[News] Jeremy Corbyn 'not happy' with shoot-to-kill policy

[JC Footy Genius]

Jeremy Corbyn says he is "not happy" with UK police or security services operating a "shoot-to-kill" policy in the event of a terror attack.

The Labour leader told the BBC such an approach could "often be counter-productive".

He also declined to answer what he called the "hypothetical question" of whether he would ever back military intervention against extremists.

"I'm not saying I would or I wouldn't," he said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34832023


Trying to handcuff a heavily armed suicide bomber could prove tricky ......

 

[Diablo]

Shoot to kill ..... Must be the only policy.

 

[Chinman3000]

Which is another reason why he is an unelectable old fool and will always remain so.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

I'm "not happy" with Jeremy Corbyn's views on UK security policy, but at least I suppose we are both members of the "not happy" club so have something in common.

 

[narly101]

Maybe we could try shoot to tickle?

What a daft old ****.

 

[Megazone]

The same man who claims 9/11 was manipulated.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...892383/Jeremy-Corbyn-911-was-manipulated.html

 

[Paul Reids Sock]

Having not read what he has said fully I may be wrong. However he could have point - If it was a suicide bomber they may have a booby trap on the device which triggers its detonation when the assailant is killed. He is also probably not saying just handcuff them but that 'shoot to kill' is not the only and shouldn’t be the first option.

The guy does get a lot of unwarranted bad press; the bow incident at the remembrance service was just another example of our media at its absolute worst

And no - I am not a leftie

 

[Mackenzie]

Having not read what he has said fully I may be wrong. However he could have point - If it was a suicide bomber they may have a booby trap on the device which triggers its detonation when the assailant is killed. He is also probably not saying just handcuff them but that 'shoot to kill' is not the only and shouldn’t be the first option.

The guy does get a lot of unwarranted bad press; the bow incident at the remembrance service was just another example of our media at its absolute worst

And no - I am not a leftie

Shoot them and take the chance that it's booby trapped or don't shoot them and have the certainty that they'll detonate. Not the toughest choice really.

 

[Paul Reids Sock]

Shoot them and take the chance that it's booby trapped or don't shoot them and have the certainty that they'll detonate. Not the toughest choice really.

The point I was more making was that you can shoot without shooting to kill. There are other options to just going for a head shot.

I am more than happy for us to take them out in anyway possible to stop an attack but killing will not alway be the answer and I think that is all he was trying to get across here!

 

[Ernest]

And what happens when we start gunning down innocent people like the Brazilian guy ?

 

[beorhthelm]

firstly this highlights why he's not really ready for leadership, missing the opportunity to give a nice fluffy evasive answer. like Cameron's spokeman's that this is "an operational decision for police on the ground". dodged. Corbyn's straight, honest style might be endearing but its also naive, sometime you need to be evasive. and thats before considering the fine detail of "shoot to kill" vs "shoot to stop", which is the normal policy as i understand.

secondly this highlights why Corbyn just isn't credible as a leader, as there is nothing hypothetical about the question, unless it whether he would ever have to answer it.

 

[Chicken Run]

JC unfortunately for his own image is an awkward character.

 

[Diablo]

And what happens when we start gunning down innocent people like the Brazilian guy ?

The" Brazilian Guy" was not innocent of crime. OK he was not a terrorist as suspected and should not with hindsight have been shot....He would not have been shot if he hadn`t tried to run away. He would also not have been shot if he had renewed his visa(negating his reason for running away) or left this country as he should have done.

 

[crookie]

The point I was more making was that you can shoot without shooting to kill. There are other options to just going for a head shot.

I am more than happy for us to take them out in anyway possible to stop an attack but killing will not alway be the answer and I think that is all he was trying to get across here!

Sure I've read about this point before, with experts claiming that with a moving target it is very difficult to get an aim to wound shot in. Armed police would tend to go for a body shot anyway rather than a head shot, which is a much smaller target. I think it is easy to say they should shoot to wound, a bit more difficult if you're in that situation with the responsibility of shooting someone before they can detonate themselves, potentially killing many others

 

[FREDBINNEY]

The point I was more making was that you can shoot without shooting to kill. There are other options to just going for a head shot.

I am more than happy for us to take them out in anyway possible to stop an attack but killing will not alway be the answer and I think that is all he was trying to get across here!

Its a common misconception that this is the case , you really cant except in a hollywood film.

 

[FREDBINNEY]

firstly this highlights why he's not really ready for leadership, missing the opportunity to give a nice fluffy evasive answer. like Cameron's spokeman's that this is "an operational decision for police on the ground". dodged. Corbyn's straight, honest style might be endearing but its also naive, sometime you need to be evasive. and thats before considering the fine detail of "shoot to kill" vs "shoot to stop", which is the normal policy as i understand.

secondly this highlights why Corbyn just isn't credible as a leader, as there is nothing hypothetical about the question, unless it whether he would ever have to answer it.

They are one and the same.

 

[BigGully]

And what happens when we start gunning down innocent people like the Brazilian guy ?

Well as soon as you have a armed policy then this can always happen, irrespective of shoot to kill or not, it seems it was the identification mistake with an unravelling of events.

You either have arms and use them with all their horrifying effects or you dont, for a 'so called' principled man he doesnt seem have much conviction.

 

[Hastings gull]

Jeremy Corbyn says he is "not happy" with UK police or security services operating a "shoot-to-kill" policy in the event of a terror attack.

The Labour leader told the BBC such an approach could "often be counter-productive".

He also declined to answer what he called the "hypothetical question" of whether he would ever back military intervention against extremists.

"I'm not saying I would or I wouldn't," he said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34832023


I think a certain gentleman is finding out that it is one thing to be a rebellious back-bencher, when he can get away with evasive responses, but quite another if he is to be taken seriously when security is at stake. To be fair, shoot to kill is not always the best solution, and witness what happened after 7/7 when they shot the wrong person. But given that in a situation of extreme tension, and that a policeman or whoever has to make a split-second decision, it is sadly going to happen. That does not mean we have to be gung-ho, but just accept that the option of shoot to kill, however distasteful in theory, could well be the option that saves hundreds of lives.

 

[pastafarian]

"im not happy with the shoot to kill policy in general, i think that is quite dangerous"

Stating The Obvious Award 2015 goes to...........

 

[Stat Brother]

"im not happy with the shoot to kill policy in general, i think that is quite dangerous"

Stating The Obvious Award 2015 goes to...........

Someone could get hurt.