Incident at The Louvre in Paris

[PhotoLady]

Another incident just coming to light at the Louvre in Paris. Big security procedures underway

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-38853841

[Firefly]

A bit much when he was only after a sarnie ! If he had a machete, maybe it was a B.R. pork pie he wanted.

Jackie

[Jersey]

Will they issue a artist's impression ?

[keving]

The attackers daddy has criticized the soldier for using excessive force on his little boy.

I heard it was 5 bullets into the stomach. That was good grouping ...

[PhotoLady]

At least he isn't dead..... and is no longer in a critical condition. However, he's still unable to communicate with anyone at present and so cannot be questioned. Sounds to me like the French soldiers did a pretty good job.

[johnoddy]

A rather excessive use of force, typical of soldiers, they think that because we pay them to protect us they can get away with anything! I hope, as I'm sure many on this forum do, that the soldier in question is hounded for the next 30 years because of his callous actions regardless of how many lives he may have saved.

[PW in Polemi]

I'm torn between

Reaction A) Good shot, soldier. But you should have finished the job to prevent others from following this guy's example. (Which maybe leads to us becoming as bad and ruthless as the terrorists themselves )
and
Reaction B) Surely one well aimed shot would have been sufficient to incapacitate the attacker. (Which maybe leads to the terrorists becoming a drain on the taxpayer with court cases and appeals and prison sentences )

[keving]

Do men join the army with the over-riding aim to protect us who live in the UK?

Or do they join for action (and I guess excitement)? "Not having an Afghanistan does have an impact on recruiting".

I guess I can't believe this report from the right wing Telegraph:

://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.telegraph.co.u ... ggles/amp/

[keving]

I'm torn between

Reaction A) Good shot, soldier. But you should have finished the job to prevent others from following this guy's example. (Which maybe leads to us becoming as bad and ruthless as the terrorists themselves )
and
Reaction B) Surely one well aimed shot would have been sufficient to incapacitate the attacker. (Which maybe leads to the terrorists becoming a drain on the taxpayer with court cases and appeals and prison sentences )

You're going to get splinters

[PhotoLady]

But where do you aim a single shot to incapacitate?

Knee capping would be a good thing I guess - when someone has a machete in both hands, or do you run the risk of just shooting one hand knowing he could get someone with the other whilst still having both legs working?

Decisions, decisions, eh..... how long do you get to make one?

[keving]

But where do you aim a single shot to incapacitate?

Knee capping would be a good thing I guess - when someone has a machete in both hands, or do you run the risk of just shooting one hand knowing he could get someone with the other whilst still having both legs working?

Decisions, decisions, eh..... how long do you get to make one?

Head shot! I've watched my son play Call of Duty more times than I care to remember with him talking into a headset to his mate somewhere on the internet.

Yes, its a headshot everytime which got them excited.

[PhotoLady]

I think it would do a bit more than incapacitate them, wouldn't it? Not having been in that position or having been trained by the military, that's just my opinion anyway

[keving]

I think it would do a bit more than incapacitate them, wouldn't it? Not having been in that position or having been trained by the military, that's just my opinion anyway

No it would spectacularly kill them, with a great big hole at the back of their skull with their brains spilling out onto the ground. Result!

[PW in Polemi]

Keving ad photolady...

Which brings us back to my Reaction A and comment thereafter...
Reaction A) Good shot, soldier. But you should have finished the job to prevent others from following this guy's example. (Which maybe leads to us becoming as bad and ruthless as the terrorists themselves )

And I only get splinters, Keving, if the fence wot I'm sat on is wooden.

[keving]

Keving ad photolady...

Which brings us back to my Reaction A and comment thereafter...
Reaction A) Good shot, soldier. But you should have finished the job to prevent others from following this guy's example. (Which maybe leads to us becoming as bad and ruthless as the terrorists themselves )

And I only get splinters, Keving, if the fence wot I'm sat on is wooden.

Kay, I'm glad to see that you got my reference to splinters. A few people might not have got it.

If you look back to one of my earlier posts on this thread ... about the Army having difficulty recruiting because of the lack of operations like Afghanistan, then I'm all for soldiers being allowed head shots if it encourages more people to join the army

[Jimgym]

Personally I say shoot to kill, easy for me to say of course as it's not my finger on the trigger. However it saves a lot of money and effort of a trial and removes a piece of scum intent on harming innocent people. Sounds harsh I know, but that is the world we now live in.

[Firefly]

Jimgym

Very true.

[johnoddy]

Surely you always aim at the widest part of the body, to aim at knees or head could result in a miss which could directly hit an innocent person or do the same damage by the bullet/s ricocheting off a wall.

Three to the chest, walk forward, one to the head.....next target. Military use three shots to the chest, three is deemed sufficient to kill, civillian Police are trained to shoot twice to the chest as this is not necessary lethal, the head shot is up to the individual and is the cause of a lot of controversy.

[Rita Sherry]

Unbelievable but predictable responses with the exception of Jules and PWinPolemi which were at least reasoned

Jules - split second is the answer to your question of "how long"

Good luck soldier wherever you are and thank you.

Rita

[Rita Sherry]

Hudswell - Well done

Rita