Not to mention that shooting, other than to kill, chances are will lead to them detonating any explosives they have anyway
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[News] Jeremy Corbyn 'not happy' with shoot-to-kill policy
- Thread starter JC Footy Genius
- Start date
Not to mention that shooting, other than to kill, chances are will lead to them detonating any explosives they have anyway
sir albion
New member
Wait to get shot and hopefully you'll get your shot in after
The blokes a complete utter tree hugging buffoon
The blokes a complete utter tree hugging buffoon
BensGrandad
New member
I would have thought that if they shot a man just to stop or down them but not to kill could they not operate a hand held detonator be it a suicidal bomb or not.
We are getting ourselves in a pickle, the only grey area might be at the identification and/or the intelligence stage, once a decision is confirmed then he is either killed or arrested.
Gullflyinghigh
Registered User
- Apr 23, 2012
- 4,279
I've not read the article so apologies if covering something said within but does it (or he) elaborate on the hypothetical situation at all?
For example, if there was an attack and security forces had a shot on a gun toting individual would he support them taking it (personally I'd hope so), or is it referring to if someone looks suspicious but without anything more? I'd have to hope that shooting immediately wouldn't be first there, one trigger happy event could create more carnage than it solved (if they got it very wrong).
For example, if there was an attack and security forces had a shot on a gun toting individual would he support them taking it (personally I'd hope so), or is it referring to if someone looks suspicious but without anything more? I'd have to hope that shooting immediately wouldn't be first there, one trigger happy event could create more carnage than it solved (if they got it very wrong).
symyjym
Banned
BensGrandad
New member
I knew a member of the Met armed unit when I lived in Epsom and he once said if he is facing a gun man it is a case of him or me so instructions to shoot to stop him go out of the window. He would do that if the person was running away but not if facing him with a gun.
Sam Ovett
The New Manager Bus
Everything he says just makes me dislike him more and more.
Gregory2Smith1
J'les aurai!
I'm sure blowing a whistle and getting yor trunchon out
will stop them in there tracks
will stop them in there tracks
symyjym
Banned
If we lived in a perfect rational world what he says would be right. Unfortunately we do not live in a perfect word full of rational people and we have to be realistic.
Every case has to be treated on its own merits and it's daft to suggest that a policy can always be invoked regardless of the circumstances. In the case of the Lee Rigby killers, they sprinted towards the armed police brandishing kitchen knives and a meat cleaver yet the police had the presence of the mind to simply aim low and pretty much kneecap them. Hey presto! Two evil swine get their day in court and justice is seen to be done. Top policing.
In the case of a suicide bomber that situation changes and shoot to kill becomes viable. Are the police able to assess if the bomber has a dead man's switch? Where is the bomber in relation to the public? There are so many variables and potentially so little time to assess them. Shoot to kill must be an option but I would hate to think of it simply being invoked as a blanket policy.
Of course, there's too many shades of grey in that response and if I were leader of a major party it would probably be simpler for the media to label me a peacenik and threat to national security and move on.
In the case of a suicide bomber that situation changes and shoot to kill becomes viable. Are the police able to assess if the bomber has a dead man's switch? Where is the bomber in relation to the public? There are so many variables and potentially so little time to assess them. Shoot to kill must be an option but I would hate to think of it simply being invoked as a blanket policy.
Of course, there's too many shades of grey in that response and if I were leader of a major party it would probably be simpler for the media to label me a peacenik and threat to national security and move on.
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
Asked about the prime minister's own opinion of the shoot-to-kill policy, David Cameron's official spokesman said such matters were ultimately "an operational decision for police on the ground".
So basically, no different to what Corbyn has said, just presented differently...
So basically, no different to what Corbyn has said, just presented differently...
symyjym
Banned
I'm sure blowing a whistle and getting yor trunchon out
https://youtu.be/m53jnZQP32g
Sam Ovett
The New Manager Bus
That's true with everything he says. On paper it's pretty cool, but the world isn't a rainbow like he seems to either believe or wish to believe and never will be.
symyjym
Banned
It makes you wonder if the world ever could be. Maybe there is hope but not in our life time
Deportivo Seagull
I should coco
Another misconception from Hollywood. An incendiary round might do it but a normal round wouldn't.
The one issue you might have is if the bomber has a dead mans handle which he would release once shut, however if he's going to blow himself up then it is just a matter of where and when.
The problem with Corbyn is that he is an idealist and also anti establishment, he is also, like many of his parliamentary colleagues completely clueless when it comes to matters like this.
As for simply wounding someone, a non starter, it's hard enough hitting a stationary target, a moving target is a whole lot more difficult.
jonny.rainbow
Well-known member
- Oct 29, 2005
- 6,846
Read that in the Daily Mail did you?
CCTV footage was released 10 years ago showing Jean Charles De Menezes casually picking up a copy of the Metro before using his Oyster card to pass through the ticket barrier.
AT NO POINT DID HE RUN.
Watch this video and retract your horseshit post.
Creaky
Well-known member
The article highlights the basic situation - a 'shoot to kill' policy is not legal in the current framework. It is NOT politicians nor senior police officers who decide whether armed officers should shoot to kill or not - it is the individual police officer who has to make that decision, depending on the circumstances they find themselves in and they have to be able to defend their actions in a court of law.
I don't want politicians of any variety making that decision.
jakarta
Well-known member
Having worked extensively in Police Firing Ranges and got to know many of the Instructors can I concur with this and previous posts about shooting to disable rather than kill.
They shoot to put people down, hence the two areas they concentrate on, chest and head.
Buzzer
Languidly Clinical
- Oct 1, 2006
- 26,121
"I'm not happy at all with a shoot to kill policy in general. I think it is quite dangerous and can often be counter-productive"
"such matter are ultimately an operational decision for police on the ground".
I'm sorry but there are no similarities at all in those two statements as far as I can see. Can you show me how you can infer anything like the former from the latter?