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

[W.C.]

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.

I find it incredible that people still come out with this stuff. A completely innocent man was killed. He didn't run away, he wasn't here illegally. The police messed up, big time. None of this is any great secret.

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

I'm not getting into this again. Check my post history if you really care that much. Just going to say none of that is true, and you should really do some research before you form an opinion on someone who is leader of the opposition.

Conversely you can answer the question rather than act like a politician and avoid it at all costs. Strangely I saw an interview just before he was elected where he stated that we should talk to Argentina regards sovereignty of the Falklands. He raised the possibility of joint sovereignty ......
JC lives in an ideal world where people are all nice. In an ideal world you could seek a political solution to isis, unfortunately the only way to deal with this lot is with a mixture of force and attacking their funding streams. I suspect that he is a really nice bloke, but he needs to get with the real world.
The Brazilian guy who was shot on the tube ran when challenged, jumped over a ticket barrier and jumped on a tube train. In context with what happened previously I'm surprised he wasn't shot earlier. This is not a computer game where you restart when you fail!

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

NSC is becoming very predictable and tedious these days.

 

[supaseagull]

Did the police actually get the chance to apprehend the 7/7 bombers then ?

No but they shot an innocent Brazillian kid just because he "looked" Arabic and had a backpack.

Anytime you have a shoot to kill policy you are opening up a whole other can of worms.

America is proof of that.

 

[simmo]

I find it incredible that people still come out with this stuff. A completely innocent man was killed. He didn't run away, he wasn't here illegally. The police messed up, big time. None of this is any great secret.

But the police cannot win can they. You are blaming them for one tragic mistake, that sadly one person died in (10 years ago in the aftermath of 7/7). In the De Menezies case it was a question of mistaken identify. They believed him to be a suspected terrorist that lived in his same block of flats.

Cameron said a few days ago that 7 plots had been foiled in the UK this year alone.

Just think for a second how many lives that could have possibly saved. Hundreds maybe even thousands. It could easily have been yours, it could easily have been mine, but we just will never know who.

Rest assured too that when there is an attack UK soil they will be blamed

They have to get it right every single time don't they (added on top of which the govt. is/was cutting their funding probably, even though I bet this is being reviewed now) unlike politicians!

 

[grawhite]

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

If the suicide bomber has a deadman switch, which is if he release the button in his hand the bomb goes off. Easiest solution is shoot to paralyse (normally through the mouth or throat) this would stop the hand releasing the switch job done.

 

[grawhite]

I find it incredible that people still come out with this stuff. A completely innocent man was killed. He didn't run away, he wasn't here illegally. The police messed up, big time. None of this is any great secret.

I believe when confronted he did run, and his visa had expired so he was here illegally, which is why he ran in the first place. So you are caught in a catch 22 situation.

 

[Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!]

No but they shot an innocent Brazillian kid just because he "looked" Arabic and had a backpack.

Anytime you have a shoot to kill policy you are opening up a whole other can of worms.

America is proof of that.

Bloody Sunday is an example.

 

[Aveacarlin']

There are other options to just going for a head shot.

Ok, I'm all ears. What are these other options?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

But the police cannot win can they. You are blaming them for one tragic mistake, that sadly one person died in (10 years ago in the aftermath of 7/7). In the De Menezies case it was a question of mistaken identify. They believed him to be a suspected terrorist that lived in his same block of flats.

Cameron said a few days ago that 7 plots had been foiled in the UK this year alone.

Just think for a second how many lives that could have possibly saved. Hundreds maybe even thousands. It could easily have been yours, it could easily have been mine, but we just will never know who.

Rest assured too that when there is an attack UK soil they will be blamed

They have to get it right every single time don't they (added on top of which the govt. is/was cutting their funding probably, even though I bet this is being reviewed now) unlike politicians!

I follow @CourtnewsUK on Twitter, who report from the Old Bailey. There have been convictions in the past year of suspected terrorism where plots have been foiled. Our security services are doing a great job and can be forgiven for making mistakes.

 

[BigGully]

I find it incredible that people still come out with this stuff. A completely innocent man was killed. He didn't run away, he wasn't here illegally. The police messed up, big time. None of this is any great secret.

I think that is absolutely true, its at the decision making stage which is critical, but if you have arms you must either accept they are used at times as a deadly weapon with all the horrifying effects or you dont use them at all.

In the current climate with a genuine threat I find it absolutely unimaginable that you would not appoint a shoot to kill policy at times when 100's are at risk of being targeted at any one time.

 

[BigGully]

I believe when confronted he did run, and his visa had expired so he was here illegally, which is why he ran in the first place. So you are caught in a catch 22 situation.

The running bit isnt a crime, retrospectively he would of been better not to, but the point is the intelligence and decision aspect and thats what went wrong.

 

[FREDBINNEY]

No but they shot an innocent Brazillian kid just because he "looked" Arabic and had a backpack.

Anytime you have a shoot to kill policy you are opening up a whole other can of worms.

America is proof of that.

You're all missing the point , whenever armed services/police open fire in this country they always shoot to stop , which nine times out of ten means kill, this isn't some new policy which has been introduced.

 

[The Fifth Column]

There are some strong suggestions that the shooters of De Menezes were in fact members of a secret special forces military unit brought in to bolster police firearms units in the wake of the 7/7 plot, they were perhaps working to different rules of engagement along military not police lines and this may explain why no police officers were ever properly brought to task since they may not actually have been police officers. Add in the miscommunication and mistaken ID between the surveillance officers who followed him and the 'firearms' team that arrived as he got on the train then it is easy to see how this huge tragic mistake occurred. It annoys me though when people just spout off about the police killing an innocent man and intimate as if they deliberately targetted some innocent fella and couldn't wait to slot him after which they had high fives all round. It was a very rare and tragic mistake, one that thankfully happens in this country much less than in most other countries in the entire world so for that I'm more than happy that the police and security forces in the UK whilst not perfect are up there at the top of the league.

 

[FREDBINNEY]

If the suicide bomber has a deadman switch, which is if he release the button in his hand the bomb goes off. Easiest solution is shoot to paralyse (normally through the mouth or throat) this would stop the hand releasing the switch job done.

Bruce Willis might manage that , normal people probably not.

 

[simmo]

I follow @CourtnewsUK on Twitter, who report from the Old Bailey. There have been convictions in the past year of suspected terrorism where plots have been foiled. Our security services are doing a great job and can be forgiven for making mistakes.

Do you remember there was a big fuss a few years ago when you couldn't take liquids onto planes.

That came about because a plot was foiled by British police/intelligence to blow up (I think) 8 jumbo jets on the same day over the middle of the atlantic, each with probably 300+ passengers on board. If successful it would have had numbers of casualties similar to 9/11.

It was our police/intelligence service that foiled that (one of the dozey conspirators was using a public PC to communicate!).

People never remember this though (because it didn't happen, if you catch my drift). They just remember the failures, which Jean Charles de Menezies obviously was.

 

[FREDBINNEY]

Bloody Sunday is an example.

Of what ?

 

[grawhite]

I'm guessing by a lot of the reactions to the shoot to kill policy, many have never been put into a situation where you have a split second decision to make. I served in N.Ireland and wish we had a shoot to kill policy when facing the PIRA. Rules of engagement which both the security forces and police have to abide by can be in certain situations a hinderance.

 

[BigGully]

No but they shot an innocent Brazillian kid just because he "looked" Arabic and had a backpack.

Anytime you have a shoot to kill policy you are opening up a whole other can of worms.

America is proof of that.

Dont be daft, do you honestly think the command went out 'if you see an Asian or Arab looking guy, you know the ones with like a tan, and hes wearing a rucksack thingy on his back, then I think he needs to be shot dead' .......

Is this how you think things work, how old are you ??

Its the intelligence that is key, obviously you have none.

 

[The Fifth Column]

You're all missing the point , whenever armed services/police open fire in this country they always shoot to stop , which nine times out of ten means kill, this isn't some new policy which has been introduced.

Spot on. To suggest a police firearms officer would be able to differentiate and process within the margins of a split second whether he is shooting to stop, kill, just hurt a little, wound etc etc is ridiculous. They are trained to shoot full stop, usually shot people end up dead, thats not the result of any particularly worded policy its because they've been shot, its not bloody rocket science.