Shoot To Kill Policy Correct?

If you see someone suspicious, shoot them in the head!

Originally posted by crisko

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]

I highly doubt thats what happened.
People see diffrent things, during the SAS assualt on the isreali embassy a trooper shot a terrorists with a pistol because his rifle was jammed while haveing abseilled onto the wrong floor. Now the hostage that was next to the terrorist tells of the SAS man comeing in, finding a crying terrorist in a ball, pulling out his pistol and shooting the man on the ground.

Which story is real?

Do you mean the SAS siege on the Iranian embassy?

If so then you might be interested to know that they were told to kill all of the hostage takers regardless of whether they surrendered. The only hostage taker who survived pretended to be a hostage. Unfortunately the terrorist got outside before the SAS realised. The SAS couldn't shoot him once they'd come outside where the cameras could see.

Some of the SAS members involved have confirmed that some terrorists had surrendered but were still shot dead.

Originally posted by dom
Do you mean the SAS siege on the Iranian embassy?

Yeah sorry, wrong country.

If so then you might be interested to know that they were told to kill all of the hostage takers regardless of whether they surrendered. The only hostage taker who survived pretended to be a hostage. Unfortunately the terrorist got outside before the SAS realised. The SAS couldn't shoot him once they'd come outside where the cameras could see.

Then the SAS man would not have said he shot the man after his rifle had a misfire.

Some of the SAS members involved have confirmed that some terrorists had surrendered but were still shot dead.

That happens, one guy pretended to surrender and then fired on them...

Apparently, so they say, Maggie Thatcher herself told the SAS to make sure that none of the hostage takers lived through the events to send a strong message to any more potential hostage takers that the UK wouldn't put up with it.

As far as the pistol/rifle stuff goes, it could well lead to contradictory witness testimony. It's quite possible for two people to see the same thing but to report different things to the authorities. EG the "flying saucer" made for a C4 documentary. They flew it over a stone circle near Avesbury... the eyewitness testimony varied from seeing a 10m floating object to seeing a 200m massive flying saucer. Some people thought it was under it's own power, but actually, it was just being blown along by the wind. Even primary eyewitness testimony is fallible.

I agree with a shoot to disable policy maybe using a tazer or tranqulizer gun, but i dont agree with a shoot to kill policy i mean are we all not safe from losing our lives because some stupid copper dosent like the way your acting. i mean that could be quite scary if your foriegn, some copper pulling a gun on you cause your wearing a coat, imagine if that was you thousands of miles away from home you would probly run for the hills.

[edit on 25-7-2005 by TerminatorX]

Originally posted by dom
Apparently, so they say, Maggie Thatcher herself told the SAS to make sure that none of the hostage takers lived through the events to send a strong message to any more potential hostage takers that the UK wouldn't put up with it.

As far as the pistol/rifle stuff goes, it could well lead to contradictory witness testimony. It's quite possible for two people to see the same thing but to report different things to the authorities. EG the "flying saucer" made for a C4 documentary. They flew it over a stone circle near Avesbury... the eyewitness testimony varied from seeing a 10m floating object to seeing a 200m massive flying saucer. Some people thought it was under it's own power, but actually, it was just being blown along by the wind. Even primary eyewitness testimony is fallible.

Thats the point I was makeing mate, eye witnesess are not the best evidence.

I agree with the shoot to kill policy, you have to realise the type of Terroism we're dealing with. Long gone are the days of the IRA giving us warnings and trying to be nice about it. These extremists/religous fanatics are willing to kill themselves and others, when dealing with such people the only proven effective method is shots to the head.

The guy was running away from armed Police, why? They had challenged him demanded he stop but he didn't comply, why? People say that he may not have spoken English. Then why was he working in Britain for three years as an Electrician if he couldn't speak English? Wouldn't it be silly to come over here to live (not being an asylum seeker of course) and not being able to understand and speak English?

He was wearing a thick jacket which easily could've easily concealed a bomb device, he ran onto a train full of passengers in which he potentially could've detonated himself and killed and maimed others. Then it would be "why didn't the Police do anything?".

It is deeply regrettable that they shot an innocent man but the Police had to make a snap judgement call.

[edit on 25/7/05 by Flyboy211]

TextSome of the SAS members involved have confirmed that some terrorists had surrendered but were still shot dead.

EXCELLENT!......SHAME THATS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN WITH THE LONDON BOMBERS WHEN THEY CATCH THEM......TORTURE WOULD BE PREFERBLE FIRST THOUGH......GET AS MUCH OUT OF THEM AS POSSIBLE AND THEN DROWN THEM....DONT WASTE BULLETS THEM.

Originally posted by optimus fett

TextSome of the SAS members involved have confirmed that some terrorists had surrendered but were still shot dead.

EXCELLENT!

......SHAME THATS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN WITH THE LONDON BOMBERS WHEN THEY CATCH THEM......TORTURE WOULD BE PREFERBLE FIRST THOUGH......GET AS MUCH OUT OF THEM AS POSSIBLE AND THEN DROWN THEM....DONT WASTE BULLETS THEM.

Not even rubber ducky bullets?

[edit on 25/7/05 by Flyboy211]

Of course it isn't correct. Even Suddam Hussein gets the privelige of a 'fair' trial. Even if the man had been proven guilty in a court of law would he have been shot dead? I doubt it, and yet he turns out to be innocent..

Originally posted by Skibum

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 don't get what you mean when you say "solution" all I am saying is that there is no viable tactic against a suicide bomber in play. Its like shooting a bomb to disarm it, theres a chance you might be able to disrupt the bombs firing mechanism but theres an even greater chance that you'll only succeed in detonating it in spite of yourself.

There's a simple solution to the flaw you mention, namely that in detonation system like this it becomes armed when pressure is first applied and then detonated when pressure is released like certain varieties of anti personel mines. Its a little impractical to assume the guy is going to be holding down on the detonator while the device is being built so its only common sense that an arming sequence would be necessary.

Another scenario that negates this shoot to kill tactic is a remote detonated bomb on a bomber, like that pizza delivery guy with the bomb collar who tried to rob a bank. Also considering how the bombers in Iraq like to record there massacres for posterity on videocamera its not that much of a leap to believe they might be able to remote detonate the bomb in case the bomber gets cold feet. So once again we wind up in a situation where "shooting the kill" accomplishes nothing and only succeeds in endangering the public.

There is no effective tactic against suicide bombers other then taking them out before they some into play. If your chasing them down a subway platform you've obviously failed in doing that. "Shooting to Kill" won't change that its macho feel good nonsense with no real world practicality against suicide bombers.

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 off...The real goal of a suicide bomber is to die anyway. Therefore, if someone is killed by a bullet to the head, then his hand relaxes & BOOM!

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 the spot.

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 crime.

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 citizen 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 that 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 advantadge...

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 deadman's switch...

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" intelligence?

However, such a failure of the nation's "intelligence" capability can also be faulted for not passing down info of known terrorists to the local authorities. Governments the world over are too "secretive", by instinct & reflex, to make sure that the people 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 forged 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 course).

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. They want 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]

on the news it said that the house the brazilian guy lived at was being monitored by police, as they recieved intelligence that this was a possible terrorist house etc, i can't remember if this was said before or after the braziian guy was found to be innocent. so if they saw the brazilian guy came out of his house, that was being monitored, why wait until he's in the train station untill you take action?

the whole story seems wierd. he's tripped and on the floor and apparently subdued, yet the police feel it neccesary to pump 8 bullets in him, without the fear of hitting a bomb device.

OK. We have discussed this incident regarding the killing on Friday. It was an unfortunate incident that has been covered in other threads.

This topic is 'Shoot To Kill Policy Correct? '

Lets have some more opinions as to why you think its right or wrong.
The killing on Friday has some relevance, but in the overall picture of things, what exactly do you think is right?

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer

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. They want 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.

How else can we combat terrorism other than trying to make the nation more secure by 'giving up' certain liberties? I still hold the view that a 'shoot to kill' policy has proven to be the most effective way of dealing with suicide bombers. I think the comparison with Hitler's SS is going a little bit too far, you have to think of the practicalities involved in combatting terrorism. Fine some decisions may not prove to be popular, but if they're necessary to safeguard our wellbeing then so be it.

If the Government wasn't trying to make things more secure then they wouldn't be doing their job, and would be just as incompetent as the 'would be bombers' of last week.

I've seen posts here about us needing to develope more 'radical' way of combatting terrorism. It sounds far fetched but what if it's possible to construct some sort of 'explosive detector'? Or what if it's possible to develope a device that can create very small localised EMP which could disable a bomb device?

[edit on 25/7/05 by Flyboy211]

I don't see what option the Police have but to shoot to kill if a suspect when challenged appears to rush for a crowd/train etc etc.
It sounds gross but 8 (low velocity urban?) shots (apparantly what was put into the Brazillina guy) were probably needed to ensure the guy didn't move or trigger anything - had he been a terrorist with an explosive jacket.

It's the nightmare the situation has brought us all.

Mind you I'm also against the rather transparent agenda some racist elements have in all this.
They're the kind of cretins who'd rather crank up the anti-Muslim feeling and have the Police waste effort and manpower thanks to the extra troubles that kind of idiocy would bring.
Talk about blind idiots who'd end up pushing people into the arms of the terrorists.
This is nothing more than an additional counter-productive 'element' we can all do well without.

yes , without a doubt a ''shoot to kill'' policy is the only way to go..
unfortunatly times and society has changed and long gone are the days when the good 'ol London bobby could walk the streets of london 'blow his whistle' and everyone but other officers would stop!!

we are in a bad situation at the moment, there is no respect for anything or anyone , i think this is more-or-less worldwide.

when asked to stop in other countries you do!! in Brazil you would stop before they asked you to
why didnt he stop ?

I think in situations like that they (police) had no other option, if he was a terrorist and did make the bomb go off coz they (police) only shot him in the leg, there would be a lot of people greiving for the loss of life that would have been suffered and a lot of people wanting to know why they didnt stop him!!

Again its another no-win situation for the security and police?

i think shoot to kill is a policy that may help with stopping suicide bombers, yet how many innocent people have to be publically executed by the police for the 'shoot to kill' policy to be found wrong? because obviously one mess up is o.k according to police.

what if it happens again, or twice...at what point does the 'shoot to kill' policy become wrong?



[edit on 25-7-2005 by asala]

Originally posted by Flyboy211
How else can we combat terrorism other than trying to make the nation more secure by 'giving up' certain liberties? I still hold the view that a 'shoot to kill' policy has proven to be the most effective way of dealing with suicide bombers. I think the comparison with Hitler's SS is going a little bit too far, you have to think of the practicalities involved in combatting terrorism. Fine some decisions may not prove to be popular, but if they're necessary to safeguard our wellbeing then so be it.

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. 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.
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.

Originally posted by Flyboy211
If the Government wasn't trying to make things more secure then they wouldn't be doing their job, and would be just as incompetent as the 'would be bombers' of last week.

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.

Originally posted by Flyboy211
It sounds far fetched but what if it's possible to construct some sort of 'explosive detector'? Or what if it's possible to develope a device that can create very small localised EMP which could disable a bomb device?

For one, there are devices, "chemical sniffers" designed to detect the slight emissions of most explosives...But those devices operate on very short range & can't be 100% accurate. Even if they were 100% accurate, the minimal range alone would require such devices placed about every 10 feet or so along every street, road & in every building that could be a "potential target area" for a bomber. Even then, terrorists would figure out some other way to do their thing...Take note of the idea of "plastic boxcutters" used aboard the planes on 9/11.
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.
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.


[edit on 25-7-2005 by MidnightDStroyer]