Paphos Life

Jimgward, please have a read of this article - The decision to fire a weapon is ONLY the responsibility of the Police Officer (In this case) You cannot be ordered to fire by anyone else!

An armed police officer faced with a terrorist on a shooting spree has no special legal status. They are subject to the criminal law and the law of self defence.
The decision to shoot is the officer’s alone. They are legally responsible for each and every shot they decide to fire. For the shots to be legal, they must show they were acting in the defence of themselves or others and that their actions were proportionate. Section three of the 1967 Criminal Law Act reads: “A person may use such force as is reasonable in the prevention of crime.”
If an officer honestly believes someone poses a threat to their life, or to the life of others, reasonable force may be used.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... uks-policy

Jimgward is spot on. It is just Bassman trying to be a smartarse. Move on now, this thread is done.

boycott wrote: ↑Wed Jun 07, 2017 2:57 pm Jimgward, please have a read of this article - The decision to fire a weapon is ONLY the responsibility of the Police Officer (In this case) You cannot be ordered to fire by anyone else!

An armed police officer faced with a terrorist on a shooting spree has no special legal status. They are subject to the criminal law and the law of self defence.
The decision to shoot is the officer’s alone. They are legally responsible for each and every shot they decide to fire. For the shots to be legal, they must show they were acting in the defence of themselves or others and that their actions were proportionate. Section three of the 1967 Criminal Law Act reads: “A person may use such force as is reasonable in the prevention of crime.”
If an officer honestly believes someone poses a threat to their life, or to the life of others, reasonable force may be used.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... uks-policy

Thanks for that. My mistake, I am sure my assumptions came from the Mendez shooting... were the officer in charge, rather than the individual, was held to account... so thanks for clarifying.

Perhaps I can explain, as I know it can be difficult to get your head round.

When you point and fire a gun at an individual with the intent of killing them, then you are shooting to kill. When you carry out the same exercise with the intent of only wounding, then you are not shooting to kill. Simple when you think about it.
Of course, in the old days when you were using your old Lee Enfield, whether the target individual was killed or wounded was more of a lottery. Technology has moved on these days and laser guided firearms make the differentiation more of a possibility.

So can you JK, or any of the firearms experts on here tell me exactly what Bassman is saying to me, because it seems to be the reverse of what you're saying. He's saying "it's shoot! , not to kill, not to injure, not to frighten, it was fire to kill....." isn't that a contradiction??

"It can hardly be a valued judgement if you've never had any experience of firearms of any type, the experienced people on here will tell you that when ordered to open fire it was to shoot! not to kill, not to injure, not to frighten, it was fire to kill, disable or whatever to legally prevent some improper act etc taking place."

josef k wrote: ↑Wed Jun 07, 2017 5:18 pm Perhaps I can explain, as I know it can be difficult to get your head round.

When you point and fire a gun at an individual with the intent of killing them, then you are shooting to kill. When you carry out the same exercise with the intent of only wounding, then you are not shooting to kill. Simple when you think about it.
Of course, in the old days when you were using your old Lee Enfield, whether the target individual was killed or wounded was more of a lottery. Technology has moved on these days and laser guided firearms make the differentiation more of a possibility.

You can use a laser sight to point your weapon in the right place but the bullets are certainly not 'laser guided'...

And MP5 has a hell of a kick and picking some particular part of a target (hand, knee or whatever) in order to wound rather than kill is simply not a practicality outside of movies. Plus, you risk as others have said missing the target and hitting an innocent bystander. You aim at the biggest bulk of the target - especially if the target is moving.

With a hand gun it is even more difficult. I'm no expert at all but with all the time in the world to prepare, aim, brace yourself and fire it is incredibly difficult to hit the bulk of a stationary man-sized object beyond just a few meters...

Slightly diverting from the topic, I grew up in Ash Vale, near Aldershot. The ranges were just one big playground. The best thing I ever saw on the ranges, was some soldiers doing night firing on the range. A flare would go up, the targets would appear in front of the butts, and from the other end of the range, you would see the flashes of tracers. I was amazed when I first saw it, at how slow the bullets went. As a child, I always assumed that the bang and the target getting hit would be pretty instantaneous. But you could watch the tracers zoom up the range.

Most surprising of all though, was how many zoomed straight over the top of the butts, and how many hit the metal of the target holders, and ricocheted off into the surrounding woods. As kids, we occasionally crept into these woods while they were firing, to watch them at close hand. Once we saw those ricochets, we stayed well away!

I fear that some people have been watching far too much TV!

Some people seem to believe that the sheriff in the film is actually able to shoot the gun from the hand of the bandit from 50 metres away without any injury to even the hand of the bandit!

Some people seem to believe that the hero in another film is actually able to shoot clean through a rope which is about to hang their friend - from a rifle some 200 metres away, thereby saving the life of their friend.

Some people believe that Mr Miyagi is actually able to catch a fly in mid flight with a pair of chop sticks.

Some of us, however, live in the real world!

When a terrorist chooses to use a lethal weapon, he/she should expect to have a lethal weapon used against them. Lethal force is not undertaken lightly by any of our armed police or our armed forces, but those who are trained to protect us should not be required to face charges in court after making their split second decisions which we are not able to understand, not having been there at the time. Unfortunately, however, we live in an era where the armchair generals and the litigation brigade are chasing those who protect our liberty and our way of life with "hindsight aforethought".

I am reminded of the speech by Theodore Roosevelt more than 100 years ago:

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat".

Here comes another reminiscing ex.....

Nobody on this thread has said anything other than 'shooting to kill' terrorists in a situation like last weekend... so why drag this up again?

The debate, such as it was, was about whether every shot from a policeman, would be a shot to kill, or whether they might, if circumstances alllowed, try not to kill..... many such circumstances would be close encounters, where accuracy could be better. I.e. Not a deliberate head shot, as is often used in the US.

Jimgward wrote: ↑Wed Jun 07, 2017 11:25 pm The debate, such as it was, was about whether every shot from a policeman, would be a shot to kill, or whether they might, if circumstances alllowed, try not to kill..... many such circumstances would be close encounters, where accuracy could be better. I.e. Not a deliberate head shot, as is often used in the US.

My point exactly. A deliberate head shot "as often used in the US?"

Jimgward, take a reality pill...

The detectives who shot Lee Rigby's killers did not shoot to kill. That is the reality. It is what actually happened.

Dominic wrote: ↑Thu Jun 08, 2017 7:23 am The detectives who shot Lee Rigby's killers did not shoot to kill. That is the reality. It is what actually happened.

Dominic,

You are purposely being obtuse! They were brandishing knives and were egging on the police to shoot them so that they would receive their 70 virgins as martyrs. Lee Rigby had already been murdered (they were trying to decapitate him at the time) and therefore there was no requirement for a split second decision in order to save the lives of people it was their duty to protect. The armed police were at close quarters to them and therefore had the time and the minimum range to make the decision to wound them and take them into custody.

I am not being obtuse at all. They were rushing at the police with knives. It is all out there on video. There was every requirement for a split second decision.

I've just watched the video which you are referring to for the first time. Looks to me like it was simply bad shooting, but as the attackers immediately fell to the ground, the end state was achieved. I agree that it was a split second decision, which (for me) reinforces the argument that it was bad shooting rather than pinpoint accurate shooting specifically to wound...

I think that they are called "red dot sights", they still need to be set up for the individual, but have a wider field of vision than traditional "iron sights".

Don't get me wrong. Had the officers killed the Lee Rigby killers it would not have bothered me one iota.

Royal wrote: ↑Wed Jun 07, 2017 11:30 pm

Jimgward wrote: ↑Wed Jun 07, 2017 11:25 pm The debate, such as it was, was about whether every shot from a policeman, would be a shot to kill, or whether they might, if circumstances alllowed, try not to kill..... many such circumstances would be close encounters, where accuracy could be better. I.e. Not a deliberate head shot, as is often used in the US.

My point exactly. A deliberate head shot "as often used in the US?"

Jimgward, take a reality pill...

Try watching videos on Youtube, of US police, taking people (usually black) out of a car and then making head shots at very close range. That's a shot to kill. A shot from less than 3m away.

The term is also controversial, because of it's use in Northern Ireland. Shoot to kill was employed, to take away any ability for the victim to plead innocence. i.e. stop and finish. Much different from stopping and maybe they die.