Shoot To Kill Policy Correct?

Originally posted by devilwasp

What?
The police barly have any powers , You relise now that they are very restricted in what they cant do and how they do it.

A few people complaining when the cops murder someone is not restricting their powers. . . . obviously they now have the power to murder anyone, and we have been told by the government that we can expect them to do it again.

Yeah, sure, the police should be able to shoot whoever they want to protect the rest of us from potential bomb blasts. Uh, hello?

How about develop technology that detects bombs or some aspect of bombs that is unique to them. Or how about hordes of C4 sniffing dogs roaming about the city?

Aren't any of you at all suspicious about the growing police state to make us all safer?

Can terror be stopped? No? Can it be lessened? Perhaps.

But ""They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

"Dangerous laws created by well intentioned people today can be used by dangerous people with evil intentions tomorrow." - Alan Eppers

"We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home." - Thomas Jefferson

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." - H.L. Mencken

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery." - Thomas Jefferson

Can a police state be implemented just to make terror seem under control so that everyone can go about their business without worrying about meeting their maker at any moment? Yes.

Can terrorism be eliminated? Yes. GET THE US AND THE UK OUT OF THE MIDDLE EAST NOW! AND END ALL FOREIGN FINANCIAL AND MILITARY AID TO ISRAEL TOO.

Hey America. Your founding fathers and American revolutionaries were considered terrorists by the British. Except they were called "revolutionaries". Are you aware of that? Are you also aware that your army of "liberation" is also considered terrible in nature by the Muslim World. The families of 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians have been completely devastated by your indiscriminate attacks against their country. Hypocrites.

I have to say that a shoot to kill policy can be the only correct shooting policy.

I mean, what else is there? Shoot to offend?

'shoot to cause incredible harm or injury, thus partially incapacitating the victim or victims, usually shooting in the leg region, whilst trying to avoid the head' policy...kinda catchy.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
'shoot to cause incredible harm or injury, thus partially incapacitating the victim or victims, usually shooting in the leg region, whilst trying to avoid the head' policy...kinda catchy.

Yup! And if they can still move, and they're a suicide bomber, they are still going to go BOOM! And so are you if you were close enough to wound one with a handgun or automatic weapon.

That is why cops are trained to shoot at least twice (most are trained to use groups of 3), and always at the center of the chest. Only in movies and spaghetti westerns can you shoot the gun out of the bad guy's hand - in real life it's either his life or yours and anyone around you.

Originally posted by thepresidentsbrain
Terrorism is real alright devilwasp. But the real question is - WHO ARE THE TERRORISTS?

That is a question I cant answer my friend and it is a good one...

Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart
A few people complaining when the cops murder someone is not restricting their powers. . . . obviously they now have the power to murder anyone, and we have been told by the government that we can expect them to do it again.

Murder?
Its called self defence, and if you count self defence as murder how is one to defend his or herself?

Point of order - murder is the illegal killing of someone with malice aforethought. Instinctive killing is manslaughter.

Police (and UK citizens) can kill in self-defence, this is justified homicide not murder.

The rules for the Police and the citizen (and the Army) are exactly the same - proportionate force may be used to defend yourself or others in the face of an immediate threat to life. The new ROE's give them a new measure of 'proportionate' - if they suspect he has a bomb 7 bullets to the head IS proportionate

A tough call well-made IMO, thoughts with family of the Brazilian & the cops who had to shoot him but mainly with the 53 commuters murdered and the hundreds wounded this month by inadequate tossers who were directed by evil cold-blooded monsters (lest we forget).

How many other innocent 'foreigners' were shot by Police around the World that day?



[edit on 27/7/05 by CTID56092]

[edit on 27/7/05 by CTID56092]

Excellent reply mate. In fact it just about sums up what most of us have wanted to say, but have taken a step back just waiting for someone to come out with comments such as yours.

You have answered the title of the thread, as have many others, which is what i wanted, in a pure heart felt and sincere way.

Hence thats why I voted for you.

You have voted CTID56092 for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

Originally posted by devilwasp

Murder?
Its called self defence, and if you count self defence as murder how is one to defend his or herself?

I beg to differ. . . . .

Just because you think that someone might be dangerous to your health does not mean that killing him is not murder.

Those cops murdered the Brazilian. . . . . he was not dangerous to their health, they just thought he was. . . he was not threatening them, they just thought he was. . . . and they had been following him prior to the murder. It was murder.

Originally posted by CTID56092
A tough call well-made IMO, thoughts with family of the Brazilian & the cops who had to shoot him

The cops did not have to shoot the Brazilian. . . . he was unarmed and running away. . . . according to your rule anyone can commit 'justified homicide' now just be saying ' I honestly thought the man had a bomb'

Point of order? rejected !

Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart
I beg to differ. . . . .

Just because you think that someone might be dangerous to your health does not mean that killing him is not murder.

How not?
If he appears to be a threat to you and YOU know he might be a very dangerous terrorist would you take the chance of haveing the blood of 40 people on your hands?

Those cops murdered the Brazilian. . . . . he was not dangerous to their health, they just thought he was. . . he was not threatening them, they just thought he was. . . . and they had been following him prior to the murder. It was murder.

How is it murder?
He was acting in a way that made him appear to be a major threat to the citizens on board the trains life, would you prefer that if he had been a bomber it had gone off and everyone on board was dead because the police couldnt kill him.

Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart

The cops did not have to shoot the Brazilian. . . . he was unarmed and running away. . . . according to your rule anyone can commit 'justified homicide' now just be saying ' I honestly thought the man had a bomb'

Point of order? rejected !

He was running away from the police but towards his supposed target.

He was known to be unarmed after he was shot but not before. Look at the evidence the copper had to work with, there's a very high possibility he was a bomber and at the time the threat posed meant killing the guy was justified.

What the actual facts , post-shooting, are is actually irrelevant. It's down to the policemen's perception of the threat at the time. A bomb was a reasonable assumption and therefore terminating the guy before he could detonate was justified (and Tasers, armlocks etc wouldn't do), hence shooting for the head to sever the cerebellum / spinal cord making a final act of detonation almost impossible.

I really don't see what else the police could do in those 20+ seconds when they thought they had an ninth bomber, on a train, about to detonate.

Law of self-defence in UK is quite clear - if you believe a burglar has a gun and you have no alternative you can shoot him dead to protect your life or someone else's - this case is just an extension of this principle in the face of an extreme threat.


So 'Yes' anyone can be shot dead on the basis they were believed to have a bomb - it's the new reality; when challenged stand very, very still!


BTW according to UK radio the Rio de Janiero police shot 20 suspects last week alone - pot/kettle??

Originally posted by CTID56092

He was running away from the police but towards his supposed target.

Supposed target?

He didn't have a target ! !

So 'Yes' anyone can be shot dead on the basis they were believed to have a bomb - it's the new reality; when challenged stand very, very still!

Go to hell !!

Originally posted by devilwasp

If he appears to be a threat to you and YOU know he might be a very dangerous terrorist

You "know he might be" ??

That's not knowing something !!

It's Orwellian Double Talk ! !

Get off my planet before you screw it up completely, and take your evil murderous friends with you .

Do it now.

Originally posted by CTID56092
... it's the new reality; when challenged stand very, very still!

Yes, that's real smart.

What will the Goverment do next. Cancel Christmas?

I watched one comedy long time ago and I don't remember its title. It was real funny, but what I found funniest was a conversation on a funeral when a suspect asked:

Q. So detective, do you think I'm the murderer?

A. I don't think anything. I'm a police officer.

Now I dont think that's funny anymore.

[edit on 28-7-2005 by yanchek]

Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart

Originally posted by CTID56092

He was running away from the police but towards his supposed target.

Supposed target?

He didn't have a target ! !

So 'Yes' anyone can be shot dead on the basis they were believed to have a bomb - it's the new reality; when challenged stand very, very still!

Go to hell !!

That's why I said 'supposed' target.

You seem to be very upset/emotional about this but seem completely unwilling to accept the copper had a difficult decision and made it.

I still don't see the alternative you're proposing - negotiation?

Re Hell - yes I well may, see you there!

It was a planned assassination.

Your 'coppers' are the new Gestapo

You are a Neo Nazi

I will not be joining you in hell.

Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart

It was a planned assassination.

Your 'coppers' are the new Gestapo

You are a Neo Nazi

I will not be joining you in hell.

Take this vile crap and post it somewhere else

It wasn't, it may have been a 'male chicken'-up but not a planned assasination - what evidence is there for that wild theory?

Still awaiting your ideal solution to this situation.

I'm not a Nazi - very far from it!

Maybe you should go surfing and chill a bit?

See you in Hell!

[edit on 28/7/05 by CTID56092]