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

[FREDBINNEY]

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.

So did I , which is why I'm amazed you can come out with shit about shooting to disable etc, were you infantry ?

 

[grawhite]

Parachute regiment. It was hypothetical situation I was trying to create, deadman switch can't be released if you shoot in such away it paralyses the target from neck down even if it kills them.

 

[atomised]

Interesting to see that there will be special forces on standby for tonight's Wembley game with orders to shoot to kill if the situation arises

 

[Surf's Up]

NSC is becoming very predictable and tedious these days.

Hmmm - a bit like it became in the run up to the General Election!!!!

 

[simmo]

It would seem some members of Jeremy Corbyn's party are "not happy" with his postion on the matter.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/shadow-minister-brands-jeremy-corbyn-6843695

 

[Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!]

Of what ?

A shooting to kill policy, example consequences of such, cans of worms etc etc.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

It would seem some members of Jeremy Corbyn's party are "not happy" with his postion on the matter.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/shadow-minister-brands-jeremy-corbyn-6843695

Well said, that shadow minister.

 

[FREDBINNEY]

A shooting to kill policy, example consequences of such, cans of worms etc etc.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of Bloody Sunday describing it as a shoot to kill policy is daft , the army was firing SLR's which use a 7.62mm round, if you get hit in most parts of your body by one of these rounds it will kill you .

 

[Braggfan]

The policy of shoot to kill being applied to terrorists seems obvious given the atrocities in France. The problem however is that shoot to kill isn’t easily applied to terrorists, because terrorists don’t advertise themselves. What happens is they look like normal people, and applying shoot to kill to terrorists who look like normal people ends us with the slaying of a completely innocent people like Charles de Menzes. Charles de Menzes wasn’t wearing a suicide vest, he wasn’t waving a gun, he wasn’t running away from police (despite what some sections like to maintain). He was a guy who walked into a tube station, picked up a paper, got on a train and was shot without warning by armed police officers. One of the defences of the shoot to kill policy in the aftermath of his killing was that the police were operating in extreme and unprecedented circumstances. I can’t think of a worse time to employ a shoot to kill policy, when people are emotional, stressed, scared and under stress, anyone would be severely tested under those circumstances and giving them the shoot to kill order seems reckless to me.
I’m not condemning people for believing shoot to kill is the way to go, I completely understand why people feel that way especially at the moment, but I disagree with it because I think it the circumstances under which it will be employed carry too high a risk of fatal error.

 

[Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!]

Whatever the rights and wrongs of Bloody Sunday describing it as a shoot to kill policy is daft , the army was firing SLR's which use a 7.62mm round, if you get hit in most parts of your body by one of these rounds it will kill you .

So whoever, if anyone, gave an order to fire on the demonstration and every soldier that did so knew full well that people were were going to die as a direct result of their actions. Therefore, the operational decision to fire at human beings was the implementation of a policy of shooting to kill.

 

[Hastings gull]

The policy of shoot to kill being applied to terrorists seems obvious given the atrocities in France. The problem however is that shoot to kill isn’t easily applied to terrorists, because terrorists don’t advertise themselves. What happens is they look like normal people, and applying shoot to kill to terrorists who look like normal people ends us with the slaying of a completely innocent people like Charles de Menzes. Charles de Menzes wasn’t wearing a suicide vest, he wasn’t waving a gun, he wasn’t running away from police (despite what some sections like to maintain). He was a guy who walked into a tube station, picked up a paper, got on a train and was shot without warning by armed police officers. One of the defences of the shoot to kill policy in the aftermath of his killing was that the police were operating in extreme and unprecedented circumstances. I can’t think of a worse time to employ a shoot to kill policy, when people are emotional, stressed, scared and under stress, anyone would be severely tested under those circumstances and giving them the shoot to kill order seems reckless to me.
I’m not condemning people for believing shoot to kill is the way to go, I completely understand why people feel that way especially at the moment, but I disagree with it because I think it the circumstances under which it will be employed carry too high a risk of fatal error.

I do see what you are saying but surely that is exactly what the situation would be like - it is hard to imagine any thing else. Granted, this is when errors can be made, though presumably they can be made at any time, but the bottom line is: you are in a restaurant in Paris, and some nutter is aiming his gun at you, and you say very calmly to the Police outside covering the gunman, to avoid heightened tension, please don't shoot to kill, as I don't agree with it. Could you really confirm that this is what your reaction would be?

 

[Braggfan]

I do see what you are saying but surely that is exactly what the situation would be like - it is hard to imagine any thing else. Granted, this is when errors can be made, though presumably they can be made at any time, but the bottom line is: you are in a restaurant in Paris, and some nutter is aiming his gun at you, and you say very calmly to the Police outside covering the gunman, to avoid heightened tension, please don't shoot to kill, as I don't agree with it. Could you really confirm that this is what your reaction would be?

You're talking about a very specific situation and the shoot to kill policy has a larger scope than just that situation. If a guy with a suicide vest or machine gun is clearly a terrorist and about to kill someone, then yes killing him before he kills people would be the right decision to make. So if the question was should shoot to kill be employed in a clear situation where a gunman is pointing his gun at people and about to or has already killed people, then yes I'd conceed it's the right decision. But like I say the shoot to kill policy hasn't been employed like that, and when it's not clear ie someone pointing a gun at someone else, there is too much scope to make fatal errors as highlighted by the Charles de Menzes case. It should be an absolute last resort, where the evidence is clear cut and its the only action to prevent loss of life. But because that's not the policy that's why I disagree with it.

 

[Hastings gull]

You're talking about a very specific situation and the shoot to kill policy has a larger scope than just that situation. If a guy with a suicide vest or machine gun is clearly a terrorist and about to kill someone, then yes killing him before he kills people would be the right decision to make. So if the question was should shoot to kill be employed in a clear situation where a gunman is pointing his gun at people and about to or has already killed people, then yes I'd conceed it's the right decision. But like I say the shoot to kill policy hasn't been employed like that, and when it's not clear ie someone pointing a gun at someone else, there is too much scope to make fatal errors as highlighted by the Charles de Menzes case. It should be an absolute last resort, where the evidence is clear cut and its the only action to prevent loss of life. But because that's not the policy that's why I disagree with it.

Thanks for that. So, how has the shoot to kill policy been employed. Not a moan - just curious. The CdM case you mention -was that not the situation where the armed officers thought that he was about to blow himself up on a tube train? He might not have been aiming a gun, but the officers believed that he was just as deadly. It all went tragically wrong, of course, and I can see your concern, but what if they had have let him go, the tube pulls away and many die.

 

[Stat Brother]

With so many experts on firearms, marksmanship and split second high pressure decision making, all Albion fans and posting on NSC, I would be surprised if the AMEX is now on a government 'list'.

 

[Braggfan]

Thanks for that. So, how has the shoot to kill policy been employed. Not a moan - just curious. The CdM case you mention -was that not the situation where the armed officers thought that he was about to blow himself up on a tube train? He might not have been aiming a gun, but the officers believed that he was just as deadly. It all went tragically wrong, of course, and I can see your concern, but what if they had have let him go, the tube pulls away and many die.

Shoot to kill has been used with police believing there to be a threat. I think in the CdM case there was a catalouge of errors that led to the police to incorrectly believe he was a threat and ultimately shooting him. The scary thing is in the inquiry top police officals admitted killing an innocent person could happen again. The significance of that shouldn't be forgotten when talking about employing shoot to kill. You are right there are situations when it may be necessary, but we have to be careful that we're not being reckless. What appears to be the tricky thing here, is maybe not so much is someone pointing a gun, because we can see that, but has someone got a bomb in a bag or under their coat which is trickier to see. I guess the question then is at what point do we deem it necessary to use lethal force? When we believe someone is a threat or when we know it. My gut tells me it should only be employed if we know categorically because of the reasons mentioned in previous posts, but I understand why people feel safer taking the other option. I'd probably feel differently if someone I knew had been killed in the attacks, and equally you might feel differently if you knew someone who'd been shot incorrectly.

 

[Hastings gull]

Shoot to kill has been used with police believing there to be a threat. I think in the CdM case there was a catalouge of errors that led to the police to incorrectly believe he was a threat and ultimately shooting him. The scary thing is in the inquiry top police officals admitted killing an innocent person could happen again. The significance of that shouldn't be forgotten when talking about employing shoot to kill. You are right there are situations when it may be necessary, but we have to be careful that we're not being reckless. What appears to be the tricky thing here, is maybe not so much is someone pointing a gun, because we can see that, but has someone got a bomb in a bag or under their coat which is trickier to see. I guess the question then is at what point do we deem it necessary to use lethal force? When we believe someone is a threat or when we know it. My gut tells me it should only be employed if we know categorically because of the reasons mentioned in previous posts, but I understand why people feel safer taking the other option. I'd probably feel differently if someone I knew had been killed in the attacks, and equally you might feel differently if you knew someone who'd been shot incorrectly.

Very reasonable post. Than you.

 

[Soulman]

 

[W.C.]

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'm not getting in to the whole shoot to kill policy debate. I was simply pointing out that what the poster said was wrong. By all means have an opinion on something but it shouldn't be backed up by lies/newspaper talk. It's not difficult to find out what really happened on that day, which was a colossal f up by the police.

 

[W.C.]

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.

He wasn't here illegally. He didn't run from the cops, he ran across a platform to get on a train.

 

[W.C.]

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.

I wasn't trying to enter the shoot to kill policy debate. Just saying what happened in the CDM case.