Shoot To Kill Policy Correct?

Originally posted by devilwasp
No it gives them an order, if 3 plain clothed men with hats saying "police" tell you to stop, then you stop.

that would have been the last thing on the guy's mind to check if their hats said 'police'. if they were wearing hats that said police, what was the point in wearing plain clothes?

How do you know if he is a threat?

apparently running away from people that shout at you is a crime. remember the guy may not have known they were police, or seen their guns. it's not as simple as 'knowing if there's a threat'. if there's a gun toting guy in the middle of the street there's a threat. with the man they were watching, if there was any sort of threat then they should have arrested him or searched him before he got anywhere near the station. if the guy is clean they say we appologise, but we were watching the block of flats you live in etc.

So arresting and searching random people is ok?

you get random searches at airports and you put up with it, that's just part of going on holiday. they need not arrest the guy, just search him and as i said above, if they're clean, just apologise and say you're doing your job. also they wouldn't be searching 'random' people, this was a person that came out of a block of flats they were watching.

Guess what, that tactic puts everyone at a bigger risk.
If you noticed a 22/7 bomber was almost subdued and instead escaped.

the 'shouting' at the suspect technique...i'm not sure where they teach that, but obviously the police were busy having a donut and couldn't be bothered to get near the suspect and just shouted 'oi, stop...oi, hey stop...' so then they had to give chase through a busy underground station. now think about this, because you don't seem like you're actually doing any sort of thinking about any points i make so make sure you do think about this one:
what's better...

quietly going up to the suspect, who you say they didn't know was a threat so it was unlikely that he had a bomb and just grab his arms, or slap some handcuff on him, pad him down etc. this causes no commotion as well.

now lets see what the police actually did... shout 'stop', hey he's not stopping, lets run after him through this station with our guns out ready to fire, look he tripped up, quick shoot him in the head 7 times should do it.

you keep saying that the police could not have known he was a threat, yet running away from people that shout at you is a sure sign of a bomber? the going up to him quietly method would be much better and more logical, the police screwed up big time.

They didnt want to run the risk of him seeing them and detonateing the bomb, instead they tried to control the situation but he pushed back.
If someone with a weapon tells you to stop, you do it, why? Because he has control over you.

i thought you said they were wearing police hats so he would obviously notice they were police, yet you say the police didn't want him to see them, but then again they shouted out 'stop', and perhaps 'stop, police'. a suicide bomber isn't fussy, setting that bomb off anywhere in the station would have taken a substantial amount of lives. again you say if someone has a weapon you stop, but then you said the police didn't want to run the risk of the guy seeing them, so why not use my method of going up to him slowly rather than blurting out 'stop'.

They could have stopped the man outside his home and searched him but would be seen and condemmed as picking on forigners and racial crimes. They could have subdued him but then people would moan about how dangerous it would be.
No matter what the police do people hate them, why? Thats another question all together.

sorry to say this but searching old white ladies isn't going to get the police anywhere. also searching young muslims probably won't get them anywhere. the random search is pointless. however, this would not have been a 'random' search as they were watching the block of flats. waving guns around in a crowded station, letting the man run through the station, fire your guns on a train with no regard for other people's safety...that's not dangerous? there were many, many other ways for the police to handle this situation.

i don't hate the police whatever they do. i think putting 7 bullets in to an innocent person's head is sort of the limit to still being able to 'like' what they are doing. call it whatever you want, it was a public execution, of which the phrase has been used widely now.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
that would have been the last thing on the guy's mind to check if their hats said 'police'. if they were wearing hats that said police, what was the point in wearing plain clothes?

Yeah but when they shout stop police ,etc. and they have "police" on thier hats that kind of signifies that they are police and you should stop.
Also the hats are there so they can identify themselves as policemen IF needed.

apparently running away from people that shout at you is a crime. remember the guy may not have known they were police, or seen their guns. it's not as simple as 'knowing if there's a threat'. if there's a gun toting guy in the middle of the street there's a threat. with the man they were watching, if there was any sort of threat then they should have arrested him or searched him before he got anywhere near the station. if the guy is clean they say we appologise, but we were watching the block of flats you live in etc.

Yet again how do they know he is a threat, AKA worth watching?

Running away from police officers and heading towards a crowded train soon after a major terrorist attack ON the trains is not the smartest thing to do esspecially when people suspect you of being a bomber.

you get random searches at airports and you put up with it, that's just part of going on holiday. they need not arrest the guy, just search him and as i said above, if they're clean, just apologise and say you're doing your job. also they wouldn't be searching 'random' people, this was a person that came out of a block of flats they were watching.

Ah but linked to my question before how do you know he is a threat and worth watching?
Also random searches on the street?
Could you imagine the outcry?
It would be just as bad as this.

the 'shouting' at the suspect technique...i'm not sure where they teach that,

They teach it at every defence and law enforncement agency, department and service and in fact in lifeguarding to..

Shouting makes the suspect pay attention to you, once this is done you can assume control of the situation.

Mabye YOU missed the idea of trying to control a situation.

but obviously the police were busy having a donut and couldn't be bothered to get near the suspect and just shouted 'oi, stop...oi, hey stop...' so then they had to give chase through a busy underground station. now think about this, because you don't seem like you're actually doing any sort of thinking about any points i make so make sure you do think about this one:
what's better...

Oh yeah, and they didnt go near him nor shouted stop.
They just pulled guns out.

quietly going up to the suspect, who you say they didn't know was a threat so it was unlikely that he had a bomb and just grab his arms, or slap some handcuff on him, pad him down etc. this causes no commotion as well.

Uh yeah, you do relise that terrorists are taught about that kind of action right?
Oh and BTW doing that is actually FAR more dangerous than shooting the man if he did go for the bomb.

now lets see what the police actually did... shout 'stop', hey he's not stopping, lets run after him through this station with our guns out ready to fire, look he tripped up, quick shoot him in the head 7 times should do it.

Oh yeah now thats not edited *coughbscough*...
How about, they shouted stop, he didnt stop, they pulled guns and shouted stop, still didnt, they caught him , he was struggling and looked like he was going for something, they suspected a bomb, they killed him to save the passangers.

you keep saying that the police could not have known he was a threat, yet running away from people that shout at you is a sure sign of a bomber? the going up to him quietly method would be much better and more logical, the police screwed up big time.

I keep asking how do you know he is a threat because you ask why didnt they stop him when he was at his flat.
Running away from POLICE OFFICERS ARMED ONES, heading towards a crowded train right after a terrorist attack sure makes u look like a bomber.

And what if he WAS a bomber, he would have detonated a bomb and killed you, the officers around you, and the people around you.
Yeah much better.

i thought you said they were wearing police hats so he would obviously notice they were police,

They took them out after they shouted and pulled guns??
[qupte]
yet you say the police didn't want him to see them, but then again they shouted out 'stop', and perhaps 'stop, police'. a suicide bomber isn't fussy, setting that bomb off anywhere in the station would have taken a substantial amount of lives.

The police where wearing plain clothes so they would not be obvios, BUT when they where ordering and chasing him they put on the caps to make themselves identiviable as officers.
Also a suicide bomber wants the highest number of casualties, he would have headed for the train, why? Biggest number of casualties.

again you say if someone has a weapon you stop, but then you said the police didn't want to run the risk of the guy seeing them, so why not use my method of going up to him slowly rather than blurting out 'stop'.

Your method of sneaking up behind him requires that ordinary members of the public dont interpret you as a mugger or thief and stop you, therefore foiling your plan and getting everyone killed, SECONDLY your plan counts on you being able to sneak up to the suspect with out being noticed.

sorry to say this but searching old white ladies isn't going to get the police anywhere. also searching young muslims probably won't get them anywhere. the random search is pointless. however, this would not have been a 'random' search as they were watching the block of flats.

Oh really?
Now your the expert on searching?
It would have been seen as a random search AND hyped as one therefore makeing the police recieve more flak for trying to do their jobs.

waving guns around in a crowded station, letting the man run through the station, fire your guns on a train with no regard for other people's safety...that's not dangerous? there were many, many other ways for the police to handle this situation.

Exscuse me?
Waveing guns around?
Fireing a weapon with no regard?
Every officer realises that fireing a weapon is dangerous, 7 shots to the head requires aiming, why? Because if you just pointed and shot you would most likely miss.

i don't hate the police whatever they do. i think putting 7 bullets in to an innocent person's head is sort of the limit to still being able to 'like' what they are doing. call it whatever you want, it was a public execution, of which the phrase has been used widely now.

You sure sound like it, insulting the police at every turn.
If you dont like them putting 7 bullets into a suspected terrorist head then what about if they actually put a bullet in a suspected leg?
Thats mameing, worse than death.
Hell whats the point in police haveing guns, in your eyes they cant handle anything else than a whistle and even then they need supervision.
Execution? Thats you opinion.
Justifiable defence.
If he had been a bomber and they had done the same, would it be justified?
No in your mind the death of any person is wrong and murder, am I correct?
And so the police where screwed from the start.

Originally posted by devilwasp

If you dont like them putting 7 bullets into a suspected terrorist head then what about if they actually put a bullet in a suspected leg?
Thats mameing, worse than death.

I bet if you did a survey by telling people that they had the choice either to take a bullet in the leg or in the head most people would opt for the leg.

Your opinion is that death is preferable to a bullet in the leg but do you know what death really is ?

BTW I assume that when you say 'a suspected leg', that you actually mean 'a leg belonging to a suspect' . . . . . there is a difference. . . . . a 'suspected leg' could turn out to be a head in these days of lying authorities!

Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart
I bet if you did a survey by telling people that they had the choice either to take a bullet in the leg or in the head most people would opt for the leg.

Your opinion is that death is preferable to a bullet in the leg but do you know what death really is ?

BTW I assume that when you say 'a suspected leg', that you actually mean 'a leg belonging to a suspect' . . . . . there is a difference. . . . . a 'suspected leg' could turn out to be a head in these days of lying authorities!

......Ok....
Firstly I meant it as an example of how if the police didnt aim to kil they would be mameing, I mean would you rather be crippled for the rest of your life rather than dead?

Would you prefer to be mamed or killed..

BTW....are you ever going to reply to my post or just ignore me?


[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]

this is a no brainer for me..
Of course shoot to kill is correct.
You cant just shoot a Suicide bomber once... expecting him to NOT be a threat..You need to put 4 or 5 bullets into him to ENSURE he doesnt click that one small button that will detonaet the bomb.

Being the atmosphere in the UK atm, if a foreign man is STUPID enough to wear a big bulky jacket... Disobey police ' many police ' orders to STOP And lay down, and Jump barricades run into a train.. you deserve to get removed from the genepool.

This is the way i look at it.
If they DIDNT shoot, and used commond procedure ' Stop, hands in the air ' rah rah rah, and this SUICIDE bomber did detonate.. how much CRAP would the police force get for not removing the threat before asking questions?

Isnt it better they are judged by people for making a difficult decision rather than being carried by 6 people in a pinebox?

The pansies out there screaming police brutality and heavy handed tactics obviously were no where near the buses when the exploded.
these bombers dotn care about being arrested, they dont care about being shot.
As long as they take innocencets with them.. they couldnt give a rats A$$.

People are soo quick to judge the good guys trying to keep people safe..
yet, arent prepared to pay a price once in a while...

if random bag searches need to happen, so be it.
why in NYC are people PROTESTING against random bag searches?
ITs for your own damn protection.
IF you dont like it..
DONT TAKE A BACKPACK ON A TRAIN or bus.. SIMPLE.

We live in a world where you cant trust anyone.
I cant get on a bus anymroe without looking at middleastern people and thinking the worse.. why?
because too many suicide bombs, backpack bombs and murders have happened.

Its unfortunate.
but if it keeps my a$$ safe, im prepared to open my bag to a policeman.. if he wants to look at my condoms, wallet phone who gives a crap.
Its just being petty now people complaining.

I think a total backpack BAN on buses and trains should come into affect.
Its a government service.. there trying to keep the public safe.
you dont like it.. find another means of transport.


[edit on 8-8-2005 by Agit8dChop]

Originally posted by devilwasp
Yeah but when they shout stop police ,etc. and they have "police" on thier hats that kind of signifies that they are police and you should stop.
Also the hats are there so they can identify themselves as policemen IF needed.

you're assuming they said 'stop, police', it could have just been 'stop'. the idea of plain clothes is not to look like police, wearing hats that said 'police' on would then be pointless, which is why i believe they were not wearing hats that said police...again this is hearsay and assumptions.

Yet again how do they know he is a threat, AKA worth watching?

Running away from police officers and heading towards a crowded train soon after a major terrorist attack ON the trains is not the smartest thing to do esspecially when people suspect you of being a bomber.

obvsiouly he was worth watching. the only way to know if he is a threat is to move up on him slowly. if he was a bomber what use would shouting at him be anyway?...if he was a bomber police or anyone shouting stop is not going to make him stop. running on a train platform is actually normal and a day to day thing, almost everyone is walking fast or running to get trains.

Ah but linked to my question before how do you know he is a threat and worth watching?
Also random searches on the street?
Could you imagine the outcry?
It would be just as bad as this.

obviously he was threat enough to watch his flats, follow him to the station, yet only became a serious threat when tactics such as shouting at him made him run. like i said before the only way to avoid this would be to go up to him slowly. i never said have random searches on the street. searching this guy would have been no harm because he came out of the block of flats, hence it also would not be a random search.

They teach it at every defence and law enforncement agency, department and service and in fact in lifeguarding to..

Shouting makes the suspect pay attention to you, once this is done you can assume control of the situation.

Mabye YOU missed the idea of trying to control a situation.

shouting at a suspect is o.k in certain situations, hence outside a bank 'this is police, come out with your hands up' (slightly exaggerated 'dog day afternoon' style). obviously shouting at this suspect didn't take control of the situation, taking control would have been moving up on him slowly and all 3 police grabbing his arms. you say that puts everyone at risk or more risk, yet shouting at him and him running away doesn't?

and no i did not miss the idea of controlling the situation. shouting at the suspect did not control the situation hence was the wrong form of action to use.

Uh yeah, you do relise that terrorists are taught about that kind of action right?
Oh and BTW doing that is actually FAR more dangerous than shooting the man if he did go for the bomb.

i'm not saying go for the bomb. i said grab both his arms. terrorists are taught this kind of action...well i'm pretty sure police are taught how to subdue a person as well. so how are we suppose to know if someone is a bomber...shout at them and see if they run, what help does that do...none at all.

How about, they shouted stop, he didnt stop, they pulled guns and shouted stop, still didnt, they caught him , he was struggling and looked like he was going for something, they suspected a bomb, they killed him to save the passangers.

were you there...you seem to know a lot about the story? no you weren't there, you're basing all your arguements on assumptions. if you read many eye witness statements, they say the man was half pushed, half tripped, the police jumped on him and unloaded shots, hence no struggle and in no report does it say there was a 'struggle' to keep him under control, yet he looked as though he was going for something. at the end of the day the need not save the passengers because there never was a threat, until the police shouted, hence using the wrong action, there was not a threat.

Running away from POLICE OFFICERS ARMED ONES, heading towards a crowded train right after a terrorist attack sure makes u look like a bomber.
And what if he WAS a bomber, he would have detonated a bomb and killed you, the officers around you, and the people around you.
Yeah much better.

if he was a bomber, a bomber upon hearing 'stop', or even 'stop, police' would have set his bomb off. so this action would have been useless against a real bomber. at the end of the day the police were lucky this wasn't a bomber as they never had the situation under control, even when they killed the guy the situation was out of control.

They took them out after they shouted and pulled guns??

what use is that when the suspect is already running, he doesn't know they are police nor have guns. in his mind he was running from some people shouting stop.

The police where wearing plain clothes so they would not be obvios, BUT when they where ordering and chasing him they put on the caps to make themselves identiviable as officers.
Also a suicide bomber wants the highest number of casualties, he would have headed for the train, why? Biggest number of casualties.

again you talk like you were there, 'the police grabbed their hats, and gave chase'?? where in the world did you get that from. that again is hearsay and assumptions on your behalf. bombers are not fussy, they've done their job if they take their own life and one more. if you knew how busy the underground was you would also know that setting your bomb off almost anywhere would take a substantial amount of casualties.

Your method of sneaking up behind him requires that ordinary members of the public dont interpret you as a mugger or thief and stop you, therefore foiling your plan and getting everyone killed, SECONDLY your plan counts on you being able to sneak up to the suspect with out being noticed.

if that's not a lame excuse i don't know what is. i don't say 'sneak' up as in be creeping up behind him on tip toes or anything. walk normal towards him or even just near him, one man infront, one man behind, one on the side, put your police caps on if you like. then quietly out of nowhere grab the man, then shout 'stop resisting, police'.

Oh really?
Now your the expert on searching?
It would have been seen as a random search AND hyped as one therefore makeing the police recieve more flak for trying to do their jobs.

i never said i was an expert, you assume way too much. it would not be perceived as a random search as he came out of a block of flats they were watching. random search would be stopping average joe on the street and searching him.

You sure sound like it, insulting the police at every turn.
If you dont like them putting 7 bullets into a suspected terrorist head then what about if they actually put a bullet in a suspected leg?
Thats mameing, worse than death.

ask the brazilian guy if he wants it in the leg or head, wait you can't he's dead.

Hell whats the point in police haveing guns, in your eyes they cant handle anything else than a whistle and even then they need supervision.

the point in having guns is to protect and serve. but they thought they were doing some protecting, yet the murder of an innocent person i don't think counts as protecting.

Execution? Thats you opinion.

damn straight it's my opinion. i think under the circumstances it could be seen as fact as well. 7 shots in to an innocent person's head...i don't know what else to call it. you say he was a suspect for running, yet what happened to innocent before proven guilty, just because 'in light' of the bombings, doesn't mean we lose our basic human rights of the law.

If he had been a bomber and they had done the same, would it be justified?
No in your mind the death of any person is wrong and murder, am I correct?
And so the police where screwed from the start.

if the guy had been a bomber i'd be the first to say 'good job'. like i said they are lucky he wasn't a bomber as it's almost certain he would have set it off. the police were screwed from the point at which they shouted 'stop'.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Being the atmosphere in the UK atm, if a foreign man is STUPID enough to wear a big bulky jacket... Disobey police ' many police ' orders to STOP And lay down, and Jump barricades run into a train.. you deserve to get removed from the genepool.

wake up people. he was not wearing a bulky jacket, it is now known he was wearing a denim jacket. in his mind he wasn't disobeying police, he was disobeying a random group of 3 people shouting stop. in london that's usually a good idea to run.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
you're assuming they said 'stop, police', it could have just been 'stop'. the idea of plain clothes is not to look like police, wearing hats that said 'police' on would then be pointless, which is why i believe they were not wearing hats that said police...again this is hearsay and assumptions.

There are witnesses and the officers say they had hats saying police!
Officers shout "stop police" to give an order and signify who they are, I've seen the navy do the same technique.
They as I said, where wearing hats to identify themselves as police AFTER they had given up on the survialence mission.

obvsiouly he was worth watching.

Thats not a reason.

the only way to know if he is a threat is to move up on him slowly. if he was a bomber what use would shouting at him be anyway?...if he was a bomber police or anyone shouting stop is not going to make him stop. running on a train platform is actually normal and a day to day thing, almost everyone is walking fast or running to get trains.

Yet again with this sneaking up behind people, this isnt splinter cell or MGS3.
If he was a bomber and he went for the bomb the officer could have shot him.

obviously he was threat enough to watch his flats, follow him to the station, yet only became a serious threat when tactics such as shouting at him made him run. like i said before the only way to avoid this would be to go up to him slowly. i never said have random searches on the street. searching this guy would have been no harm because he came out of the block of flats, hence it also would not be a random search.

Yet again as I said this is not MGS3 you cant just sneak up to somebody on the street with out pedestrians getting involved.
Also they where assesing if he was a threat, sure they are watching his house but your advocating them actually not watching what he does therefore not gathering intelligence.
It would have been hyped as random searches, why?
Because that sells news.

shouting at a suspect is o.k in certain situations, hence outside a bank 'this is police, come out with your hands up' (slightly exaggerated 'dog day afternoon' style). obviously shouting at this suspect didn't take control of the situation, taking control would have been moving up on him slowly and all 3 police grabbing his arms. you say that puts everyone at risk or more risk, yet shouting at him and him running away doesn't?

A) It is standard procedure in ALL situations, what you decide as ok is simply opinion.
B) They attempted to take control he pushed back.
C) 3 people grabbing a suspect does nothing, why? Because during the 22/7 attacks 3 men tried that on a bomber, he escaped.
D) Telling a man to stop and pointing a gun at him is safer than running up and wrestling with the guy.

and no i did not miss the idea of controlling the situation. shouting at the suspect did not control the situation hence was the wrong form of action to use.

Shouting attempts to control the situation, its a tool.
It did not control the situation but does not make it the wrong tool.
Thats your opinion.

i'm not saying go for the bomb. i said grab both his arms. terrorists are taught this kind of action...well i'm pretty sure police are taught how to subdue a person as well. so how are we suppose to know if someone is a bomber...shout at them and see if they run, what help does that do...none at all.

A) The triiger mechanism is usually in his hand.
B) Police are taught how to restrain someone, but that doesnt mean it works 100% of the time.
C) They told him to stop, they didnt WANT to shoot him thats why he managed to run.

were you there...you seem to know a lot about the story? no you weren't there, you're basing all your arguements on assumptions. if you read many eye witness statements, they say the man was half pushed, half tripped, the police jumped on him and unloaded shots, hence no struggle and in no report does it say there was a 'struggle' to keep him under control, yet he looked as though he was going for something. at the end of the day the need not save the passengers because there never was a threat, until the police shouted, hence using the wrong action, there was not a threat.

I am basing my version on the facts, as did you..
Funny how 2 diffrent version can be created from the same information.
Your basing yours as well on assumptions.
BTW I am not basing my entire argument on assumptions, most of it is facts.
He was half tripped and the police jumped on him, when he went for something they thought it was a bomb, or another weapon.
They did not want to engdanger the passengers by letting him use it.
At the end of the day ,the police where protecting the passengers and themselves, whether or not he was a threat now or infact was is pointless, he appeared to be a danger to everyone around him, hence why they acted.

if he was a bomber, a bomber upon hearing 'stop', or even 'stop, police' would have set his bomb off. so this action would have been useless against a real bomber. at the end of the day the police were lucky this wasn't a bomber as they never had the situation under control, even when they killed the guy the situation was out of control.

Oh really, A real bomber wants casualties not some random people, there would be much higher casualties if he got onto a train rather than the tunnels..

what use is that when the suspect is already running, he doesn't know they are police nor have guns. in his mind he was running from some people shouting stop.

No he is running away from police officers who are shouting "stop police".

again you talk like you were there, 'the police grabbed their hats, and gave chase'?? where in the world did you get that from. that again is hearsay and assumptions on your behalf. bombers are not fussy, they've done their job if they take their own life and one more. if you knew how busy the underground was you would also know that setting your bomb off almost anywhere would take a substantial amount of casualties.

I have been in the underground many a time, hell I went through the underground the week of the bombings, I was just outside london.
I am using the information available to make up what happened, YOU are doing the same.
Bombers are not fussy I agree but when they die they want to take as many as possible.

if that's not a lame excuse i don't know what is. i don't say 'sneak' up as in be creeping up behind him on tip toes or anything. walk normal towards him or even just near him, one man infront, one man behind, one on the side, put your police caps on if you like. then quietly out of nowhere grab the man, then shout 'stop resisting, police'.

Lame exscuse?
Its valid, also walking normally to him.
I can notice 3 people suddenly surrounding me and I am damm sure he could.
That strategy will most likely get people killed.

i never said i was an expert, you assume way too much. it would not be perceived as a random search as he came out of a block of flats they were watching. random search would be stopping average joe on the street and searching him.

You are acting like one.
I assume nothing.

IT WOULD HAVE BEEN HYPED AND PERCIEVED BY THE PUBLIC AS ONE.

ask the brazilian guy if he wants it in the leg or head, wait you can't he's dead.

Ask the brazlian guy if he wants to be paralysed or dead.

the point in having guns is to protect and serve. but they thought they were doing some protecting, yet the murder of an innocent person i don't think counts as protecting.
[/quoer]
They where protecting!
So when can police use their weapons?
When it turns into a good old gunfight.
"wait a minute lads , this guy needs to actually pull his weapon , kill one of us then we can shoot him."

damn straight it's my opinion. i think under the circumstances it could be seen as fact as well. 7 shots in to an innocent person's head...i don't know what else to call it. you say he was a suspect for running, yet what happened to innocent before proven guilty, just because 'in light' of the bombings, doesn't mean we lose our basic human rights of the law.

This "inocent until proven guilty" doesnt work in that situation and YOU know it.
Under the circumstances it CANT be seen as a fact because YOU decided on this "fact" by using YOUR knowledge.
Basic human rights, in combat you have no rights.
What about those police officers in NI, what rights to do they have?
What about the police oficers in iraq? What right do they have?
None in combat.

if the guy had been a bomber i'd be the first to say 'good job'. like i said they are lucky he wasn't a bomber as it's almost certain he would have set it off. the police were screwed from the point at which they shouted 'stop'.

Really? I find that hard to believe.

The police where screwed in your eyes before they even started.

Yet again with this sneaking up behind people, this isnt splinter cell or MGS3.
If he was a bomber and he went for the bomb the officer could have shot him.

exactly, so why not try and get close to the suspect? better than being far away and shouting. i'm not trying to say this is a game scenerio and 'sneak' up behind up like you're going to knife his throat. i'm saying they should have acted normally, like normal people, which is what plain clothed officers should do, and just get nearer to the suspect.

Yet again as I said this is not MGS3 you cant just sneak up to somebody on the street with out pedestrians getting involved.
Also they where assesing if he was a threat, sure they are watching his house but your advocating them actually not watching what he does therefore not gathering intelligence.

these pedestrians, who are going to get involved, are the same pedestrians that saw the hats saying police? bit of a contradiction. you say pedestrians saw the plain clothed officer had hats that said police, yet they are going to stop them going up to a suspect, because they might confuse it with a mugging. like i said grab him, read him his rights...that pretty much clears up that these people are officers and no muggers.

by all means watch the man, asses if there is a threat, yet when they thought there was a threat the man was already running. the police always seemed on the backfoot.

A) It is standard procedure in ALL situations, what you decide as ok is simply opinion.
B) They attempted to take control he pushed back.
C) 3 people grabbing a suspect does nothing, why? Because during the 22/7 attacks 3 men tried that on a bomber, he escaped.
D) Telling a man to stop and pointing a gun at him is safer than running up and wrestling with the guy.

exactly...3 people, not officers. officers are trained how to subdue a person using a certain amount of force. i never said wrestle with the guy. the least they could have done is been close enough to grab him, a suspect on the run is more dangerous than one that is not. the police created the threat, because the man would not have run unless they shouted.

Shouting attempts to control the situation, its a tool.
It did not control the situation but does not make it the wrong tool.
Thats your opinion.

it's not my oppinion. it's a fact that it did not control this situation. i said in some situations it would work, this was just the wrong situation to use it in.

A) The triiger mechanism is usually in his hand.
B) Police are taught how to restrain someone, but that doesnt mean it works 100% of the time.
C) They told him to stop, they didnt WANT to shoot him thats why he managed to run.

you said they were watching this man, yet why did they just decide to 'shout' at him then, if all they were doing is watching him. the trigger in the hand is neither here nor there, if that was a suicide bomber that day as soon as he heard stop he would have blown himself up, he wouldn't run and wait.

I am basing my version on the facts, as did you..
Funny how 2 diffrent version can be created from the same information.
Your basing yours as well on assumptions.
BTW I am not basing my entire argument on assumptions, most of it is facts.
He was half tripped and the police jumped on him, when he went for something they thought it was a bomb, or another weapon.

i'm not using facts or assumptions to back up my story, i'm not even using eye witness statements like you are trying to do. i'm saying the actions taking the day could and should have been avoided and there were many other actions to control the situation. that's one thing the police never did...control the situation, even when they shot the guy the situation was out of control. so what in the end was he 'going for' as you put it, as the police put it as eye witnesses put it... because he had no bomb, no weapon etc...what was he supposedly going for?

Oh really, A real bomber wants casualties not some random people, there would be much higher casualties if he got onto a train rather than the tunnels

obviously you've never been on the london underground, on a non-busy day the underground is crowded, whether its the trains, platforms or tunnels leading to platforms. you're assuming that this suicide bomber was going to target a train because he was a copy cat bomber, yet if it comes to it he's going to set his bomb off wherever possible, rather that than risk getting caught.

Lame exscuse?
Its valid, also walking normally to him.
I can notice 3 people suddenly surrounding me and I am damm sure he could.
That strategy will most likely get people killed.

how's it going to get people killed? they didn't 'know' he was a threat according to you, so being near him would be good. these were plain clothed officers and could have blended in fine with the crowds and still been near the suspect. at any one time in the underground you've got people surrounding you, having 3 plain clothed officers near you...you are not going to notice.

Ask the brazlian guy if he wants to be paralysed or dead.

who said he was going to be paralysed? also i cant ask him...he's dead, but i'm sure you already knew that.

So when can police use their weapons?
When it turns into a good old gunfight.
"wait a minute lads , this guy needs to actually pull his weapon , kill one of us then we can shoot him."

that's exactly when they can shoot, apart from the last bit ''kill on of us then we can shoot him''. if a suspect has a weapon already on him and he doesn't put it down police are aloud to shoot, or if the suspect starts shooting they are aloud to shoot. if the suspect has no weapon but looks as though he's going to pull something then they are again aloud to shoot. they don't need to wait for one of the police officers to be shot to be able to shoot a suspect, merely wait until he looks as though he's pulling a weapon, got a weapon, or is shooting or threatening to shoot etc. like you say he was 'going for something', yet he had neither a bomb nor a weapon...so what was he supposedly going for?

This "inocent until proven guilty" doesnt work in that situation and YOU know it.
Basic human rights, in combat you have no rights.
What about those police officers in NI, what rights to do they have?
What about the police oficers in iraq? What right do they have?
None in combat.

oright, because we had some bombers, and are now in ''combat'' you say its o.k that we lose our human rights. why are you talking about police in NI and Iraq, we're dealing with london right now. just because someone doesn't obey an order doesn't mean they're guilty. i'll use some eye-witness statements 'the man looked like a corned fox...petrified'...does this sound like a threat to you?

The police where screwed in your eyes before they even started.

when they were watching his flat they were 'watching' him. they had an oportunity to arrest him, search him or watch him. they also had oportunities to search him before he got in to the station. they had oportunities to apprehend him within the station. however, the only action ever taken was to shout at the suspect, this scared the suspect and he ran. i'm not trying to say the shoot to kill policy is wrong, i'm saying there were plenty of other ways to control this situation and as i have said before this situation was never under control.

the difference between our arguements is that you think the police were right to shoot an innocent man, i do not. we're never going to agree because you seem to think a police/army state is fine, and shooting innocent people is fine, and losing your human rights is fine.

[edit on 9-8-2005 by shaunybaby]

Originally posted by shaunybaby
exactly, so why not try and get close to the suspect? better than being far away and shouting. i'm not trying to say this is a game scenerio and 'sneak' up behind up like you're going to knife his throat. i'm saying they should have acted normally, like normal people, which is what plain clothed officers should do, and just get nearer to the suspect.

But do we even know how far away the officer was anyway?

these pedestrians, who are going to get involved, are the same pedestrians that saw the hats saying police? bit of a contradiction. you say pedestrians saw the plain clothed officer had hats that said police, yet they are going to stop them going up to a suspect, because they might confuse it with a mugging. like i said grab him, read him his rights...that pretty much clears up that these people are officers and no muggers.

Why have you taken parts from one scenario and stuck it in another?
A) This is your scenario of them walking up behind the subject?
B) They cant sneak up to a subjet with "police" written on thier hats.

by all means watch the man, access if there is a threat, yet when they thought there was a threat the man was already running. the police always seemed on the backfoot.

They shouted stop, when they decided to shout or even before that they would have decided he was a threat.

exactly...3 people, not officers. officers are trained how to subdue a person using a certain amount of force. i never said wrestle with the guy. the least they could have done is been close enough to grab him, a suspect on the run is more dangerous than one that is not. the police created the threat, because the man would not have run unless they shouted.

But how do you know they could have controlled him?
Or atleast held him?

it's not my oppinion. it's a fact that it did not control this situation. i said in some situations it would work, this was just the wrong situation to use it in.

I didnt control it this time, but this is only one instance.

you said they were watching this man, yet why did they just decide to 'shout' at him then, if all they were doing is watching him. the trigger in the hand is neither here nor there, if that was a suicide bomber that day as soon as he heard stop he would have blown himself up, he wouldn't run and wait.

They decided to shout stop because they did not know if he was here or there.
Aka one or not.
When he ran there was a good chance that he was one so they decided that he must be one.

i'm not using facts or assumptions to back up my story, i'm not even using eye witness statements like you are trying to do. i'm saying the actions taking the day could and should have been avoided and there were many other actions to control the situation. that's one thing the police never did...control the situation, even when they shot the guy the situation was out of control. so what in the end was he 'going for' as you put it, as the police put it as eye witnesses put it... because he had no bomb, no weapon etc...what was he supposedly going for?

We can debate what should or should not have been done all day...we all wanted it to play out diffrently....
He probably going for an ID or something like that BUT from the police persepctive, he could have been going for a weapon or a bomb.

obviously you've never been on the london underground,

I have been through 3 times in my life..

on a non-busy day the underground is crowded, whether its the trains, platforms or tunnels leading to platforms. you're assuming that this suicide bomber was going to target a train because he was a copy cat bomber, yet if it comes to it he's going to set his bomb off wherever possible, rather that than risk getting caught.

Yes on a non busy day its quite busy BUT there are a hell of a lot more people on the trains rather than the tunnels leading up then.
If he was a bomber, he would have a target , a very specific one that he wanted to get.

how's it going to get people killed? they didn't 'know' he was a threat according to you, so being near him would be good. these were plain clothed officers and could have blended in fine with the crowds and still been near the suspect. at any one time in the underground you've got people surrounding you, having 3 plain clothed officers near you...you are not going to notice.

3 people keeping level with you is noticable.
It will get people killed because if he was a bomber he would have triggered it on the first touch.

who said he was going to be paralysed? also i cant ask him...he's dead, but i'm sure you already knew that.

That is one thing that can happened when you dont shoot to kill.
Yes he is dead, thats very unforunate but we cant solely blame the police.

that's exactly when they can shoot, apart from the last bit ''kill on of us then we can shoot him''. if a suspect has a weapon already on him and he doesn't put it down police are aloud to shoot, or if the suspect starts shooting they are aloud to shoot. if the suspect has no weapon but looks as though he's going to pull something then they are again aloud to shoot. they don't need to wait for one of the police officers to be shot to be able to shoot a suspect, merely wait until he looks as though he's pulling a weapon, got a weapon, or is shooting or threatening to shoot etc. like you say he was 'going for something', yet he had neither a bomb nor a weapon...so what was he supposedly going for?

As I said, he was going for something, that something looked like a weapon to the police and frankly thats justification enough for me and as you said for you.

oright, because we had some bombers, and are now in ''combat

'' you say its o.k that we lose our human rights. why are you talking about police in NI and Iraq, we're dealing with london right now. just because someone doesn't obey an order doesn't mean they're guilty. i'll use some eye-witness statements 'the man looked like a corned fox...petrified'...does this sound like a threat to you?

Because you are on the run and police engage you in one way or another way that means your in combat.
I am talking about police in NI and iraq because they put up with the same threat and get the same crap as your putting them through for just trying to do their jobs.
Also ; an animal is most dangerous when its cornered.
I would see him as a very large threat if he was cornered.

when they were watching his flat they were 'watching' him. they had an oportunity to arrest him, search him or watch him. they also had oportunities to search him before he got in to the station. they had oportunities to apprehend him within the station. however, the only action ever taken was to shout at the suspect, this scared the suspect and he ran. i'm not trying to say the shoot to kill policy is wrong, i'm saying there were plenty of other ways to control this situation and as i have said before this situation was never under control.

They had opertunities before to stop him, but they just wanted to watch him.
Why they acted totally could be for a number of reasons, but IMO it was because they seen him as a threat.

They done more than shouting, you and I both know that.

the difference between our arguements is that you think the police were right to shoot an innocent man, i do not. we're never going to agree because you seem to think a police/army state is fine, and shooting innocent people is fine, and losing your human rights is fine.
[edit on 9-8-2005 by shaunybaby]

Now who's assumeing..
I see anyone who acts like a terrorist or enemy as the enemy, if they wherent they wouldnt behave like that.
I dont like nor ever believe there will be a police state, why?
Because unlike many of the people on here, know the military is made of people who are human.
I dont think shooting a suspect is fine but I see as sometimes necessary...

But do we even know how far away the officer was anyway?

obviously far enough away to have to 'shout'.

Why have you taken parts from one scenario and stuck it in another?
A) This is your scenario of them walking up behind the subject?
B) They cant sneak up to a subjet with "police" written on thier hats.

i only said they would have to because you said people would try and stop them. however, i was trying to say that simply walking near him they could have carried on observing him, they need not grab him. if they did decide to grab him, they can start reading his rights and by that i think shows to the public they're police.

They shouted stop, when they decided to shout or even before that they would have decided he was a threat.

so why shout? surely that means they are not close to the suspect, hence the suspect has a chance to get away or set his bomb off.

But how do you know they could have controlled him?
Or atleast held him?

i don't 'know' that three officers could have controlled the man. but it is likely that three trained officers are likely to be able to subdue a suspect. whether or not he had a bomb has nothing to do with controlling the man, because shouting at him obviously did nothing to control him as he ran.

They decided to shout stop because they did not know if he was here or there.
Aka one or not.
When he ran there was a good chance that he was one so they decided that he must be one.

so would it not be better to be closer to him and be able to shoot him, rather than have to give chase through a crowded station because you're shouted from a distance?

I have been through 3 times in my life..

then you should know that setting a bomb off almost anywhere would take a substantial amount of lives.

Yes on a non busy day its quite busy BUT there are a hell of a lot more people on the trains rather than the tunnels leading up then.
If he was a bomber, he would have a target , a very specific one that he wanted to get.

he would have had a target but when the police shouted stop, that target changes from the train to anywhere where there are people.

3 people keeping level with you is noticable.
It will get people killed because if he was a bomber he would have triggered it on the first touch.

they shouted at him and he didnt explode the bomb. they chased him and again no bomb explosion. yet, you say that because three plain clothed people being quite near him would mean he would trigger his bomb. like i said blend in with the crowd, it would be almost unoticable that three people were following in an underground crowd.

As I said, he was going for something, that something looked like a weapon to the police and frankly thats justification enough for me and as you said for you.

yeah if a person is standing in the street and police have told him to lay down and put both hands behind his head, yet if he goes to reach for anything the police have to shoot him. in the case of this brazilian man no such order was given, they assumed he was going for something. also the man had no weapon or bomb so what was he going for...his wallet? i'm sure that's the last thing on his mind to show his ID.

They had opertunities before to stop him, but they just wanted to watch him.
Why they acted totally could be for a number of reasons, but IMO it was because they seen him as a threat.

if he was a threat why shout?...would a suicide bomber say, yep you got me, i can't believe you knew how to stop me by shouting stop.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
obviously far enough away to have to 'shout'.

You can shout at any range..

i only said they would have to because you said people would try and stop them. however, i was trying to say that simply walking near him they could have carried on observing him, they need not grab him. if they did decide to grab him, they can start reading his rights and by that i think shows to the public they're police.

Not really, if somebody grabs someone and starts speaking to them you dont automatically think thier police..

so why shout? surely that means they are not close to the suspect, hence the suspect has a chance to get away or set his bomb off.

No, I have to shout at life guarding when I'm just what 1 metre away.

i don't 'know' that three officers could have controlled the man. but it is likely that three trained officers are likely to be able to subdue a suspect. whether or not he had a bomb has nothing to do with controlling the man, because shouting at him obviously did nothing to control him as he ran.

No shouting doesnt control the situation, it makes the person listen to you.
YOU control the situation.
Grabbing a man doesnt control it ethier.

so would it not be better to be closer to him and be able to shoot him, rather than have to give chase through a crowded station because you're shouted from a distance?

But we dont know how far away they've been.

then you should know that setting a bomb off almost anywhere would take a substantial amount of lives.

Yes but the biggest number of casualties would be in the atual train.

he would have had a target but when the police shouted stop, that target changes from the train to anywhere where there are people.

Not really.

they shouted at him and he didnt explode the bomb. they chased him and again no bomb explosion. yet, you say that because three plain clothed people being quite near him would mean he would trigger his bomb. like i said blend in with the crowd, it would be almost unoticable that three people were following in an underground crowd.

3 people at an unkown distance tried to stop him, he didnt, they pursed.
How did they know he would run?

yeah if a person is standing in the street and police have told him to lay down and put both hands behind his head, yet if he goes to reach for anything the police have to shoot him. in the case of this brazilian man no such order was given, they assumed he was going for something. also the man had no weapon or bomb so what was he going for...his wallet? i'm sure that's the last thing on his mind to show his ID.

What do you mean no such order was given, your ommiting details as you see fit.
If a person on the street who you've never met and doubt is a suicide bomber you dont shoot.
Besides, its all up to officer with the weapon, the rules of engangement say you can legally kill a man or women if he or she becomes a threat or you perceive is a threat.

if he was a threat why shout?...would a suicide bomber say, yep you got me, i can't believe you knew how to stop me by shouting stop.

Most people stop when someone shouts stop.

wake up and think a bit more about your posts devilwasp. it's just going back and forth, mostly because you can't accept the fact that there were other alternatives for this situation. simple as...nothing more needs to be said.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
wake up and think a bit more about your posts devilwasp. it's just going back and forth, mostly because you can't accept the fact that there were other alternatives for this situation. simple as...nothing more needs to be said.

I do think mate...
There are other alternatives I can understand that and I accept that and I had said that as well.

So Devil and Shaun.....
Do you think that its right to shoot to kill when you have a 'suspect'?

I have enjoyed reading your replies to each other and applaud you for the conduct in which you carried this out

One hell of an excellent debate fellas....................

[edit on 9-8-2005 by Bikereddie]

Originally posted by Bikereddie
So Devil and Shaun.....
Do you think that its right to shoot to kill when you have a 'suspect'?

I have enjoyed reading your replies to each other and applaud you for the conduct in which you carried this out

One hell of an excellent debate fellas....................

[edit on 9-8-2005 by Bikereddie]

Thanks...
I think it is ok, if the police are in danger and the publics in danger the police need to be able to use anymeans to defend themselves and the people around them.

shoot to kill policy is right in the right circumstances. for instance, if a suspect has a gun and the police have tried to reasoning with him, yet he doesn't listen and threatens to shoot, then the police are given no option but to shoot.

in the case of the stockwell shooting i think we need more facts to come to light before we make a decision to whether or not the shoot to kill had to be used. for example, the reports say the police shouted to the suspect 'stop' or 'stop, police'. however, this implies that the police were perhaps talking to the suspect or approached him, yet he ran, and then they shouted 'stop', because normally you wouldn't shout 'stop' to a person who's walking. either way its a complex situation.

Just as an aside - it has been mentioned that the police could use a Taser or Stun Gun, rather than pump eight bullets into the head of a perp.

Unless, you can be absolutely certain of the type of detonator being used, this policy could be fraught with danger. Electically Initiated Explosive Devices (EIED's) can vary tremendously in terms of their sensitivity. Particularly, if they are improvised, rather than standard military issue.

Sending a huge electric shock into someone wearing explosives of both the primary and secondary kind is not good karma.

If a person is 'suspected ' of carrying a gun or explosive device, and fails to stop when told, then the only obvious way to protect innocents that could be around, is 'shoot to kill'.

I know this is not the ideal way, but to me and many others, it is unfortunately, the only way that our security forces can deal with terrorists, suspected ones too.

This is the way of the world we are now living in. We are going to have to get used to it................

BikerEddie,

You appear to believe that 'Suspected terrorists' are just a different kind of terrorist!

Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart

BikerEddie,

You appear to believe that 'Suspected terrorists' are just a different kind of terrorist!

How is that a bad thing?
If a man acts and behaves like a terrorist does that mean we have to wait until he kills to suspect he's a terrorist?