|
Post by ammodels on Aug 3, 2016 22:00:47 GMT
Shoot to kill policy in Norn Iron back in the 80's? Just as an example of state mandated killing with premeditation and planning, regardless of threat to life. Is the OP suggesting a shoot to kill policy ? I don't think he is. Is he suggesting the use of live ammunition or plastic rounds to establish order. We need him to clarify, certainly read like shoot to kill. WHat about if they were shouting to their god as they did it, would it make a difference?
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Aug 3, 2016 22:04:59 GMT
Is the OP suggesting a shoot to kill policy ? I don't think he is. Is he suggesting the use of live ammunition or plastic rounds to establish order. We need him to clarify, certainly read like shoot to kill. WHat about if they were shouting to their god as they did it, would it make a difference? I'm quite happy to clarify it. If the Police engage a criminal on the point of launching an attack in which an innocent person is likely to be killed or seriously injured, then they should shoot that criminal with the aim of killing them.
|
|
|
Post by ammodels on Aug 3, 2016 22:06:02 GMT
Cheers thought thats what you meant.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Aug 3, 2016 22:17:53 GMT
Let's take, as an example, the 2005 London bus bombings in which 52 people died. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombingsI say that if the Police had had the opportunity to shoot these animals before they had the chance to detonate their bombs, then they should have done so, and this would not come within a million miles of being "murder". Unfortunately, there seems to be too much sympathy for the violent and too little sympathy for the victims of the violent.
|
|
|
Post by Graham on Aug 4, 2016 0:34:15 GMT
We need him to clarify, certainly read like shoot to kill. WHat about if they were shouting to their god as they did it, would it make a difference? I'm quite happy to clarify it. If the Police engage a criminal on the point of launching an attack in which an innocent person is likely to be killed or seriously injured, then they should shoot that criminal with the aim of killing them. Surely they did on one occasion and shot an innocent Brazilian
|
|
|
Post by haulierp on Aug 4, 2016 4:58:48 GMT
I'm quite happy to clarify it. If the Police engage a criminal on the point of launching an attack in which an innocent person is likely to be killed or seriously injured, then they should shoot that criminal with the aim of killing them. Surely they did on one occasion and shot an innocent Brazilian A great point Graham,I fear Iconoclast may have carried out his threat to empty his first aid box and fill it with Special Brew
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Aug 4, 2016 6:53:14 GMT
I'm quite happy to clarify it. If the Police engage a criminal on the point of launching an attack in which an innocent person is likely to be killed or seriously injured, then they should shoot that criminal with the aim of killing them. Surely they did on one occasion and shot an innocent Brazilian That's the problem in a nutshell as far as I am concerned (utilising lethal force) It is a ridiculously difficult position an armed policeman may be put in, if he shoots and is mistaken then he is in deep shit. If he doesn't shoot and is mistaken then he is in deep shit. Now don't get me wrong, I think the balance in Britain is fairly good for the country as a whole, although appalling for the police officers directly concerned. I would hate to have scenes like those we have been seeing recently on the news from America.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2016 7:20:05 GMT
Let's take, as an example, the 2005 London bus bombings in which 52 people died. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombingsI say that if the Police had had the opportunity to shoot these animals before they had the chance to detonate their bombs, then they should have done so, and this would not come within a million miles of being "murder". Unfortunately, there seems to be too much sympathy for the violent and too little sympathy for the victims of the violent. It's not quite the same scenario though is it? You have moved to a situation where lethal force is likely to be justified in order to justify your earlier comments about a situation where it it is very unlikely it would be. So that is why one killing would not not be categorised as murder or unlawfull killing. The police would shoot to kill in those circumstances and they would be justified in doing so, it was clear from the preparations the met are making that they are indeed gearing up for such a situation. A suicide bomber rushing into a crowded London restaurant armed with a AK47 is hardly the same situation as that with which you opened this thread.
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on Aug 4, 2016 9:03:44 GMT
Having been in NI and other places shooting at people its not as easy as some think, I for one have often wondered if I have deprived a wife/child of a father, it doesnt sit easy. When you are being fired upon the blame is taken away from you, but in NI I have come very close to ending a southern Irish families lives through their stupid actions, quite how my friends and I would have coped with that luckily was taken out of our hands. Being a judge juror and executioner is not something that should ever be taken lightly
|
|
|
Post by Graham on Aug 4, 2016 10:00:56 GMT
Let's take, as an example, the 2005 London bus bombings in which 52 people died. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombingsI say that if the Police had had the opportunity to shoot these animals before they had the chance to detonate their bombs, then they should have done so, and this would not come within a million miles of being "murder". Unfortunately, there seems to be too much sympathy for the violent and too little sympathy for the victims of the violent. It's not quite the same scenario though is it? You have moved to a situation where lethal force is likely to be justified in order to justify your earlier comments about a situation where it it is very unlikely it would be. So that is why one killing would not not be categorised as murder or unlawfull killing. The police would shoot to kill in those circumstances and they would be justified in doing so, it was clear from the preparations the met are making that they are indeed gearing up for such a situation. A suicide bomber rushing into a crowded London restaurant armed with a AK47 is hardly the same situation as that with which you opened this thread. The rules of engagement in the Britain used to be that lethal force had to be used against the police or the weapon had to be in plain view. Unfortunately, it has change to the officer being in fear of their life. That has lead to many innocent and unnecessary deaths. One that come to mind is a guy with mental health problem who was carrying a plastic bag with a piece of wood in it. He was shot dead. The armed police have and have had for many years body armour capable of protecting them from major injury. What they have not had is the level of discipline that enables them to hold their feelings in check and react coldly and professionally. The normal person who has a firearm is incapable of hitting a barn door at 20 feet. Basically from experience I do not think there is any need to use a firearm except where the assailant has a firearm. Knives, swords etc can all be dealt with using other means.
|
|
|
Post by Graham on Aug 4, 2016 10:10:29 GMT
Having been in NI and other places shooting at people its not as easy as some think, I for one have often wondered if I have deprived a wife/child of a father, it doesnt sit easy. When you are being fired upon the blame is taken away from you, but in NI I have come very close to ending a southern Irish families lives through their stupid actions, quite how my friends and I would have coped with that luckily was taken out of our hands. Being a judge juror and executioner is not something that should ever be taken lightly I think the last line is the important one. We are not there in a capacity of judge, juror or executioner. We were there to resolve a situation to a safe level where a Judge & Jury could decide whether a crime had been committed. I am talking not about a civil war which is what NI really was I am talking about the day to day streets of Britain. Now in the situation that I suspect you were in Peter I suspect you were fired on first and were there with a card in your pocket with the rules of engagement detailed. If I am correct those rules were different to those of a police officer in mainland Britain.
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on Aug 4, 2016 10:40:22 GMT
Its all very much a muchness when bullets start flying common sense takes a walk, Body armour protects the body not the limbs or head, a leg shot can kill as easily as a body shot same with an arm. The weapons we used when I was in the forces [SLR] was truly lethal it would rip an arm or a shoulder off same with a leg. Later the SA80s didnt pack the same punch, pistols have always been a problem as you dont really aim them, you point and shoot generally you will hit the target however sometimes the target still shoots back!!
|
|
|
Post by Graham on Aug 4, 2016 11:15:24 GMT
Its all very much a muchness when bullets start flying common sense takes a walk, Body armour protects the body not the limbs or head, a leg shot can kill as easily as a body shot same with an arm. The weapons we used when I was in the forces [SLR] was truly lethal it would rip an arm or a shoulder off same with a leg. Later the SA80s didnt pack the same punch, pistols have always been a problem as you dont really aim them, you point and shoot generally you will hit the target however sometimes the target still shoots back!! Don't misunderstand me Peter I believe the troops in NI were in an unenviable position. Yes once a trigger has been pull all hell breaks loose and the head goes into a keep me alive mode and nothing else.
|
|
|
Post by Saltysplash on Aug 4, 2016 19:29:02 GMT
The rules of engagement in the Britain used to be that lethal force had to be used against the police or the weapon had to be in plain view. Unfortunately, it has change to the officer being in fear of their life. That has lead to many innocent and unnecessary deaths. One that come to mind is a guy with mental health problem who was carrying a plastic bag with a piece of wood in it. He was shot dead. The armed police have and have had for many years body armour capable of protecting them from major injury. What they have not had is the level of discipline that enables them to hold their feelings in check and react coldly and professionally. The normal person who has a firearm is incapable of hitting a barn door at 20 feet. Basically from experience I do not think there is any need to use a firearm except where the assailant has a firearm. Knives, swords etc can all be dealt with using other means. The Rules of Engagement for Police have always been covered by Common Law, Section 3(1) Criminal Law Act 1967 and Section 117 Police and Crimial Evidence Act 1984. Only Sect 117 of PACE actually empowers Police, The others are for everyone. The basis is use of Reasonable Force or such Force as is reasonable Its up to the Court to decide if the Force used was Reasonable. Nothing suggested in these Acts say as you said that "Leathal Force had to be used against the Police" in fact they allow for pre-emptive strikes if the Person is in such fear that they or someone else or property is in immediate danger. Your other point about Body Armour is laughingly naive . Firearms officers are trained to use alternative methods if there is an oppotunity to use them, This is not always possible in fast moving incidents as we saw with the shooting of the killers of Lee Rigby. Other weapons such a Tazer are not always effective especially on heavily clothed people so have their limitations of use and how long do you wait make that decision when a person armed with a knife is about to stab someone? I would be interested to see how you would react when faced with a "normal person who has a firearm and is inacpable of hitting a barn door at 20 feet"
|
|
|
Post by Graham on Aug 5, 2016 7:53:40 GMT
The rules of engagement in the Britain used to be that lethal force had to be used against the police or the weapon had to be in plain view. Unfortunately, it has change to the officer being in fear of their life. That has lead to many innocent and unnecessary deaths. One that come to mind is a guy with mental health problem who was carrying a plastic bag with a piece of wood in it. He was shot dead. The armed police have and have had for many years body armour capable of protecting them from major injury. What they have not had is the level of discipline that enables them to hold their feelings in check and react coldly and professionally. The normal person who has a firearm is incapable of hitting a barn door at 20 feet. Basically from experience I do not think there is any need to use a firearm except where the assailant has a firearm. Knives, swords etc can all be dealt with using other means. The Rules of Engagement for Police have always been covered by Common Law, Section 3(1) Criminal Law Act 1967 and Section 117 Police and Crimial Evidence Act 1984. Only Sect 117 of PACE actually empowers Police, The others are for everyone. The basis is use of Reasonable Force or such Force as is reasonable Its up to the Court to decide if the Force used was Reasonable. Nothing suggested in these Acts say as you said that "Leathal Force had to be used against the Police" in fact they allow for pre-emptive strikes if the Person is in such fear that they or someone else or property is in immediate danger. Your other point about Body Armour is laughingly naive . Firearms officers are trained to use alternative methods if there is an oppotunity to use them, This is not always possible in fast moving incidents as we saw with the shooting of the killers of Lee Rigby. Other weapons such a Tazer are not always effective especially on heavily clothed people so have their limitations of use and how long do you wait make that decision when a person armed with a knife is about to stab someone? I would be interested to see how you would react when faced with a "normal person who has a firearm and is inacpable of hitting a barn door at 20 feet" I would agree with your comments if the cases went before a judge & jury, but rarely if ever do they. With regard to your last sentence in several instances the person was arrested and put before the courts and without a tazer
|
|