Shoot To Kill Policy Correct?

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.

Yeah mate, you were closer to that one and I am a bit hazy on details. I agree in principle with what you said, but generally I think the cop would have followed procedure and aimed for the centre of the body (Chest). I mentioned it earlier because another poster asked a question about it. I forget the question right now but it'll be be back there somewhere. No biggie.

[edit on 25-7-2005 by whita]

Originally posted by Bikereddie
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?

If they know for 100% then yes, I am for it.

But if they have any doubt what so ever, then no

The 'shoot to kill policy' is something we are all going to have live with.
As a nation, we are on constant alert looking over our shoulders. The threat is all too real no matter where you live.

The public outcry that the shooting was wrong, has only fueled the terrorist's aims. They now know we are scared. (anyone who says they are not to some degree is kidding themselves).
This is the type of reaction that the terrorists feed off. Real bombs or dummy bombs, the end result will be panic and mayhem.

While ever we are like this, the terrorists will think they are winning. So yes, a shoot to kill policy is the correct thing to do. The rule here is, don't act suspicious.

There is a world of difference between acting "suspicious" and running from police while wearing a thick jacket in the middle of summer(a not too uncommon sign of a suicide bomber) through a subway system(which had been targets of 2 attacks in as many weeks).

Acting suspicious will likely only get you questioned by police, while the outcome of the other is apparent.

well to my knowledge no one has reported that the police shouted 'stop...police...we're going to shoot'. it seems the chase was actually a resonably long one and i've shown on another thread from eye witness statements that the guy was still running on the train, with police in hot pursuit. obviously this means he didn't trip right away as he got on the train, so if he did have a bomb he had plenty of time to explode it.

i'm not really sure why he ran, but in the end that's what got him killed. if he had gone off quietly with the police we wouldn't be talking about this right now.

Personally, I'm not comfortable to give this kind of jurisdictions and powers to the persons (police officers) that can't tell the difference between "Asian" (read Middle Eastern) or Latino look.

Now, It's official.

I'm putting London of my list of One of the Most Romantic Vaccation Places on Earth.

i'm not really sure why he ran, but in the end that's what got him killed. if he had gone off quietly with the police we wouldn't be talking about this right now.

He ran becouse from what im aware he was an illegal in this counrty, this is the reason he ran from police,

Also remember that one of the bombs found lead them to the address of the Block of flats of this man,

which is why they followed him,

Originally posted by asala
Also remember that one of the bombs found lead them to the address of the Block of flats of this man,

which is why they followed him,

if they were following him, why did they wait untill he got to the train station before he set off the bomb? that's what i don't get.

Originally posted by yanchek
Personally, I'm not comfortable to give this kind of jurisdictions and powers to the persons (police officers) that can't tell the difference between "Asian" (read Middle Eastern) or Latino look.

seems its not just the police that are inept of rational thought. quote from bbc news from eye witness:

"I saw an Asian guy. He ran on to the train, he was hotly pursued by three plain clothes officers, one of them was wielding a black handgun.

seems if you've got any slight tan, a padded jacket then you're a terrorist. since when should police officers have licences to kill? are they even capable of the responsibilities of having a shoot to kill policy? a couple years back police didn't even carry guns...now they're in plain clothes, got licences to kill, and perform public executions.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
seems its not just the police that are inept of rational thought. quote from bbc news from eye witness:

"I saw an Asian guy. He ran on to the train, he was hotly pursued by three plain clothes officers, one of them was wielding a black handgun.

seems if you've got any slight tan, a padded jacket then you're a terrorist. since when should police officers have licences to kill? are they even capable of the responsibilities of having a shoot to kill policy? a couple years back police didn't even carry guns...now they're in plain clothes, got licences to kill, and perform public executions.

Exscuse me?
The officers with hand guns are VERY well trained and do not perform executions.

Since when does an inocent man run away from armed police officers , jump a barrer and run towards a crowded tube?

You do relise that the minute a police officer fires a shot he will be scrutinized by his or hers collegues and will most likely lose his place within the armed bracnh.
But hey they are not people they are machines and are evil as your trying to imply, ofcourse even the SAS are not as sadistic as them...

I agree with you Shauny.

There are as much jokes about police as are about blondes.

Here a scary thought:

Blonde police officer with license to kill.

[edit on 26-7-2005 by yanchek]

its not a joke. the police now have licences to kill...what did you think the shoot to kill policy was??

none of the police have been charged with murder or scrutinized and the shoot to kill policy is still very much in place.

Originally posted by devilwasp
Since when does an inocent man run away from armed police officers , jump a barrer and run towards a crowded tube?

well...he wasn't entirely innocent. apparently his visa had expired, which is why he ran, because he was trying to save money to go back to brazil and start up a ranch so he didn't want to go back there without enough money.

Originally posted by devilwasp
The officers with hand guns are VERY well trained and do not perform executions.

what else do you call 7 bullets in a person's head and one in the shoulder? i call that an execution.

intelligence suggested that one of the bombers lived in the block of flats where the brazilian guy lived. when he came out he was followed, allowed to get on a bus, aloud to get within the train station and well you know the rest. the whole story stinks of bs.

I was refering to numerous jokes about blondes and police, because IMO they are not very bright and inteligent persons in general.

And you shouldn't give this type of persons license to kill (read shoot to kill policy).

well...he wasn't entirely innocent. apparently his visa had expired, which is why he ran, because he was trying to save money to go back to brazil and start up a ranch so he didn't want to go back there without enough money.

So that makes it ok for him to live in London as an illegal alien?

ermm...no

If this guy didnt be secret about his illegal stay in the Country or run from arm police and jump a security barrier, he would of been in his mothers arms about now.

But he didnt, he tried to play the system.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
its not a joke. the police now have licences to kill...what did you think the shoot to kill policy was??

none of the police have been charged with murder or scrutinized and the shoot to kill policy is still very much in place.

Oh really?
You didnt know the police have always had a shoot to kill policy?
The officers in question will have lost thier jobs in CID.

Originally posted by devilwasp
well...he wasn't entirely innocent. apparently his visa had expired, which is why he ran, because he was trying to save money to go back to brazil and start up a ranch so he didn't want to go back there without enough money.

Exactly if a man who your questioning runs and heads towards a crowded area after 2 terror attacks you are perfectly within your right to shoot to kill in self defense.

Originally posted by devilwasp
what else do you call 7 bullets in a person's head and one in the shoulder? i call that an execution.
[/quoe]
A) Thats an eye witness statement.
B) Eye witnesses see soemthing diffrent than what actually occured.
C) 7 shots to a head does not mean execution.

intelligence suggested that one of the bombers lived in the block of flats where the brazilian guy lived. when he came out he was followed, allowed to get on a bus, aloud to get within the train station and well you know the rest. the whole story stinks of bs.

Yeah he was followed, that meaning if he did act they would kill him, they wanted to talk to him.
Your whole theory about the police executing this guy stinks of BS.

Originally posted by infinite


So that makes it ok for him to live in London as an illegal alien?

If this guy didnt be secret about his illegal stay in the Country or run from arm police and jump a security barrier, he would of been in his mothers arms about now.

But he didnt, he tried to play the system.

And the fact that he was staying in the country after his visa had expired makes it alright that he was shot without provocation or reason?

True, he jumped a security barrier to escape armed police, but these were plain clothes officers, who according to eye witness accounts, did not shout any warning alluding to their being policemen. If I was being chased by someone in plain clothes with a gun, I know I would run.

By far the most controversial claim comes from a number of witnesses who have cast doubt on police statements that they shouted a warning or identified themselves to the suspect before opening fire.

Lee Ruston, 32, who was on the platform, said that he did not hear any of the three shout “police” or anything like it. Mr Ruston, a construction company director, said that he saw two of the officers put on their blue baseball caps marked “police” but that the frightened electrician could not have seen that happen because he had his back to the officers and was running with his head down.

www.timesonline.co.uk...


Furthermore, Home Secretary Jack Straw announced yesterday that Menezes was in the UK lawfully:

Mr Straw said he did not know Mr Menezes' precise immigration status but said it was his "understanding that he was here lawfully".

news.bbc.co.uk...

As for the question posed in the thread title, the "shoot to kill" policy is, unfortunately, a necessity when dealing with suicide bombers, however, when there is such a difference between policy and what happens in practice, police training and tactics clearly need to be reviewed. I believe if Menezes had known for certain that he was being pursued by the police, there is a greater chance he would have stopped, and lived to tell the tale.

Sadly it appears that he did not know for certain, and his death was at least in part due to the inability of the police to put their policies into action in the proper manner.

Originally posted by CiderGood_HeadacheBad
And the fact that he was staying in the country after his visa had expired makes it alright that he was shot without provocation or reason?

True, he jumped a security barrier to escape armed police, but these were plain clothes officers, who according to eye witness accounts, did not shout any warning alluding to their being policemen. If I was being chased by someone in plain clothes with a gun, I know I would run.

You should know that eye witnesses are the worst evidence to use.
People see and hear diffrent things.
Do you know a hostage once claimed an SAS man executed a terrorist tht had surrendered infront of them?

As for the question posed in the thread title, the "shoot to kill" policy is, unfortunately, a necessity when dealing with suicide bombers, however, when there is such a difference between policy and what happens in practice, police training and tactics clearly need to be reviewed. I believe if Menezes had known for certain that he was being pursued by the police, there is a greater chance he would have stopped, and lived to tell the tale.

The police training here is of the highest standard.
The BBC done a piece on thier training once, they shout at the suspect 3 times at least to give them warnings then shoot.
After every suspect they stop and ask was it ethical and justifiable.

Sadly it appears that he did not know for certain, and his death was at least in part due to the inability of the police to put their policies into action in the proper manner.

Excuse me?
Failure of the police?
To do what?
Defend the citizens of the state?
They did that, they seen a threat and dealt with it.
If they where wrong they will be tried but they wherent.

Originally posted by devilwasp
Oh really?
You didnt know the police have always had a shoot to kill policy?
The officers in question will have lost thier jobs in CID.

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.

Originally posted by devilwasp
Exactly if a man who your questioning runs and heads towards a crowded area after 2 terror attacks you are perfectly within your right to shoot to kill in self defense.

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.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
what else do you call 7 bullets in a person's head and one in the shoulder? i call that an execution.

Originally posted by devilwasp
A) Thats an eye witness statement.
B) Eye witnesses see soemthing diffrent than what actually occured.
C) 7 shots to a head does not mean execution.

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

Originally posted by devilwasp
Yeah he was followed, that meaning if he did act they would kill him, they wanted to talk to him.
Your whole theory about the police executing this guy stinks of BS.

''if he did act''... what does that mean? there's only one action a suicide bomber makes and that is to blow himself up. 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?

Originally posted by infinite
So that makes it ok for him to live in London as an illegal alien?
ermm...no

But does that constitute a good reason for his being killed, shot multiple times even after being brought down & restrained, in front of public view? Do you think that's what the USA should do? Start executing illegal aliens on "suspicion" of terrorism?

Well then, why not? After all, with the broad definitions for "terrorism" & "terrorist" so precisely (If we had an emoticon for sarcasm, it would go here) outlined in the Patriot Act, we could do that. At least we could get rid of the "civilian invasion" of Mexicans. Oh, but our government is already aware of the problem but is unwilling to "offend" our southern neighbors, so that'll never happen...So instead, we'll execute (in public view) all other people in the US with foreign ancestry. But why stop there? Why not just eliminate everybody who doesn't have white skin?

Has everybody so quickly forgotten the results of Hitler's "racial purging" (It wasn't just Jews he had killed)? Has everybody forgotten so quickly that quite a few of Hitler's top administrators & scientists actually began working for the US & Soviet governments after WW2? Has everybody forgotten so quickly of Hitler's "Thousand Year Reich" that is becoming reality even now & you can see evidence of it forming nearly every day in the news?

News Flash! No government can secure it's citizens from terrorist acts because of its very nature: That of making people fear every day. The fact that governments are removing more civil liberties from the citizens is just icing on the cake & causes citizens to fear their own governments even more.

It also furthers the aims of NWO...That of complete control over everybody not within their own "circles". Are you now in fear of your life because your own government may be watching you for "suspicion" of terrorism...Even if the "suspicion" is unfounded, do you think them incapable of cooking up false evidence should they need some scapegoat to provide some kind of "public distraction" on the evening news? Whether the "suspicion" is based on truth or a lie, the results would be the same...You're dead because your govenment wanted you dead.

So you see, the terroists have already won because they make us fear them enough to allow our governments to exercise greater control over their citizens, which also breeds within citizens an increasing fear of their own governments as well. Fear is the goal of terrorism & they've already won when people untied to terrorism are shot down in the streets.

An even scarier thought is that, in the US, at least some of our public is aware of how the CIA initially trained Osama bin Laden in terrorist tactics. Combining incidents like that with the fact that the government has such lousy foreign policy (Why should the government care about the Iraqi people? Or any other people, for that matter?) that they're actually inciting more people to become terrorists...Since nothing in politics happens by accident, you can bet your sweet bippy that the government planned it this way. And for what purpose? Simply to control the oil supplies so that OPEC can't switch to the Euro standard instead of staying with the Dollar.

And then stop & realize that the Dollar is an illusion too...Backed by nothing tangible & enforces a debt-driven economy based upon corporate scrip. If the governments are so all hellfire bent to keep the corporate scrip rolling in just to try to pay off the banks (who started that debt-driven economy in the first place), what makes you think that your government would have any concern at all about its citizens?

At least in the USA, there are people & organizations trying to get an out-of-control government back in control...Do English citizens try to get their government back under control? Or has the fact that that people, not tied to terrorists, are starting to get shot down in the streets having no effect on English patriotism? And what about Blair? The "shoot to kill policy" had to start from somewhere...Your local police & even the (English equivalent of) SWAT teams couldn't use that policy if your government didn't "authorize" it in the first place.

Governments create their own enemies for the sole purpose of gaining tighter control over their own citizens & to eliminate political rivals. It's been that way throughout all of human history, since earliest civilizations formed. I still remember how, during the "McCarthy Era of Politics", the enemy was Communism. I still remember how fear & paranoia was bred in the government (& seeped over into the civilian sector) so that some politician or another had an excuse to use "communist sympathies" to eliminate political rivals & discredit those citizens who tried to stop it.

Well, these days, the "manufactured enemy" are terrorists...Our own government has trained people in foriegn countries in the "arts" of terrorism...Our own government treats foreign societies & governments in such a way as to incite more terrorism. Now it seeks to use that "manufactured enemy" to eliminate potential rivals & secure greater control over the citizens.

History repeats itself yet again...

Originally posted by infinite
So that makes it ok for him to live in London as an illegal alien?
ermm...no

actually jack straw said he was here 'legally' and not 'ilegally' as some people thought the reason he ran was because his visa had run out, but this is not true.

We have numerous reports of what happened last Friday.
5 bullets, 7 bullets, man pinned down, man shot at 5 yards, man shot from the platform etc etc.
How many reports do we need to know? The man ran when told to stop. End of story no matter how we see it. If he had stayed put, then he would still be here.

We have heard that the policeman who shot him has now been demoted out of the firearms unit pending investigation. Why? was he not doing as ordered?

We have also heard that the SAS were involved. (speculation) I have to agree that they could have been. The Government might covering up the tracks of the SAS because it was the SAS who actually took the man out. Again, just speculation, but it does smack of SAS tactics.