1 edit
Originally posted by Tirau Dan"A policeman's job is only easy in a police state".
The Policeman who shoots an innocent person carries that burden for the rest of his life. That fact doesn't console the family of the innocent but it is a fact.
I don't know about America but in Britain and most Commonwealth count ...[text shortened]... .but cover circumstances in which a cop may use his weapon.)
NY Court of Appeals Former Chief Justice Sol Wachtler
EDIT: A google search reveals that the above line was first used in the great classic Touch of Evil; written by Orson Welles and spoken by Charlton Heston. I did see it in a judicial opinion though. It's still a good and true line.
Originally posted by Tirau DanThis isn't like that though. The British state have introduced a shoot to kill with no margin of error policy. And criminally failed to tell anyone!
The Policeman who shoots an innocent person carries that burden for the rest of his life. That fact doesn't console the family of the innocent but it is a fact.
I don't know about America but in Britain and most Commonwealth countries the law will judge the incident through the eyes of the cop as he or she saw it at the time.
Policemen are taugh ...[text shortened]... ns which police officers know..but cover circumstances in which a cop may use his weapon.)
In the situations that you were in your training was probably to aim at the torso to minimise the chance of missing and to reevaluate the situation after each shot.
The shouted warning came before they chased him down the escalators and onto a crowded train and then restrained him and then shot him through the head 7 times and once in the shoulder. They had ample time to work it out, since he had had enough time to detonate a device he can't have had one. They already had him restrained, so he couldn't reach any kind of detonation trigger as his hands were empty, so even if he had been an armed suicide bomber they shouldn't have had to kill him.
1 edit
I must add my 2 cents to this thread... the only reason this happened is because the war mongers Bush and Blair created the situation to happen. BEFORE Bush & Blair attacked Iraq, there were no terrorists in Iraq and/or the UK.
This incident is the result of two governments taking over a country that had NOTHING TO DO with terrorism! But now, people all over the world are uniting together for a common cause... their FREEDOM against these warring nations! And only the uninformed people think of them as "terrorists".
And BTW, since I'm posting... What about the 40-50 Iraq people who are killed EVERY DAY!? Nobody seems to care about them!
1 edit
Originally posted by DeepThoughtPolice have always been taught to shoot to stop! That was torso shooting. I gather the new order is to obliterate the brain with maximum force in order to ensure that no brain signal can travel to a trigger be it in the mouth hand etc. That order was issued on the advice of medical experts. So the order is still to shoot to stop.
This isn't like that though. The British state have introduced a shoot to kill with no margin of error policy. And criminally [b]failed to tell anyone!
In the situations that you were in your training was probably to aim at th ...[text shortened]... been an armed suicide bomber they shouldn't have had to kill him.[/b]
I'm not guessing the facts of this case which are under investigation. I guess you could say it may have been worth shooting the guy risking a shot in public?
The police in UK hopefully are not gungho trigger happy types as in some parts of the world. I have faith they acted in good faith even if they were mistaken.
If mistaken I have a lot of sympathy with them,, they'll never ever get over it. (Obviously for the family of the dead guy too.)
Rag: I'm not saying that multi shot sydrome applies to the london case as it appears they attempted the above scenario..I saw the brain obliteration thing on tv last night.. There have been plenty of multishot cases where the policeman has been still clicking his weapon on empty long after the suspect is dead.
We'll see when the PCA finish their inquiry
These things are super hard to judge unless you were there or have been there and have all the facts.
Originally posted by BLReidWell, there is actually quite a good case for that...War without guns. I like the idea. Armed, perhaps, only with chess boards as they challenge all their opponents to a large clan match. If we had 21 day timeouts then the potential for world peace is enormous.
Right you are! For that matter, how many lives could we save if we sent soldiers to war without guns? Just imagine the possibilities...
You can't be serious.
Originally posted by coletteWarfare has often been fought in a highly stylised way without major bloodletting. When Native American tribes fought, "counting coup" was more important than killing. In 15th century Italy, there was a period when the aristrocrats were so heavily armoured that death was the exception rather than the rule--the death of one knight in a particular battle was regarded as a disaster. That changed completely when Swiss mercenaries (commoners) were introduced and pragmatic killing rather than stylised posturing once again became the norm.
Well, there is actually quite a good case for that...War without guns. I like the idea. Armed, perhaps, only with chess boards as they challenge all their opponents to a large clan match. If we had 21 day timeouts then the potential for world peace is enormous.
In both cases, war was considered a noble activity, in the sense of struggle between equals.
1 edit
Originally posted by Tirau DanYou are quite right that modern training includes training in headshots. The reason for this is that it is widely known that torso shots have very little stopping power. Handgun rounds typically over-penetrate, causing very little trauma on their way through. Even fatal shots might leave an individual capable of fighting for a considerable time and killing numerous people (yes, law enforcement Officers are people). The cases for this have been so numerously documented that it would be silly to go into that. The exception to this would be .223 rounds designed to tumble. These rounds are designed to enter the body and then disperse, causing maximum trauma...which translates to effective stopping power. These are the rounds that many police agencies are using in "patrol rifles", such as AR-15's and Bushmaster's. Handguns simply do not provide the same effect, and head shots are often (unfortunately) neccessary to stop a threat. The key to threats is that they are reasonably perceived by the officer, which I believe you also pointed out in a previous post. I know that you are probably aware of all this, but I'm sure it will be enlightening for some of the other people active in this thread. For the record, I think that all deaths that are the result of law enforcement action are unfortunate...even the ones that are justifiable. I think it is a terrible thing though to call police officers murderers for doing their job. The people that toss those reckless allegations should try walking a mile, so to speak.
[b]Police have always been taught to shoot to stop! That was torso shooting. I gather the new order is to obliterate the brain with maximum force in order to ensure that no brain signal can travel to a trigger be it in the mouth hand etc. T ...[text shortened]... the advice of medical experts. So the order is still to shoot to stop.
Originally posted by Tirau DanShoot to kill is not the same as shoot to stop, torso shots (shoot to stop) are survivable and a 9mm round has a pretty hefty stopping power, head shots are almost invariably not surviveable. Clearly killing someone will stop them but that doesn't make it objectively the same, I think that that argument is untennable.
Police have always been taught to shoot to stop! That was torso shooting. I gather the new order is to obliterate the brain with maximum force in order to ensure that no brain signal can travel to a trigger be it in the mouth hand etc. That order was issued on the advice of medical experts. So the order is still to shoot to stop.
[see above post]
The advice of medical experts depends on the questions you ask them. My background is in physics, not biology, but nerve impulses could still be generated even after a severe brain trauma. Certainly a concious decision can probably no longer be made, but as to whether no signal can be generated depends on what parts of the brain are destroyed. Signals from the brain stem, or other parts of the brain still connected to the spinal column may cause muscle spasms potentially sufficient to set off a trigger device.
The bombers are fairly amateurish, part of the point of suicide bombings is that you don't need to be very good at it or have particularly good equipment. They didn't have a sufficient knowledge of explosives to ensure that the second wave of attacks worked, so they are highly unlikely to have mouth triggered devices; were they to get that sophisticated the devices could be triggered by the death of the bomber - for example a trigger activated by relaxing your grip on it, or the devices could be put on timers in which case obliterating the carrier's brain wouldn't stop a detonation.
Had de Menezes been an armed bomber then he would have had a lot of time to set off a device had he been carrying one. They chased him through the ticket hall, down the escalators and onto a train after which there was a struggle at the end of which they shot him. Having been to Stockwell underground station this is an about 150 yard chase.
My understanding is that when you are stopped by the police while driving in the US the procedure is to keep your hands on the wheel so that the policeman can see that you aren't going to pull a gun on them. Everyone knows it and this protects you from being accidentally shot. Here the police do not routinely carry firearms, it's not being shot that is your first worry in an entanglement with them. The government introduced a shoot to kill first interrogate later policy without warning people that if they didn't do exactly as ordered they'd be assumed to be an armed terrorist and be repeatedlty shot through the head. Even if the policy were justified that was hopelessly negligent.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtIn police terms: The term shoot to stop relates to the purpose of the shot, killing the person is not the purpose of the shot... stopping them from doing something lethal is.
Shoot to kill is not the same as shoot to stop, torso shots (shoot to stop) are survivable and a 9mm round has a pretty hefty stopping power, head shots are almost invariably not surviveable. Clearly killing someone will stop them but that doesn't make it objectively the same, I think that that argument is untennable.
The advice of medical experts d ...[text shortened]... atedlty shot through the head. Even if the policy were justified that was hopelessly negligent.
The brain obiliteration was on a doco on tv.. I think it was top neuro surgeons told the police that was what they needed to do..
I hear what you're saying re the specific case and have heard the Brit PM on the back foot offering compo.. The details will come out.
Some of the reasoning for this brain shooting method lies with bomb mechanics and the best intel available to the police.
3 edits
Originally posted by Tirau DanIn police terms: The term shoot to stop relates to the purpose of the shot, killing the person is not the purpose of the shot... stopping them from doing something lethal is.
post highlighted in bold in my reply.
Granted
The brain obiliteration was on a doco on tv.. I think it was top neuro surgeons told the police that was what they needed to do..
As I said I'm not a biologist or medic. But beware of documentary editors, they want to tell a story...
I hear what you're saying re the specific case and have heard the Brit PM on the back foot offering compo.. The details will come out.
I hope so. Although feel I need to repeat my point about them not telling people about the policy change.
Some of the reasoning for this brain shooting method lies with bomb mechanics and the best intel available to the police.
Well - you can envisage scenarios where there wouldn't be a choice - but I don't think it makes for a good policy.
It makes a change to discuss issues in these forums with someone who doesn't agree with me but actually argues the points rather than just lapse into insults.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtThanks for raising your points, all of which are pert and deserve an answer.
[b]In police terms: The term shoot to stop relates to the purpose of the shot, killing the person is not the purpose of the shot... stopping them from doing something lethal is.
Granted
The brain obiliteration was on a doco on tv.. I think it was top neuro surgeons told the police that was what they needed to do..
As I said I'm not ...[text shortened]... e who doesn't agree with me but actually argues the points rather than just lapse into insults.[/b]
I agree that all of it has been a tragedy and inquiries what ever the result won't change things or make them better.
As an ex cop I took insults throughout my 21 years from every Tom, Richard and Harriet under the sun for just doing my job.. The London Police do need some support.
Have some faith.. they will sort things out.
Cheers .. Dan
1 edit
Originally posted by DeepThoughtmaybe if you did more research before posting you would get replies that address your points directly. too often they are just knee-jerk cardboard-cutout leftist BS rhetoric.
It makes a change to discuss issues in these forums with someone who doesn't agree with me but actually argues the points rather than just lapse into insults.
take for example your claim the police haven't told anyone about their shoot-to-kill policy - check out this article in Times Online (24 May 2003) from over two years ago. I quote:
'Scotland Yard has also armed elite undercover squads trailing suspected Islamic militants and told them to shoot to kill if they believe a suicide attack is imminent'.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-690469,00.html
Also, here is the ICM Research Terrorism poll (conducted March 24-25, 2004) results:
http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/reviews/2004/NoTWTerrorism.pdf
from a sample of 1011 respondents (see the report for demographic analysis), 73% replied 'yes' in response to the question 'Do you think the police should or should not be able to adopt a shoot to kill policy against suicide bombers?'. Only 19% said no, while 8% didn't know.
So it looks like not only was the shoot-to-kill policy public knowledge, but there is also evidence it enjoys very solid public support.
Originally posted by NordlysWell spotted. The question was not "should they adopt one" (yes or no) but "should they be able to adopt one" (answer must obviously be yes).
If that's not a meaningless question, I've never seen one. Yes, I think the police should or should not be able to adopt a shoot to kill policy against suicide bombers.