Shoot to Kill? Explain please.

[Kili01]

What do you mean? It seems self explanitory to me. Am not sure what exactly you are referring to.

[PhotoLady]

What's to explain?

You can shoot people without killing them..... The French police have just done it!

[WHL]

What's to explain?

You can shoot people without killing them..... The French police have just done it!

Yep, can then give them a chance, to detonate their explosives.....

[Jimgward]

I am not generally in favour of an outright shoot to kill policy. Last weekend, in London, it was necessary and they wore fake bomb vests to ensure the police would kill them.

[PhotoLady]

And if they don't have explosives?

[WHL]

And if they don't have explosives?

Couldn't give a damn..one less scum

[Dominic]

I am not generally in favour of an outright shoot to kill policy. Last weekend, in London, it was necessary and they wore fake bomb vests to ensure the police would kill them.

And that is the difference, have you ever been trained in military weapons, I very much doubt it? It is one thing firing at a static target but totally different when you're facing a none static terrorist etc, the ludicrousness of telling someone to shoot to wound is beyond belief when you're facing a mobile violent foe.
'Shoot to kill' was never ever a phrase used in my time.

You can't interrogate a corpse.

[smudger]

"'Shoot to kill' was never ever a phrase used in my time....."

Hmmm, but that was over 50 years ago, so what relevance does it have in today's terrorism regime? Not a scenario you would ever have come across.

[cyprusgrump]

I've never been in the military but I have fired guns of various sorts and calibres including automatics, revolvers and a MP5 submachine gun. I own two guns.

Shooting stuff is really hard!

In the movies, you can shoot a gun out of somebody's hand at 100m. In reality, you probably couldn't hit a barn with a hand gun at 100m - let alone the barn's door.

I was at a shooting range in the 'States once and in the range next to me was a policeman practicing. He was only 5m from a paper target of a full-size man and he was practicing drawing and shooting, drawing and shooting over and over again.

THAT is how hard it is to shoot a man sized target - let alone one running towards you or others wielding a weapon.

The idea that police can shoot to wound or disable an assailant so they can be interrogated later is simply ludicrous.

[Dominic]

The idea that police can shoot to wound or disable an assailant so they can be interrogated later is simply ludicrous.

I didn't say they could shoot to wound. I said that a dead man can't be interrogated. It is a downside to shooting somebody. There are plenty of upsides, but you should also consider the downsides.

Another downside is that you might shoot somebody who is innocent. Or has everybody forgotten what happened to Jean Charles de Menezes?

[Jimgward]

I am not generally in favour of an outright shoot to kill policy. Last weekend, in London, it was necessary and they wore fake bomb vests to ensure the police would kill them.

And that is the difference, have you ever been trained in military weapons, I very much doubt it? It is one thing firing at a static target but totally different when you're facing a none static terrorist etc, the ludicrousness of telling someone to shoot to wound is beyond belief when you're facing a mobile violent foe.
'Shoot to kill' was never ever a phrase used in my time.

As I suspected, you were trying to be a smartass,....

I agreed that in the terrorist situation, you cant take a chance.... In the weekend situation, as I stated, a shoot to kill was the only answer.

In your days of olde.... the weapons did not allow accuracy as they do now. In many situations, marksmen are employed who CAN disable to allow interrogation or check if its the right answer. In the right circumstances, such as a robbery, or facing a single attacker with a knife, not in a terrorist situation.

In the US, the cops shoot to kill. It's a policy. They could down a victim, but dont. That's why there is so much controversy over them executing sometimes, innocent people, when they could have controlled the situation.

Frankly, you are relating an army situation, where times were different, and its not street situations that MAY face innocent people mistaken. In which case, a wounding shot COULD allow further examination when pressure is off.

[Jimgward]

Awwwwww.... memories.....

Anyway, your point is?

That you want to kill?

That ALL police and army should kill?

That they should always shoot and that means kill?

I'd love to know. As I am confused as to the point. I have already agreed that in the case of these terrorists, they had to be killed...

So why did you test us?

Are you trying to tell us you can shoot?

Or that you can shoot to kill?

Or that you have killed?

I really don't know where you are going....

As to the policy... while your perception is one thing, a political belief in a policy is another.

[cyprusgrump]

The idea that police can shoot to wound or disable an assailant so they can be interrogated later is simply ludicrous.

I didn't say they could shoot to wound. I said that a dead man can't be interrogated. It is a downside to shooting somebody. There are plenty of upsides, but you should also consider the downsides.

I didn't claim you had!

[WHL]

All these fluffy lovie armchair critics, who criticize the Police for shooting to kill the scum the other night...Il bet my house that if it was your loved ones in that situation the other night, you would be screaming for the Police to shoot dead the scum.

[Dominic]

All these fluffy lovie armchair critics, who criticize the Police for shooting to kill the scum the other night...Il bet my house that if it was your loved ones in that situation the other night, you would be screaming for the Police to shoot dead the scum.

Who has criticised the police for killing those terrorists?

[WHL]

Ive heard many over the media in the last few days, complaining about Shoot to kill...off cause there have been mistakes in the past, namely the Brazilian lad on the train,which was a major cock up by everyone that day, but there have been quite a few times. were people involved with crime/drugs etc, that when challenged have been armed, If confronted like that the the Police should shoot to kill, before they get taken out.

[Dominic]

With regards to shoot to kill, we should also look at the tragic case of Lee Rigby. The police who shoot his killers were clearly operating on a shoot to incapacitate, rather than kill perspective.

What happened in the attack in Woolwich?
In May 2013 Lee Rigby was murdered in a south London street by Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale, who said they thought they had been commanded by God to kill a soldier. A Met police armed-response vehicle reached the scene and what happened next was caught on video.

Adebolajo, 29, and Adebowale, 22, rushed armed officers as they arrived, brandishing their knives and cleaver and an unloaded gun. They claimed they wanted the officers to shoot them dead and thus make them martyrs. They were shot and taken to hospital. Officers whom the terrorists had tried to kill gave the pair first aid.

Full (actually quite interesting) article.

And no, I am not suggesting for one moment that the latest London terrorists should have been treated this way. Frankly, they were killed for a very good reason (bomb vests) and I don't care if they had been tarred and feathered for good measure. I am merely pointing out that it is possible to shoot to incapacitate, rather than kill. Modern police are clearly trained for this.

[Royal]

A rifle or a gun is a lethal weapon. If used, the aim must be to kill, not to wound - especially if the individual is armed themselves or is wearing a suicide vest in order to kill innocent lives.

The police and Armed Forces have "less than lethal" weapons at their disposal (tasers, rubber bullets etc). It's horses for courses.

The threat of terrorism in the UK is currently 'severe' hence the constant deployment of armed police. They shoot to kill.

Simples.

[smudger]

True Bassman, I've never picked up a gun in my life, nor do I want to. It doesn't prevent me, and others, making a valued judgement of how informative - or otherwise - your repetitive posts of what you did 50 years ago are in relation to the terrorism we are living with today.

[Jimgward]

A rifle or a gun is a lethal weapon. If used, the aim must be to kill, not to wound - especially if the individual is armed themselves or is wearing a suicide vest in order to kill innocent lives.

The police and Armed Forces have "less than lethal" weapons at their disposal (tasers, rubber bullets etc). It's horses for courses.

The threat of terrorism in the UK is currently 'severe' hence the constant deployment of armed police. They shoot to kill.

Simples.

The aim of our police force, is to keep law and order using appropriate means. They are equipped with weapons, in some cases, either handguns, or automatic weapons with laser sights. This allows accuracy unavailable 50 years ago, in difficult circumstances.

It means that the commander in the field, in constant radio contact, takes the decision to incapacitate or kill. In the weekend atrocities, quite rightly, they killed to remove any further threat. In other circumstances, I'm glad our police can take decisions to wound rather than kill, as mistakes get made and sometimes we need information.

European police are not like the police in the US, where even in pretty nonthreatening situations, using handguns, in close quarters, they have killed suspects. There are countless cases, lots of youtube and other videos. I'm pretty glad I live in Europe, where I can pretty much rely on the police not to generally overstep the mark.