London Alert - Page 4

Doug · 22-07-2005, 22:48

Some confusion Cashman. I totally get it and I don’t give a flying **** about the rights of anyone engaged in the taking of innocent life. I wasn’t defending these people I was condemning them. If I give you any other impression I can ask you to read the post again. The officers involved undertook standard procedures and emptied the chamber into the head of a suspected terrorist, he give up his right to life when he ran, is that clear enough

garinda · 23-07-2005, 00:14

So if a young chav is stopped by the police and drives off resulting in a car chase, he/ she should be shot in the head too?

Doug · 23-07-2005, 00:26

Garinda, in times like these people should have the sense not to play with the authorities. If an officer as a weapon you stop. I think that it’s likely that not all future bombers will be of Asian or Afro Caribbean descent. The next one might just be white. If they run and the authorities consider them a threat then they must assume the worst and shoot. One life against 50 odd or more. Which way would you have it?

cashman · 23-07-2005, 00:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug

Some confusion Cashman. I totally get it and I don’t give a flying **** about the rights of anyone engaged in the taking of innocent life. I wasn’t defending these people I was condemning them. If I give you any other impression I can ask you to read the post again. The officers involved undertook standard procedures and emptied the chamber into the head of a suspected terrorist, he give up his right to life when he ran, is that clear enough

we seem to be at cross purposes here doug i dont give a flying **** about them either,i also do not think giving out to much information is benificial either,what i do think is announce the shoot to kill policy through the media and then NONE of these dogooding cretins can have any comeback.end of story.

Doug · 23-07-2005, 01:15

My apologies Cashman my mistake, I thought they had made it clear. If they haven't then I would agree with you.

staggeringman · 23-07-2005, 01:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

So if a young chav is stopped by the police and drives off resulting in a car chase, he/ she should be shot in the head too?

SHOOT ANYONE THAT IS SUSPICIOUS ! YOU MAY GET ONE WRONG ONE BUT YOU MAY SAVE 700, easy in it .blow them all away?

Bazf · 23-07-2005, 01:49

There has been a policy for years in the UK about when the police or Army can use force to stop or control a terrorist and as someone who had to carry a weapon I totally agree with it, you have to give 3 warning and then the person in charge has to make a decsion whether to use force or not, except in the case where you think yourself, a civilian or others may be hurt or killed then you use your professional knowledge to shot to kill, why never to maim... because a. its not James Bond b. you may miss and injure innocent people c. biggest part of the body is the biggest target. Belive it or not it was passed as ok by the European court of human rights on more then one occasion when the UK forces were challanged by the Paddys.
What makes it seem surral is that ever TV news station hear has the headlines "British police shot and killed a man" this is the biggest news story and people at work came up to me today saying "your police killed a guy today" police shooting people here doesnt even get mentioned, in a 2 week period Tampa police have killed 7 people. So if the police shot someone then it headlines around the world and in a small way it is something to be proud of, not the actual killing, but the fact it doesnt happen that often which means the so called do-gooders don't have a lot to go on about.

garinda · 23-07-2005, 10:20

Like l said earlier if this guy was a suicide bomber l am glad he is dead, although at the moment, the evidence seems to point to the contrary. More oil on their fire?

Again like l pointed out earlier, l rode the same tube line everyday for seventeen years where this inncident happened. In that time l saw a man shot dead at Tooting Broadway tube station. I had a knife thrown at me at the very tube station this shooting happened at, the amount of times l saw muggings was uncountable. If someone in plain clothes, which apparently some of theses marksman were, told me to stop, l hope l would have, because normally you go quickly in the opposite direction, even if they said they were policeman. l was once nearly mugged by someone claiming to be a London Underground Police Officer.

All l am saying is that, in order for tensions not to go any higher, the Police need to issue public statements about a/ what to do in these situations if you are caught up in it, b/ after carrying out a shoot to kill, evidence that the person shot was indeed a searious threat to the public.

cashman · 23-07-2005, 14:36

that seems simple enough to me rindy, cant see whats up with it.

Less · 23-07-2005, 14:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

So if a young chav is stopped by the police and drives off resulting in a car chase, he/ she should be shot in the head too?

If for example the threat of dying because you might be tempted to steal some-one elses property.
In the view of making the streets safe for every-one else, then yes, shoot them in the head, they know how tense things are at the moment and if it is the only way of curing them of killing innocent pedestrians when they get involved with a car chase then so be it!

chav1 · 23-07-2005, 14:54

i remember a case where soldiers killed a young driver who sped through a checkpoint in ireland and the poor soldier got taken to court accused of murder

we need a shoot to kill policy on more than just suspected terrorists it should apply to anyone endangering others wether it be joy riding or carrying a bomb

if you refuse to comply to orders given to you by the police then the police should be able to stop you by any means nessesary

its ok saying but if we arm the police the criminals will get guns but that argument is null and void because criminals in the UK alredy have and use guns

Acrylic-bob · 23-07-2005, 15:06

This, from my Bible - The Times, may halp carify matters...

"THE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT

Anti-terrorist police have a policy, codenamed Operation Kratos, for dealing with suspected suicide bombers. At its most extreme, it involves shooting at the head

Armed officers in England and Wales aim at the chest, but bombers hit in the chest can still trigger explosives

Once a person is judged a serious risk to the public armed police can open fire

They can only open fire while on duty when absolutely necessary and when traditional methods have tried and failed, or are unlikely to succeed

Police are expected to identify themselves as armed officers and warn of their intent to use firearms

They must give sufficient time for a suspect to observe the warning, unless that puts anyone at risk"

garinda · 23-07-2005, 16:44

Yes A-b l read the same guidelines, and understand the need to shoot the suspect in the head, when there is a risk that firing at the normal chest area may detonate any explosives strapped to the suspect's body. My point is all l've heard today was that this man had been under surveillance, in my opinion not enough evidence too probably quell an already touchy minority of young Muslim extremists into carryiing out more acts of terror.

Quite agree that a shoot to kill policy could be brought in for lots of life endangering offences. One problem though, what would the BBC show as prime time programming if they can't show car chases?

cashman · 23-07-2005, 17:44

hadn't seen those guidelines a-b,but my point is simple readers of your bible are in the minority,weather thats good or bad i wouldn't presume to comment,the guidelines should be printed in all papers,and on the news channels, then no dogooder or fanatical murdering scumbag has no excuse whatsoever.can't see how that would be hard to acheive even with this limp wristed government.

Margaret Pilkington · 23-07-2005, 18:39

I am sorry that the young man was shot......but he was ordered to stop and he didn't.
If he had complied with the instructions then maybe he would have been alive today.
There were pictures in the paper yesterday of a young man with a rucksack being handcuffed.......he did what the police asked of him and he is safe.
If this man was running, then the police have to assume he is running for a reason......they have only a split second to make a judgement.......if he had been a bomber and another 56 people were lying dead then they would be at fault......it seems to me it is a case of lose/lose situation here.
The man who pulled the trigger will have it on his conscience for life.

In the current climate some tough decisions are having to be made......this was one of them...and it will be investigated by independent police commission to ensure that policies were rigorously followed.