwarranted unjustified and in the end ineffective. The reasons behind why this man ran will forever remain a mystery because the secret died with him all that is certain is that he was shot for running away and running away is not an offence worthy of death at least not in any free nation.

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.

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.

Heres the problem with your "solution"...


Either way the bomb is going to go off.
You don't shoot the bomber he blows up the bomb, you shoot him the bomb goes off. What do you expect the police to do jump on the bomber and try to defuse the bomb before the guy gets a chance to set it off, its not going to happen, either the bomber pushes the button or releases the deadman switch and boom, game over.

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.

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.

If the guy had run away from uniformed armed police then I wouldn't have a problem with him being shot dead. But I'm not that surprised that people would run away from a casually dressed man waving a gun around...

In my opinion this was a bit of a cockup, although in general I don't have a problem with shoot to kill. As far as I'm aware British armed police have never had a policy of aiming at legs or arms, their policy is that they'll aim at the torso as it's the largest target. They're not shooting to kill, but by the time something has escalated to the point that the armed police are involved, it's kind of tough luck if you get shot in the chest.

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.

Oh my God !!!

What bomb are you talking about ?

Is it right to go out shooting "innocent" ppl just because you "THINK" he might be a terrorist ?
Sorry, but the brazilian event just proved how unprepared the british police is.

EVERYONE is innocent till it proved he is guilty.

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.

In all this discussion has anyone noticed that at first all the eyewitness reports said that the man was shot only in the torso, and that now all the new news reports contain eyewitness reports which state that the man was shot only in the head?

Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart

In all this discussion has anyone noticed that at first all the eyewitness reports said that the man was shot only in the torso, and that now all the new news reports contain eyewitness reports which state that the man was shot only in the head?

Nope, I thought the eyewitness reports that came out first thing on Friday also said that he'd been shot in the head...

Originally posted by whita
Interesting questions.
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.

Hello Whita from Roy in the Waikato.

The reason why I raised the Police killing of Steven Wallace was because they had ample time and opportunity to wound him but shot him dead instead. He was armed only with a baseball bat.

Originally posted by dom

Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart

In all this discussion has anyone noticed that at first all the eyewitness reports said that the man was shot only in the torso, and that now all the new news reports contain eyewitness reports which state that the man was shot only in the head?

Nope, I thought the eyewitness reports that came out first thing on Friday also said that he'd been shot in the head...

Possibly, but can you find any new ones which say that he was shot in the torso?

I can't, and there were a lot of posts around initially saying "why they would shoot him in the torso if they thought that he was carrying a bomb" These questions have faded away.

The story has been cooked.

With the shoot to kill action the war on terror has just lost another round.

We are civilized ppl with laws and stuffs, not a bunch of animals making justice with their own hands.

Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart

Originally posted by dom

Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart

In all this discussion has anyone noticed that at first all the eyewitness reports said that the man was shot only in the torso, and that now all the new news reports contain eyewitness reports which state that the man was shot only in the head?

Nope, I thought the eyewitness reports that came out first thing on Friday also said that he'd been shot in the head...

Possibly, but can you find any new ones which say that he was shot in the torso?

I can't, and there were a lot of posts around initially saying "why they would shoot him in the torso if they thought that he was carrying a bomb" These questions have faded away.

The story has been cooked.

Can you find any from the day that say he was shot in the torso? I don't remember any reports saying that.

I can't see much proof that the story was cooked to be honest. If they were cooking the story surely they'd find evidence that the guy was a terrorist and this wasn't a case of incompetent intelligence services?

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.

i think under these circumstances it's the right policy. however, they can't be accidently gunning down innocent people. i'm not entirely sure what happened with the brazilian guy, i heard he started to run when the police wanted to question him, his big puffa jacket and the fact that he was slightly tanned looking probably made the police suspicious. however, after the guy fell on the train, police had him subdued, yet continued to fire 5 bullets in to him. the guy could have possibly run because the police were in normal uniform, the guy was brazilian so perhaps didn't understand the police completly and for that he gets an execution infront of other innocent people.

i'd still defend the policy after one slip up, yet i doubt i could if this was a regular occurance.

Originally posted by djohnsto77

Originally posted by Bikereddie
Is a 'shoot to kill policy' correct?

I think it is, in the limited situation of a suspected terrorist on the mass transit system who could kill dozens of people.

i agree.............YES.........in the scenario of terrorism and trying to save MANY lives....................yes i believe that shoot to kill is the correct choice.

i believe that it is the right thing to do. if it is the LAST resort..........then YES..........shoot to kill.


angie