Shoot to kill.

[F A B Scott]

Regarding terrorists [& suicide bombers particularly] do you think the police should be allowed to shoot to kill.

1 without a warning
2 not without a warning
3 not without two warnings
4 not ever
5 don't know

[brumster]

To qualify - I'm assuming we're talking about not any old police officer, but trained armed officers (SO19 I think it is, yes?) and only while on duty!

[Hardass]

Its one of those ‘near impossible’ decisions, definitely, but if you think along the lines of ‘shooting one person to save the life of 20 or 30’ it becomes easier to deal with. One of the problems you do face, as has happened recently, are innocent casualties.

While this is a tragedy, where do you draw the line, if a person does not respond for whatever reason to warnings and multiple human lives are seen to be at risk, is it not imperative to preserve the greater number of lives?

Probably one of the hardest calls a marksman will ever have to face, as there is no time to consult others, and so share the responsibility for the decision.

[haz]

I voted 'with two warnings'

Although there may be innocent people killed, (as represented with the Brazilian man recently)

I feel two warnings is enough, assuming they aren't deaf, and the warnings are perfectly audible.

It could potentially prevent a bombing. Or 'capture' a bomber whilst running away.

If the Police find themselves in a position where they feel a 'shot to kill' tactic is appropriate then it has to be fairly serious. If the person is innocent, then they'll hear the warnings, stop, and not killed.

If someone is risking their life to just to escape the police from what could be a minor offence, or maybe a major one, then in that case I feel shoot to kill is acceptable.

[pdf27]

Setting limits on when they can or cannot shoot will probably cause more casualties than it saves - the police don't want to shoot people, and will avoid it wherever possible. Setting limits for example on the number of warnings will not help this process, and may well end up with armed police being killed - after all, if someone pulls a gun on them and they aren't allowed to shoot until they've given the guy two warnings they're most likely dead. The current guidelines (approximately only shoot when not shooting is worse) are fine IMHO.

[matkubicki]

I put never but really meant:

Should only shoot to kill when the police officer is under immediate and obvious threat, i.e. gun held at them, person wearing a rucksack with finger on a button. You have to give people the benefit of the doubt, even when dealing with potential terrorists, the whole point is to protect the innocent but not by any means necessary.

Basically what I’m saying is I wouldn’t have shot the Brazilian unless i had a very real belief that he had a bomb, and dark skin and a thick coat does not qualify as a real belief in my eyes.

Just my 2p though, its such a difficult issue even my left wing socialist blood finds it hard to come to a decision

[Forthy]

Basically what I’m saying is I wouldn’t have shot the Brazilian unless i had a very real belief that he had a bomb, and dark skin and a thick coat does not qualify as a real belief in my eyes.

..so when you add in the other facts like:

-he came out of a block of flats that SO19 were monitoring after recieving credible intelligence
-he was challenged and ran away
-his sprint seemed solely focused on geting on to that train (bearing in mind that if he didn't realise they were the police and thought it was some wierdo's wielding guns, would you really trap yourself in a train???)

..I think even you would have pulled the trigger, oh pacifistic one :rolleyes:

[Zozart]

I voted for no warning. However, that assumes a certain amount of intelligence on the suspected bomber. If such a suspect was in a position to detonate, potentially killing dozens of people in the process, I would have thought that shouting a warning would probably do little to stop him, and so shooting him would be the best and "safest" option, though of course if he's wearing pressure pads then the situation changes for the worst.

If, however, such a suspect was in a position where detonating would cause no harm to others (for instance, in the middle of an empty carpark), I would be inclined to say a warning would be the best cause of action.

[shifty.ricky]

Define Warning.

The warning is based around guidelines. If you shout a warning then they could bow themselves up, if you dont you could get an innocent. Also not all warnings are verbal. c-o-c-k-ing (damn swear filter) your weapon and altering your stance / attitude sufficently are considered as strong as a verbal warning in the forces.

[yatesy]

..so when you add in the other facts like:

-he came out of a block of flats that SO19 were monitoring after recieving credible intelligence
-he was challenged and ran away
-his sprint seemed solely focused on geting on to that train (bearing in mind that if he didn't realise they were the police and thought it was some wierdo's wielding guns, would you really trap yourself in a train???)

..I think even you would have pulled the trigger, oh pacifistic one :rolleyes:


Agreed. I voted one warning, but if the person runs......

Then surely they have something to hide, and should be stopped.

If however they run, here the warning and stop, then that warning may have just averted a unnecessary death...

Yatesy

[F A B Scott]

How would the warning approach apply where a marksman was looking down the barrel at a hostage taker [with his knife-weilding arm round the neck of the hostage] from a couple of hundred yards away.Warn him and the hostage is dead?

[yatesy]

True.

Ok then, so it would have to depend on the circumstance, a bit of common sense would need to be applied!!!

[Oblivion]

The thing that i have found VERY amusing in this thread is the amount of people who have opted for the "no warning" option, so this means armed police can just pick someone and shoot them in the back of the head does it? LOL

I voted for 2 warnings, by this i presume you mean something like:

"ARMED POLICE HALT, WE WILL OPEN FIRE"

"STOP OR WE WILL SHOOT"

BANG BANG BANG, GAME OVER


EDIT: Comments obviously made in Jest, not be taken so literally! In future i will put lots of :D everywhere so its even more obvious!

[F A B Scott]

The thing that i have found VERY amusing in this thread is the amount of people who have opted for the "no warning" option, so this means armed police can just pick someone and shoot them in the back of the head does it?..I'm surprised [as opposed to your amused]that so many have voted for anything other than no warning. If you were on a tube and an olive skinned bloke [for example] with a rucksack full of TNT on his back got on, the suggestion to warn him twice wouldn't be appreciated by you or the passengers who would then have been blown to smithereens before the warnings were finished. Oh well, never mind, at least the, probably also dead, police couldn't be blamed. :rolleyes:
And obviously the police can't "just pick someone and shoot them in the back of the head"[which btw, is not what they did;see earlier post by Forthy ] but if the odds are very likely that they are about to bomb something, of course they should have the law behind them when they give no warning other than pointing the gun.[which would be a good enough warning for me]
[Just my personal opinion.] :)

[FEAR]

it would depend on the immediate circumstances of the situation on if the police would shoot to kill. I have no problem with the police shooting someone who is about to or is even intending to carry out a terrorist attack (with solid intelligence of course) Just my opinon, I dont think we should show these people mercy. I know in London there are undercover SAS units in operation, and if your a terrorist about to do something naughty. and run into them, expect to be shot in the back of the head. This is from experience of having met a ex SAS trooper who served undercover in Northern Ireland.

In my experience in the armed forces, if someone is threatening you, or your fellow men, you shoot the b*stard. no warnings, but obviously that is a different situtation, and thats how we deal with things. Pointing a weapon at a suicide bomber and issuing a warning to someone who is intending to blow themselves up simply isnt effective, if you dont act e.g. kill them, then you will die, and so will a lot of other people. Sadly you cant reason with these hardcore suicide bombers.

[jnm21]

Setting limits on when they can or cannot shoot will probably cause more casualties than it saves - the police don't want to shoot people, and will avoid it wherever possible. Setting limits for example on the number of warnings will not help this process, and may well end up with armed police being killed - after all, if someone pulls a gun on them and they aren't allowed to shoot until they've given the guy two warnings they're most likely dead. The current guidelines (approximately only shoot when not shooting is worse) are fine IMHO.
That message deserves to be quoted - very true. I also agree with much of what Fear has said.

I think that only people with judgement to be trusted should be in the police (I'm not sure about the SAS - we need the 'best' in there for 'war', but I'm far from confident that the best conventional war heroes are safe to be armed on the streets - during a 'war', shoot first ask later is more acceptable that in today's extremist terrorist times, where the difference between a pillar of the community & someone as deserving to die as anyone in history can be imperceivabe even to their closest family). Therefore, I'd say that the police must be told 'do your best' AND be backed when they do (I fear that some of those officers who killed the Brazilian may end up in jail for a long time).

[Cosmo_1847]

the tactics have changed as has the world becoming a more voiolent place.
There used to "taping" which was to fire two shoots into the persons chest then one in the head (i think), now they empty the clip into the person.

from the different comments it does all depend on the circumstances. if the person has a backpack on it may be better if they where shot in the arms disableing them from detonating the boom. that way if its an innocent there not dead. but if its a bomber they might still be able to blow themselfs up.

Whatever way you look at it someone is gonna get killed.

If its a person running i think that 2 warning should do.
one warning.
still runs
last chance
still runs and gets shot.

if thay dont run they that will be taken away for questioning. Alive.

The main thing that ****es me off is that the Public people that get hurt or killed are all innocent.

[jnm21]

Hmm, I suspect you may have been drinking. They can't shoot them in the arms (not both at the same time), hence shooting for the head. It is catch 22 - shoot to kill & you may kill an innocent, do anything less & the person may kill 100's of innocents.

[pdf27]

Hmm, I suspect you may have been drinking. They can't shoot them in the arms (not both at the same time), hence shooting for the head. It is catch 22 - shoot to kill & you may kill an innocent, do anything less & the person may kill 100's of innocents.
Heh. Anyone try to work out how hard it is to hit a hand-sized target (moving about quite a bit if they're running) with a handgun while you're running, when you'll probably kill some random commuters if you miss? We don't have guided bullets yet ;)

[DarkEntity]

i think, if an armed police/army any forces etc orders u to stop or he/she will fire that should be enough. they wouldnt do it unless it was serious, so why should they repeat as long as its audible...

[Dennis Bailey]

A policeman runs up to a suspected terrorist suicide bomber and shouts, "stop, armed police".................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ...........KABOOM