FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Police "Shoot to Kill"
Police "Shoot to Kill"
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *iewMan
over a year ago
Forum Mod Angus & Findhorn |
It's a difficult one, we look to the police to help protect us and we need to ensure they are protected to the best of their ability. After all, they run to the situation whilst others run to safety.
I would vote yes, with reservations. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
If the police have to shoot, the situation must be serious.
Don't know what their rules of engagement are exactly, but I'm guessing that they should have to give a warning and a chance to surrender, unless they believe someone else is in danger.
You can't shoot a gun out of someone's hand, and shooting to injure is difficult (respect to the wpc who was at the Rigby murder in Woolwich)
If you have to shoot, you normally aim for the centre of mass.
And after the shooting it will be investigated and an unjustified kill will probably lead to the officer being charged. This isn't the wild west. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Shoot to kill" is a myth, there is no such policy and never will be.
Police marksmen are trained to shoot centre mass of the target. This is the largest area and easiest to hit and ensures the best chance of incapacitating a threat. Aiming for legs or arms is ridiculously difficult as they're small and often moving and a miss increases the risk of collateral damage (remember its not the movies and bullets travel a very long way and can penetrate cars and other objects very easily).
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Oh for goodness sakes people. We're living in a fantasy world.
I know a uk firearms officer of 20 years who has never even had to draw his weapon. Or even his taser!
These police shows on tv are just fiction, and leading some people to believe that police draw their weapons often. If you look at the 'real life' ones they're American. They use their guns out there much more than we do here for obvious reasons.
Next time you fire a weapon you try to aim for the heart r brain yeah?! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I beg to differ!
Watch "us police shoots gun from criminal's hand out out with a Sniper" on YouTube
https://youtu.be/Y54aONB3dns"
Yes, a rare shot indeed and still incredibly dangerous if you understand anything about ballistics. The officer that took that shot was heavily reprimanded for it too because he put several peoples lives at risk by taking it. Also the guy is seated and the gun in a stationary position making the shot MUCH easier. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If the police have to shoot, the situation must be serious.
Don't know what their rules of engagement are exactly, but I'm guessing that they should have to give a warning and a chance to surrender, unless they believe someone else is in danger.
You can't shoot a gun out of someone's hand, and shooting to injure is difficult (respect to the wpc who was at the Rigby murder in Woolwich)
If you have to shoot, you normally aim for the centre of mass.
And after the shooting it will be investigated and an unjustified kill will probably lead to the officer being charged. This isn't the wild west. "
JCdM - no warning, no actual identification of suspect (ALLEGEDLY) ,
Woman in charge gets promoted and no charges of murder..
You were saying ... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
""Shoot to kill" is a myth, there is no such policy and never will be.
Police marksmen are trained to shoot centre mass of the target. This is the largest area and easiest to hit and ensures the best chance of incapacitating a threat. Aiming for legs or arms is ridiculously difficult as they're small and often moving and a miss increases the risk of collateral damage (remember its not the movies and bullets travel a very long way and can penetrate cars and other objects very easily).
"
See I would _iew 'shoot to kill' as a 'double tap', where two rounds were fired at a target in quick succession
Single shots are less likely to result in a near-instant fatality. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
""Shoot to kill" is a myth, there is no such policy and never will be.
Police marksmen are trained to shoot centre mass of the target. This is the largest area and easiest to hit and ensures the best chance of incapacitating a threat. Aiming for legs or arms is ridiculously difficult as they're small and often moving and a miss increases the risk of collateral damage (remember its not the movies and bullets travel a very long way and can penetrate cars and other objects very easily).
See I would _iew 'shoot to kill' as a 'double tap', where two rounds were fired at a target in quick succession
Single shots are less likely to result in a near-instant fatality. "
Double taps (its actually triple taps) are generally for handguns because they have less kinetic energy and stand a lower chance of incapacitating a threat with a single shot.
Larger calibre, faster travelling rifle rounds (.308 for instance) impart huge kinetic energy on a target leading to massive wound cavitations and more effective threat neutralisation. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Mistakes can happen and do happen.....but is that a price worth paying too make you feel safer on Britain's streets .....
 "
There's no such thing.
Police aim for center of mass. That's it. It makes it more likely to hit, it makes it less likely for the bullet to go through, it puts the threat down in the fastest and most reliable way.
Life isn't like the movies there is no such thing as "shoot to wound" a bullet anywhere can be fatal. The classic move "shoulder shots for instance most of the time when you see them day there all manly getting patched up that hole is actually still in their chest cavity which extends further up than most thing. So will be a sucking chest wound and soon to be fatal.
Arms and legs are full of arteries and hollow points will generally tear them to shreds.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Mistakes can happen and do happen.....but is that a price worth paying too make you feel safer on Britain's streets .....
"
I already feel safe on the street.
The times I don't are if someone is driving dangerously.
I think the answer to making the general public feel safer on the street is education about actual risks because at the moment lots of people seem to live in fear of "something" happening that is less likely statistically to occur to an individual than being killed on the road for instance. I do think it suits the powers that be for us to be on fear, makes us even easier to manipulate. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoot-to-kill_policy_in_Northern_Ireland.
John stalker wrote a very good book about his findings!"
The troubles in Northern Ireland were a bit of an exception though as the security forces were dealing with paramilitaries rather than your average armed criminal. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Mistakes can happen and do happen.....but is that a price worth paying too make you feel safer on Britain's streets .....
I already feel safe on the street.
The times I don't are if someone is driving dangerously.
I think the answer to making the general public feel safer on the street is education about actual risks because at the moment lots of people seem to live in fear of "something" happening that is less likely statistically to occur to an individual than being killed on the road for instance.
***I do think it suits the powers that be for us to be on fear, makes us even easier to manipulate.***"
Absolutely this!!!!!  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Mistakes can happen and do happen.....but is that a price worth paying too make you feel safer on Britain's streets .....
There's no such thing.
Police aim for center of mass. That's it. It makes it more likely to hit, it makes it less likely for the bullet to go through, it puts the threat down in the fastest and most reliable way.
Life isn't like the movies there is no such thing as "shoot to wound" a bullet anywhere can be fatal. The classic move "shoulder shots for instance most of the time when you see them day there all manly getting patched up that hole is actually still in their chest cavity which extends further up than most thing. So will be a sucking chest wound and soon to be fatal.
Arms and legs are full of arteries and hollow points will generally tear them to shreds.
"
Totally agree. Also even if a bullet missed arteries or major blood vessels while travelling through an arm or leg it almost certainly hit a bone, which WILL shatter and cause massive internal damage which will also be life threatening (it can also wound anyone nearby). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoot-to-kill_policy_in_Northern_Ireland.
John stalker wrote a very good book about his findings!
The troubles in Northern Ireland were a bit of an exception though as the security forces were dealing with paramilitaries rather than your average armed criminal."
.
Yes I'd agree with you.
I don't have a beef with a"shoot to kill policy " providing it has a publicly accessible and well managed oversight body. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoot-to-kill_policy_in_Northern_Ireland.
John stalker wrote a very good book about his findings!
The troubles in Northern Ireland were a bit of an exception though as the security forces were dealing with paramilitaries rather than your average armed criminal..
Yes I'd agree with you.
I don't have a beef with a"shoot to kill policy " providing it has a publicly accessible and well managed oversight body."
It will never be shoot to kill and it will never be shoot to wound. Its essentially a shoot to incapacitate and cause less risk of collateral damage. This will always mean aiming for the largest and easiest to hit target - the torso. Its just unfortunate that's where most of anyone's vital organs are. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Mistakes can happen and do happen.....but is that a price worth paying too make you feel safer on Britain's streets .....
"
No.
This isn't the States and more people with guns make me feel less safe, not more safe. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
in short no.
I'm genuinely starting to believe people are wanting a utopian fascistic environment.
an armed response should be what it is...a response to something immediately needing dealt with.
Should an 'authority' be teaching us and our future generations that guns are the easy answer to solve our problems?
try non lethal before lethal and give the law a chance to seek justice properly.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"in short no.
I'm genuinely starting to believe people are wanting a utopian fascistic environment.
an armed response should be what it is...a response to something immediately needing dealt with.
Should an 'authority' be teaching us and our future generations that guns are the easy answer to solve our problems?
try non lethal before lethal and give the law a chance to seek justice properly."
^ This.
I'm trying to find the link but there was a case some years ago where a Scottish copper was stabbed to death in the line of duty and this led to a re_iew of how police north of the border deal with violent crimes.
The conclusion was:
1/ stab vests for officers
2/ a recognition that the best way to deal with a situation is peacefully, rather than quickly. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Mistakes can happen and do happen.....but is that a price worth paying too make you feel safer on Britain's streets .....
No.
This isn't the States and more people with guns make me feel less safe, not more safe. "
While I agree in part (fewer guns equals less risk of gun crime). There is a small minority of people who will acquire firearms for criminal purposes so there will, sadly, akwaysbe a need for a number of firearms trained police officers.
As a gun owner I also feel that, although our gun laws are very stringent, they could also be tightened even further. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoot-to-kill_policy_in_Northern_Ireland.
John stalker wrote a very good book about his findings!
The troubles in Northern Ireland were a bit of an exception though as the security forces were dealing with paramilitaries rather than your average armed criminal..
Yes I'd agree with you.
I don't have a beef with a"shoot to kill policy " providing it has a publicly accessible and well managed oversight body.
It will never be shoot to kill and it will never be shoot to wound. Its essentially a shoot to incapacitate and cause less risk of collateral damage. This will always mean aiming for the largest and easiest to hit target - the torso. Its just unfortunate that's where most of anyone's vital organs are."
.
Stalker was investigating cases were dozens of bullets were fired!
At some point you have to say, either someone's woefully inept at their job or they fully intended to kill!
I know you like your "technicality of shooting" I'll bow to your more experienced knowledge of whether to shoot here or there and with what velocity!
What I'm describing is a shoot to kill policy by that I mean you keep shooting until there definitely dead!
I would also point out that it's obviously possible to shoot to capture as point in case with Lee rigbys murderers!
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"in short no.
I'm genuinely starting to believe people are wanting a utopian fascistic environment.
an armed response should be what it is...a response to something immediately needing dealt with.
Should an 'authority' be teaching us and our future generations that guns are the easy answer to solve our problems?
try non lethal before lethal and give the law a chance to seek justice properly.
"
The non-lethal idea is also a little utopian though as everything has inherent risks and drawbacks but generally officers will try to employ a non-lethal response as a first option. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
""Shoot to kill" is a myth, there is no such policy and never will be.
Police marksmen are trained to shoot centre mass of the target. This is the largest area and easiest to hit and ensures the best chance of incapacitating a threat. Aiming for legs or arms is ridiculously difficult as they're small and often moving and a miss increases the risk of collateral damage (remember its not the movies and bullets travel a very long way and can penetrate cars and other objects very easily).
"
I don't doubt what you says is totally correct but there are instances such as Jean Charles de Menezes, 27 who was shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder after a mistaken assessment by firearms officers,,,, |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"in short no.
I'm genuinely starting to believe people are wanting a utopian fascistic environment.
an armed response should be what it is...a response to something immediately needing dealt with.
Should an 'authority' be teaching us and our future generations that guns are the easy answer to solve our problems?
try non lethal before lethal and give the law a chance to seek justice properly.
^ This.
I'm trying to find the link but there was a case some years ago where a Scottish copper was stabbed to death in the line of duty and this led to a re_iew of how police north of the border deal with violent crimes.
The conclusion was:
1/ stab vests for officers
2/ a recognition that the best way to deal with a situation is peacefully, rather than quickly."
next up armed security officers...as the police reduces its forces(having spent a huge budget on firearms), private companies then make a mint in providing armed security officers..then some guy walks into tesco and steals some bread..some twat shoots the guy thinking the guy might have been a danger as he had something up his juke..
we all then applaud and live happily ever after...
ok a bit far fetched...
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoot-to-kill_policy_in_Northern_Ireland.
John stalker wrote a very good book about his findings!
The troubles in Northern Ireland were a bit of an exception though as the security forces were dealing with paramilitaries rather than your average armed criminal..
Yes I'd agree with you.
I don't have a beef with a"shoot to kill policy " providing it has a publicly accessible and well managed oversight body.
It will never be shoot to kill and it will never be shoot to wound. Its essentially a shoot to incapacitate and cause less risk of collateral damage. This will always mean aiming for the largest and easiest to hit target - the torso. Its just unfortunate that's where most of anyone's vital organs are..
Stalker was investigating cases were dozens of bullets were fired!
At some point you have to say, either someone's woefully inept at their job or they fully intended to kill!
I know you like your "technicality of shooting" I'll bow to your more experienced knowledge of whether to shoot here or there and with what velocity!
What I'm describing is a shoot to kill policy by that I mean you keep shooting until there definitely dead!
I would also point out that it's obviously possible to shoot to capture as point in case with Lee rigbys murderers!
"
Yes but again with Stalkers findings there are major differences. You're dealing with the military rather than the police, for example, the SAS will shoot until their target is dead. Its how they're trained, they don't have empathy for their targets (one of the Iranian embassy terrorists had over 60 bullets fired into him).
Police marksmen will generally fire one very carefully aimed shot and in the case of the Lee Rugby killer it was luck (and rapid medical attention) that he survived. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
""Shoot to kill" is a myth, there is no such policy and never will be.
Police marksmen are trained to shoot centre mass of the target. This is the largest area and easiest to hit and ensures the best chance of incapacitating a threat. Aiming for legs or arms is ridiculously difficult as they're small and often moving and a miss increases the risk of collateral damage (remember its not the movies and bullets travel a very long way and can penetrate cars and other objects very easily).
I don't doubt what you says is totally correct but there are instances such as Jean Charles de Menezes, 27 who was shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder after a mistaken assessment by firearms officers,,,, "
Jean Charles de Menezes was a terrible mistake and, thankfully, a very rare one. It was also massive overkill and totally unwarranted. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"in short no.
I'm genuinely starting to believe people are wanting a utopian fascistic environment.
an armed response should be what it is...a response to something immediately needing dealt with.
Should an 'authority' be teaching us and our future generations that guns are the easy answer to solve our problems?
try non lethal before lethal and give the law a chance to seek justice properly.
The non-lethal idea is also a little utopian though as everything has inherent risks and drawbacks but generally officers will try to employ a non-lethal response as a first option."
Like I say..having every officer on the street with a firearm isnt a tactical response..its a knee jerk reaction to past/future events....in most cases I've seen there are two officers together on a beat..giving them effectively the sole responsibility of holding firearms in any situation to me is ridiculous. It is unfair on them, and the criminal...when the chance is there, it should be a team of police..and the situation addressed as it is with a calm and controlled effective approach. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoot-to-kill_policy_in_Northern_Ireland.
John stalker wrote a very good book about his findings!
The troubles in Northern Ireland were a bit of an exception though as the security forces were dealing with paramilitaries rather than your average armed criminal..
Yes I'd agree with you.
I don't have a beef with a"shoot to kill policy " providing it has a publicly accessible and well managed oversight body.
It will never be shoot to kill and it will never be shoot to wound. Its essentially a shoot to incapacitate and cause less risk of collateral damage. This will always mean aiming for the largest and easiest to hit target - the torso. Its just unfortunate that's where most of anyone's vital organs are..
Stalker was investigating cases were dozens of bullets were fired!
At some point you have to say, either someone's woefully inept at their job or they fully intended to kill!
I know you like your "technicality of shooting" I'll bow to your more experienced knowledge of whether to shoot here or there and with what velocity!
What I'm describing is a shoot to kill policy by that I mean you keep shooting until there definitely dead!
I would also point out that it's obviously possible to shoot to capture as point in case with Lee rigbys murderers!
Yes but again with Stalkers findings there are major differences. You're dealing with the military rather than the police, for example, the SAS will shoot until their target is dead. Its how they're trained, they don't have empathy for their targets (one of the Iranian embassy terrorists had over 60 bullets fired into him).
Police marksmen will generally fire one very carefully aimed shot and in the case of the Lee Rugby killer it was luck (and rapid medical attention) that he survived."
.
It was the ruc! But putting that to one side.
Both lee rigbys killers were shot and captured while welding meat cleavers in a public street, surely rapid medical attention comes with a police shooting anyhow!.
Im not saying you can guarantee not killing somebody with a certain shot but I think it's possible to minimise risk when necessary for the capture of certain individuals! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Mistakes can happen and do happen.....but is that a price worth paying too make you feel safer on Britain's streets .....
"
I'm fine with it. But then i would be wouldn't i. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
JCdeM was a mistake but the reason he was shot the way he was comes from how the Israelis dealt with suicide bombers.
They must keep shooting until the target cannot pull the trigger and this means until the brain stem is gone. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Jean Charles de Menezes was a terrible mistake and, thankfully, a very rare one. It was also massive overkill and totally unwarranted."
We had this before.
The total number of homicides per year in the UK is a little over 600.
The total number of deaths at the hands of the police or in police custody is just under 150.
So you have a 1 in 5 chance of being killed by the cops.
It's not that rare.
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"in short no.
I'm genuinely starting to believe people are wanting a utopian fascistic environment.
an armed response should be what it is...a response to something immediately needing dealt with.
Should an 'authority' be teaching us and our future generations that guns are the easy answer to solve our problems?
try non lethal before lethal and give the law a chance to seek justice properly.
The non-lethal idea is also a little utopian though as everything has inherent risks and drawbacks but generally officers will try to employ a non-lethal response as a first option.
Like I say..having every officer on the street with a firearm isnt a tactical response..its a knee jerk reaction to past/future events....in most cases I've seen there are two officers together on a beat..giving them effectively the sole responsibility of holding firearms in any situation to me is ridiculous. It is unfair on them, and the criminal...when the chance is there, it should be a team of police..and the situation addressed as it is with a calm and controlled effective approach."
I wouldn't advocate all police officers being armed at all, you're totally correct that its a knee-jerk response to a small threat. Each force should have a small and well trained team of armed officers to be deployed as a last resort when all other avenues have been explored.
Strangely that's pretty much how it already is.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Jean Charles de Menezes was a terrible mistake and, thankfully, a very rare one. It was also massive overkill and totally unwarranted.
We had this before.
The total number of homicides per year in the UK is a little over 600.
The total number of deaths at the hands of the police or in police custody is just under 150.
So you have a 1 in 5 chance of being killed by the cops.
It's not that rare.
"
I was referring to the de Menezes case and similar cases as rare. Being choked by a big burly copper kneeling on you throat is not uncommon at all...   |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"in short no.
I'm genuinely starting to believe people are wanting a utopian fascistic environment.
an armed response should be what it is...a response to something immediately needing dealt with.
Should an 'authority' be teaching us and our future generations that guns are the easy answer to solve our problems?
try non lethal before lethal and give the law a chance to seek justice properly.
The non-lethal idea is also a little utopian though as everything has inherent risks and drawbacks but generally officers will try to employ a non-lethal response as a first option.
Like I say..having every officer on the street with a firearm isnt a tactical response..its a knee jerk reaction to past/future events....in most cases I've seen there are two officers together on a beat..giving them effectively the sole responsibility of holding firearms in any situation to me is ridiculous. It is unfair on them, and the criminal...when the chance is there, it should be a team of police..and the situation addressed as it is with a calm and controlled effective approach.
I wouldn't advocate all police officers being armed at all, you're totally correct that its a knee-jerk response to a small threat. Each force should have a small and well trained team of armed officers to be deployed as a last resort when all other avenues have been explored.
Strangely that's pretty much how it already is.."
lol...and this is what the thread is about is it not? having armed police in general on our streets... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Jean Charles de Menezes was a terrible mistake and, thankfully, a very rare one. It was also massive overkill and totally unwarranted.
We had this before.
The total number of homicides per year in the UK is a little over 600.
The total number of deaths at the hands of the police or in police custody is just under 150.
So you have a 1 in 5 chance of being killed by the cops.
It's not that rare.
I was referring to the de Menezes case and similar cases as rare. Being choked by a big burly copper kneeling on you throat is not uncommon at all... "
No, not uncommon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_Kingdom
But they weren't shot, so that's fine.
And we want to give the police more weapons/greater powers?
Really? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"in short no.
I'm genuinely starting to believe people are wanting a utopian fascistic environment.
an armed response should be what it is...a response to something immediately needing dealt with.
Should an 'authority' be teaching us and our future generations that guns are the easy answer to solve our problems?
try non lethal before lethal and give the law a chance to seek justice properly.
The non-lethal idea is also a little utopian though as everything has inherent risks and drawbacks but generally officers will try to employ a non-lethal response as a first option.
Like I say..having every officer on the street with a firearm isnt a tactical response..its a knee jerk reaction to past/future events....in most cases I've seen there are two officers together on a beat..giving them effectively the sole responsibility of holding firearms in any situation to me is ridiculous. It is unfair on them, and the criminal...when the chance is there, it should be a team of police..and the situation addressed as it is with a calm and controlled effective approach.
I wouldn't advocate all police officers being armed at all, you're totally correct that its a knee-jerk response to a small threat. Each force should have a small and well trained team of armed officers to be deployed as a last resort when all other avenues have been explored.
Strangely that's pretty much how it already is..
lol...and this is what the thread is about is it not? having armed police in general on our streets..."
I took it as a thread about the general policy surrounding police shootings and the myths surrounding shooting to kill over shooting to wound. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Jean Charles de Menezes was a terrible mistake and, thankfully, a very rare one. It was also massive overkill and totally unwarranted.
We had this before.
The total number of homicides per year in the UK is a little over 600.
The total number of deaths at the hands of the police or in police custody is just under 150.
So you have a 1 in 5 chance of being killed by the cops.
It's not that rare.
I was referring to the de Menezes case and similar cases as rare. Being choked by a big burly copper kneeling on you throat is not uncommon at all...
No, not uncommon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_Kingdom
But they weren't shot, so that's fine.
And we want to give the police more weapons/greater powers?
Really?"
I never said it was fine, I was commenting on the topic at hand. Being killed while in police custody is unacceptable but not what the thread is about. Had it been about suspects dying while being restrained or by police officers who think they're above the law (or any scenario) I would have commented differently. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I never said it was fine, I was commenting on the topic at hand. Being killed while in police custody is unacceptable but not what the thread is about. Had it been about suspects dying while being restrained or by police officers who think they're above the law (or any scenario) I would have commented differently."
Indeed.
But I remain unconvinced by the case for greater police armament. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Very well said!
As someone who has carried a gun for a living (and the serious burden of responsibility that goes with it, your comments resonate strongly with me. Our Police must be protected in what they do - although investigations need to be carried out properly and transparently as a matter of course. Very few appear to understand the level of training, courage and discipline required of them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
......and the thing I really struggle with, especially when it's a member of certain communities who is shot by the Police, is the uproar from so many who were not present during the incident, who try to make political capital from it, or who riot in protest? All they appear to achieve is to apparently side with criminality and suggest they should be above the law. We are ALL subject to it and really ought to consider whether the UK is where we want to live if we don't respect those laws and condemn criminal behaviour. This in no way suggests that the Police should be above it either - indeed it's important they are also seen to be subject to AND be protected by it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Jean Charles de Menezes was a terrible mistake and, thankfully, a very rare one. It was also massive overkill and totally unwarranted.
We had this before.
The total number of homicides per year in the UK is a little over 600.
The total number of deaths at the hands of the police or in police custody is just under 150.
So you have a 1 in 5 chance of being killed by the cops.
It's not that rare.
"
Sorry, my maths aren't the greatest. Could you explain how I have a 1 in 5 chance of being killed by the cops... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Jean Charles de Menezes was a terrible mistake and, thankfully, a very rare one. It was also massive overkill and totally unwarranted.
We had this before.
The total number of homicides per year in the UK is a little over 600.
The total number of deaths at the hands of the police or in police custody is just under 150.
So you have a 1 in 5 chance of being killed by the cops.
It's not that rare.
Sorry, my maths aren't the greatest. Could you explain how I have a 1 in 5 chance of being killed by the cops..."
Approx. 600 murders by the public
Plus
Approx. 150 deaths at the hands of the police
Equals
750 deaths total.
150 as a fraction of 750
Equals 1 in 5.
'k? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
To be fair the De Menezes incident, while being tragic and sad was a result of a belief that he may be carrying a bomb. The reason for multiple head shots is to incapacitate the brain stem and allow minimum opportunity for a terrorist to either press or release a button, resulting in detonation. An ugly necessity in our age sadly. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"......and the thing I really struggle with, especially when it's a member of certain communities who is shot by the Police, is the uproar from so many who were not present during the incident, who try to make political capital from it, or who riot in protest? All they appear to achieve is to apparently side with criminality and suggest they should be above the law. We are ALL subject to it and really ought to consider whether the UK is where we want to live if we don't respect those laws and condemn criminal behaviour. This in no way suggests that the Police should be above it either - indeed it's important they are also seen to be subject to AND be protected by it. "
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/nov/16/the-counted-killed-by-police-1000
The Counted was launched on 1 June, logging 464 deaths in the year to that point. At that time 102 or 22% of those killed had been unarmed. This proportion has since fallen slightly to 20% or 198 of the total 1,000. In 59 deaths, however, it remains unclear whether the suspect was armed.
As of 1 June, black Americans were more than twice as likely to be unarmed as white Americans when killed by police. At that point 32% of the 135 black people killed by police had been unarmed, compared with 15% of the 234 white people. This disparity has since shrunk, with 26% of the 248 black people and 18% of 490 white people being recorded as unarmed. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Jean Charles de Menezes was a terrible mistake and, thankfully, a very rare one. It was also massive overkill and totally unwarranted.
We had this before.
The total number of homicides per year in the UK is a little over 600.
The total number of deaths at the hands of the police or in police custody is just under 150.
So you have a 1 in 5 chance of being killed by the cops.
It's not that rare.
Sorry, my maths aren't the greatest. Could you explain how I have a 1 in 5 chance of being killed by the cops...
Approx. 600 murders by the public
Plus
Approx. 150 deaths at the hands of the police
Equals
750 deaths total.
150 as a fraction of 750
Equals 1 in 5.
'k?"
Ok, I understand now. If I am murdered there is a 1 in 5 chance it will be by police...
Still think I would take my chances with the police...
Maybe if I don't commit a crime or cause problems, the police might not notice me and I'll live longer...
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's a difficult one, we look to the police to help protect us and we need to ensure they are protected to the best of their ability. After all, they run to the situation whilst others run to safety.
I would vote yes, with reservations."
I agree with what you say but I think I would vote reluctantly 'no' but with out reservation. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Jean Charles de Menezes was a terrible mistake and, thankfully, a very rare one. It was also massive overkill and totally unwarranted.
We had this before.
The total number of homicides per year in the UK is a little over 600.
The total number of deaths at the hands of the police or in police custody is just under 150.
So you have a 1 in 5 chance of being killed by the cops.
It's not that rare.
Sorry, my maths aren't the greatest. Could you explain how I have a 1 in 5 chance of being killed by the cops...
Approx. 600 murders by the public
Plus
Approx. 150 deaths at the hands of the police
Equals
750 deaths total.
150 as a fraction of 750
Equals 1 in 5.
'k?
Ok, I understand now. If I am murdered there is a 1 in 5 chance it will be by police...
Still think I would take my chances with the police...
Maybe if I don't commit a crime or cause problems, the police might not notice me and I'll live longer...
"
I can't work out if you're as dumb as this sounds - or just role playing.
So whilst I'm working that out, do tell us what crime JCdM was committing on his way to work that morn? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If the police have to shoot, the situation must be serious.
Don't know what their rules of engagement are exactly, but I'm guessing that they should have to give a warning and a chance to surrender, unless they believe someone else is in danger.
You can't shoot a gun out of someone's hand, and shooting to injure is difficult (respect to the wpc who was at the Rigby murder in Woolwich)
If you have to shoot, you normally aim for the centre of mass.
And after the shooting it will be investigated and an unjustified kill will probably lead to the officer being charged. This isn't the wild west.
JCdM - no warning, no actual identification of suspect (ALLEGEDLY) ,
Woman in charge gets promoted and no charges of murder..
You were saying ..."
I think you're going to have to give a little more detail for us 'average Joes' to know 'what the hell you're talking about or what the hells going on' |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoot-to-kill_policy_in_Northern_Ireland.
John stalker wrote a very good book about his findings!"
Hi, read that book, great read. Jim |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I never said it was fine, I was commenting on the topic at hand. Being killed while in police custody is unacceptable but not what the thread is about. Had it been about suspects dying while being restrained or by police officers who think they're above the law (or any scenario) I would have commented differently.
Indeed.
But I remain unconvinced by the case for greater police armament. "
As do I. Currently there is no cause for it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
""Shoot to kill" is a myth, there is no such policy and never will be.
Police marksmen are trained to shoot centre mass of the target. This is the largest area and easiest to hit and ensures the best chance of incapacitating a threat. Aiming for legs or arms is ridiculously difficult as they're small and often moving and a miss increases the risk of collateral damage (remember its not the movies and bullets travel a very long way and can penetrate cars and other objects very easily).
I don't doubt what you says is totally correct but there are instances such as Jean Charles de Menezes, 27 who was shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder after a mistaken assessment by firearms officers,,,, "
They were told he was a suicide bomber.
That's pretty much the only want to prevent such an attack.
Try to negotiate with or wound a suicide bomber and they just blow up. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"To be fair the De Menezes incident, while being tragic and sad was a result of a belief that he may be carrying a bomb. The reason for multiple head shots is to incapacitate the brain stem and allow minimum opportunity for a terrorist to either press or release a button, resulting in detonation. An ugly necessity in our age sadly."
It takes a single bullet in the Medulla to stop someone in their tracks (snipers refer to it as 'the apricot'), not 7. De Menenezes had nothing on him to arouse suspicion and his only 'crime' was to run away from multiple men pointing guns at him.
That whole incident was a travisty and its even worse is that no one was convicts of murder as a result. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Our armed officers are some of the best trained and psychological profiled in the world. They know what they go through if they discharge their weapons so can't be called trigger happy |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"To be fair the De Menezes incident, while being tragic and sad was a result of a belief that he may be carrying a bomb. The reason for multiple head shots is to incapacitate the brain stem and allow minimum opportunity for a terrorist to either press or release a button, resulting in detonation. An ugly necessity in our age sadly.
It takes a single bullet in the Medulla to stop someone in their tracks (snipers refer to it as 'the apricot'), not 7. De Menenezes had nothing on him to arouse suspicion and his only 'crime' was to run away from multiple men pointing guns at him.
That whole incident was a travisty and its even worse is that no one was convicts of murder as a result."
I thought the "he ran away" story was found to be false and he never jumped a style etc and that the police burst into the train and he was shot in his seat?
In which case you can imagine a certain degree of panic if you're 2 foot away from a man you've been informed by intelligence has a bomb and is going to blow himself up. And it may be understandable that you fire more than nessecary because of that fear
There's so many versions that it's hard to figure out what's police lies what's anti police lies and what's true
One thing is though given how many false statements and story changes there were the fact no one got disciplined for gross misconduct or perverting the course of justice let alone murder is worrying. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Our armed officers are some of the best trained and psychological profiled in the world. They know what they go through if they discharge their weapons so can't be called trigger happy"
In the duggan shooting they managed to shoot each other.... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Jean Charles de Menezes was a terrible mistake and, thankfully, a very rare one. It was also massive overkill and totally unwarranted.
We had this before.
The total number of homicides per year in the UK is a little over 600.
The total number of deaths at the hands of the police or in police custody is just under 150.
So you have a 1 in 5 chance of being killed by the cops.
It's not that rare.
I was referring to the de Menezes case and similar cases as rare. Being choked by a big burly copper kneeling on you throat is not uncommon at all...
No, not uncommon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_Kingdom
But they weren't shot, so that's fine.
And we want to give the police more weapons/greater powers?
Really?"
If we're going of those stats you want to look at the comparable ones for people who die in the care of hospitals. People die in hospitals every day and it's just not receiving enough attention. Conspiracy theorist much?
Bx |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
""Shoot to kill" is a myth, there is no such policy and never will be.
Police marksmen are trained to shoot centre mass of the target. This is the largest area and easiest to hit and ensures the best chance of incapacitating a threat. Aiming for legs or arms is ridiculously difficult as they're small and often moving and a miss increases the risk of collateral damage (remember its not the movies and bullets travel a very long way and can penetrate cars and other objects very easily).
I don't doubt what you says is totally correct but there are instances such as Jean Charles de Menezes, 27 who was shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder after a mistaken assessment by firearms officers,,,, "
I really think the Menezes case is an exceptional cases and is not really valid as an example of either how the police typically reacted or typically react now. There was a genuine belief by the officers concerned that the man was a terrorist threat, remember this was just after 7/7 tube and bus bombs. Lessons have to be learned from it and I'm not sure that those who did the shooting were held to account adequately enough. But it's not typically of either the police's attitude to the use of firearms either then or now. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"To be fair the De Menezes incident, while being tragic and sad was a result of a belief that he may be carrying a bomb. The reason for multiple head shots is to incapacitate the brain stem and allow minimum opportunity for a terrorist to either press or release a button, resulting in detonation. An ugly necessity in our age sadly.
It takes a single bullet in the Medulla to stop someone in their tracks (snipers refer to it as 'the apricot'), not 7. De Menenezes had nothing on him to arouse suspicion and his only 'crime' was to run away from multiple men pointing guns at him.
That whole incident was a travisty and its even worse is that no one was convicts of murder as a result."
You quote as if you are informed. There is a huge amount of information in the public domain that you clearly have not researched or chosen to ignore on the basis of clear prejudice. Unfortunately because you deliver your opinion with such force so many will believe it without ever bothering to check. This is the great sadness of the digital age, that so much misinformation is so readily accessed and believed.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"To be fair the De Menezes incident, while being tragic and sad was a result of a belief that he may be carrying a bomb. The reason for multiple head shots is to incapacitate the brain stem and allow minimum opportunity for a terrorist to either press or release a button, resulting in detonation. An ugly necessity in our age sadly.
It takes a single bullet in the Medulla to stop someone in their tracks (snipers refer to it as 'the apricot'), not 7. De Menenezes had nothing on him to arouse suspicion and his only 'crime' was to run away from multiple men pointing guns at him.
That whole incident was a travisty and its even worse is that no one was convicts of murder as a result.
You quote as if you are informed. There is a huge amount of information in the public domain that you clearly have not researched or chosen to ignore on the basis of clear prejudice. Unfortunately because you deliver your opinion with such force so many will believe it without ever bothering to check. This is the great sadness of the digital age, that so much misinformation is so readily accessed and believed.
"
Which bit? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Jean Charles de Menezes was a terrible mistake and, thankfully, a very rare one. It was also massive overkill and totally unwarranted.
We had this before.
The total number of homicides per year in the UK is a little over 600.
The total number of deaths at the hands of the police or in police custody is just under 150.
So you have a 1 in 5 chance of being killed by the cops.
It's not that rare.
"
I think you're doing a little bit of statistical jiggery pokery there. Not least the fact that most people die from natural causes rather than being killed by anyone. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"To be fair the De Menezes incident, while being tragic and sad was a result of a belief that he may be carrying a bomb. The reason for multiple head shots is to incapacitate the brain stem and allow minimum opportunity for a terrorist to either press or release a button, resulting in detonation. An ugly necessity in our age sadly."
But, in this case, they got the wrong man. Whilst I understand and broadly agree with much of what you've said on this thread, that simply but tragic fact can't and shouldn't be so easily dismissed. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"......and the thing I really struggle with, especially when it's a member of certain communities who is shot by the Police, is the uproar from so many who were not present during the incident, who try to make political capital from it, or who riot in protest? All they appear to achieve is to apparently side with criminality and suggest they should be above the law. We are ALL subject to it and really ought to consider whether the UK is where we want to live if we don't respect those laws and condemn criminal behaviour. This in no way suggests that the Police should be above it either - indeed it's important they are also seen to be subject to AND be protected by it.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/nov/16/the-counted-killed-by-police-1000
The Counted was launched on 1 June, logging 464 deaths in the year to that point. At that time 102 or 22% of those killed had been unarmed. This proportion has since fallen slightly to 20% or 198 of the total 1,000. In 59 deaths, however, it remains unclear whether the suspect was armed.
As of 1 June, black Americans were more than twice as likely to be unarmed as white Americans when killed by police. At that point 32% of the 135 black people killed by police had been unarmed, compared with 15% of the 234 white people. This disparity has since shrunk, with 26% of the 248 black people and 18% of 490 white people being recorded as unarmed."
I'm not sure that quoting US figures has much relevance to the situation here in the UK. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *rallvalCouple
over a year ago
Dunfermline |
"Jean Charles de Menezes was a terrible mistake and, thankfully, a very rare one. It was also massive overkill and totally unwarranted.
We had this before.
The total number of homicides per year in the UK is a little over 600.
The total number of deaths at the hands of the police or in police custody is just under 150.
So you have a 1 in 5 chance of being killed by the cops.
It's not that rare.
"
Not 100% accurate. Those in police custody are not a representative sample. People in custody have a higher chance of being on drugs, d*unk, highly stressed or suffering injuries.
Correlation is not causation.
You have a much higher than normal chance of dying in hospital but you are not killed by the doctors; people in hospital may die in hospital but they are not killed by the doctors.
Similarly dying in custody is not being killed BY the police. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"To be fair the De Menezes incident, while being tragic and sad was a result of a belief that he may be carrying a bomb. The reason for multiple head shots is to incapacitate the brain stem and allow minimum opportunity for a terrorist to either press or release a button, resulting in detonation. An ugly necessity in our age sadly.
It takes a single bullet in the Medulla to stop someone in their tracks (snipers refer to it as 'the apricot'), not 7. De Menenezes had nothing on him to arouse suspicion and his only 'crime' was to run away from multiple men pointing guns at him.
That whole incident was a travisty and its even worse is that no one was convicts of murder as a result.
You quote as if you are informed. There is a huge amount of information in the public domain that you clearly have not researched or chosen to ignore on the basis of clear prejudice. Unfortunately because you deliver your opinion with such force so many will believe it without ever bothering to check. This is the great sadness of the digital age, that so much misinformation is so readily accessed and believed.
Which bit?"
The bit about the only reason that Jean Charles de Menezez was shot was that he ran from cops with guns.
A huge enquiry dissected the whole decision making process, in the full glare of the public and media and concluded that almost everything that was done was done honestly believing it was the only way to stop a repeat of the suicide attacks that had taken place the day before.
Mistakes were made by people, under the kind of pressure most of us will never be able to comprehend. That doesn't and never should constitute murder. Nothing in that conclusion should ever be mistaken for suggesting that that it somehow diminishes the death of an innocent man. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
""Shoot to kill" is a myth, there is no such policy and never will be.
Police marksmen are trained to shoot centre mass of the target. This is the largest area and easiest to hit and ensures the best chance of incapacitating a threat. Aiming for legs or arms is ridiculously difficult as they're small and often moving and a miss increases the risk of collateral damage (remember its not the movies and bullets travel a very long way and can penetrate cars and other objects very easily).
I don't doubt what you says is totally correct but there are instances such as Jean Charles de Menezes, 27 who was shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder after a mistaken assessment by firearms officers,,,,
They were told he was a suicide bomber.
That's pretty much the only want to prevent such an attack.
Try to negotiate with or wound a suicide bomber and they just blow up."
But he wasn't. He just happened to look a bit like an Arab and had a rucksack.
I don't think this case is really helpful to either side of the argument. It's not typical, so is not an argument for generally over zealous policing, but is also not excusable as a totally innocent man unnecessarily lost his life. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"To be fair the De Menezes incident, while being tragic and sad was a result of a belief that he may be carrying a bomb. The reason for multiple head shots is to incapacitate the brain stem and allow minimum opportunity for a terrorist to either press or release a button, resulting in detonation. An ugly necessity in our age sadly.
It takes a single bullet in the Medulla to stop someone in their tracks (snipers refer to it as 'the apricot'), not 7. De Menenezes had nothing on him to arouse suspicion and his only 'crime' was to run away from multiple men pointing guns at him.
That whole incident was a travisty and its even worse is that no one was convicts of murder as a result."
Getting a conviction for murder would have been almost impossible as much of the fault was not with the officers who pulled the trigger but with those who gave them the information. You must remember that those that fired the shots genuinely believed him to be a terrorist threat at the time. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"To be fair the De Menezes incident, while being tragic and sad was a result of a belief that he may be carrying a bomb. The reason for multiple head shots is to incapacitate the brain stem and allow minimum opportunity for a terrorist to either press or release a button, resulting in detonation. An ugly necessity in our age sadly.
It takes a single bullet in the Medulla to stop someone in their tracks (snipers refer to it as 'the apricot'), not 7. De Menenezes had nothing on him to arouse suspicion and his only 'crime' was to run away from multiple men pointing guns at him.
That whole incident was a travisty and its even worse is that no one was convicts of murder as a result.
I thought the "he ran away" story was found to be false and he never jumped a style etc and that the police burst into the train and he was shot in his seat?
In which case you can imagine a certain degree of panic if you're 2 foot away from a man you've been informed by intelligence has a bomb and is going to blow himself up. And it may be understandable that you fire more than nessecary because of that fear
There's so many versions that it's hard to figure out what's police lies what's anti police lies and what's true
One thing is though given how many false statements and story changes there were the fact no one got disciplined for gross misconduct or perverting the course of justice let alone murder is worrying."
The fairest analysis so far. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"To be fair the De Menezes incident, while being tragic and sad was a result of a belief that he may be carrying a bomb. The reason for multiple head shots is to incapacitate the brain stem and allow minimum opportunity for a terrorist to either press or release a button, resulting in detonation. An ugly necessity in our age sadly.
It takes a single bullet in the Medulla to stop someone in their tracks (snipers refer to it as 'the apricot'), not 7. De Menenezes had nothing on him to arouse suspicion and his only 'crime' was to run away from multiple men pointing guns at him.
That whole incident was a travisty and its even worse is that no one was convicts of murder as a result.
I thought the "he ran away" story was found to be false and he never jumped a style etc and that the police burst into the train and he was shot in his seat?
In which case you can imagine a certain degree of panic if you're 2 foot away from a man you've been informed by intelligence has a bomb and is going to blow himself up. And it may be understandable that you fire more than nessecary because of that fear
There's so many versions that it's hard to figure out what's police lies what's anti police lies and what's true
One thing is though given how many false statements and story changes there were the fact no one got disciplined for gross misconduct or perverting the course of justice let alone murder is worrying.
The fairest analysis so far.
"
Fair point regarding the 'Apricot', but a technique followed more by snipers than those in close proximity carrying assault rifles. Hard to judge for any of us without actually having been present, but true to say it would be possible to achieve it with one shot if not taking into account bone deflection, cavitation Al tracking etc. Still a good point though as some would understandably see it as overkill. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"To be fair the De Menezes incident, while being tragic and sad was a result of a belief that he may be carrying a bomb. The reason for multiple head shots is to incapacitate the brain stem and allow minimum opportunity for a terrorist to either press or release a button, resulting in detonation. An ugly necessity in our age sadly.
But, in this case, they got the wrong man. Whilst I understand and broadly agree with much of what you've said on this thread, that simply but tragic fact can't and shouldn't be so easily dismissed."
Totally agree with that point - should never be easily dismissed. Getting the wrong man (as in this case) is a scary thought. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"......and the thing I really struggle with, especially when it's a member of certain communities who is shot by the Police, is the uproar from so many who were not present during the incident, who try to make political capital from it, or who riot in protest? All they appear to achieve is to apparently side with criminality and suggest they should be above the law. We are ALL subject to it and really ought to consider whether the UK is where we want to live if we don't respect those laws and condemn criminal behaviour. This in no way suggests that the Police should be above it either - indeed it's important they are also seen to be subject to AND be protected by it.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/nov/16/the-counted-killed-by-police-1000
The Counted was launched on 1 June, logging 464 deaths in the year to that point. At that time 102 or 22% of those killed had been unarmed. This proportion has since fallen slightly to 20% or 198 of the total 1,000. In 59 deaths, however, it remains unclear whether the suspect was armed.
As of 1 June, black Americans were more than twice as likely to be unarmed as white Americans when killed by police. At that point 32% of the 135 black people killed by police had been unarmed, compared with 15% of the 234 white people. This disparity has since shrunk, with 26% of the 248 black people and 18% of 490 white people being recorded as unarmed.
I'm not sure that quoting US figures has much relevance to the situation here in the UK."
its precisely why we dont need armed police, and it was also in relation to the poster struggling with certain communities peoples being shot...riots etc etc..
we do sometimes need to look abroad to influence our decisions on how we can benefit our society and some of the reasons why people might riot/protest against what they see as injustice.
Not everybody that comes into contact with the police is a victim or criminal.Its sometimes down to how the authoritative figures act towards the client, some professionals are absolute shit at de-escalating situations.I've worked for and along with a few...catch one of them in a mood or on a bad shift,tired etcetc...and you might face someone who has no real interest in providing a service for a citizen.
all I'm saying is I dont accept authority blindly...especially when I have seen others misuse it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Our armed officers are some of the best trained and psychological profiled in the world. They know what they go through if they discharge their weapons so can't be called trigger happy"
So how come when JCdM came out his flat, the spotter didn't ID him cos 'he was on a toilet break'? Then following wrong guy down street, into bus and down into tube.
sounds more like Keystone Kops than 'Best In The World' TM |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Ok, I understand now. If I am murdered there is a 1 in 5 chance it will be by police...
Still think I would take my chances with the police...
Maybe if I don't commit a crime or cause problems, the police might not notice me and I'll live longer...
"
Like Jean Charles de Menezes? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Jean Charles de Menezes was a terrible mistake and, thankfully, a very rare one. It was also massive overkill and totally unwarranted.
We had this before.
The total number of homicides per year in the UK is a little over 600.
The total number of deaths at the hands of the police or in police custody is just under 150.
So you have a 1 in 5 chance of being killed by the cops.
It's not that rare.
Not 100% accurate. Those in police custody are not a representative sample. People in custody have a higher chance of being on drugs, d*unk, highly stressed or suffering injuries.
Correlation is not causation.
You have a much higher than normal chance of dying in hospital but you are not killed by the doctors; people in hospital may die in hospital but they are not killed by the doctors.
Similarly dying in custody is not being killed BY the police."
Yes, but if yr gravely ill, you don't generally go to the police station...
Sick people go to hospitals... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Our armed officers are some of the best trained and psychological profiled in the world. They know what they go through if they discharge their weapons so can't be called trigger happy
So how come when JCdM came out his flat, the spotter didn't ID him cos 'he was on a toilet break'? Then following wrong guy down street, into bus and down into tube.
sounds more like Keystone Kops than 'Best In The World' TM"
.
No he said he did id him, he just couldn't get photo evidence to send back to control room for corroboration!.
So control gave him the go ahead on his _iewing only!.
According to the enquiry three spotters nicknamed "hotels" followed him on two buses and eventually on to the train, by that time control had ordered that he wasn't to be allowed onto the underground because of the previous days obviously intention was to blow himself up.
The armed officers that shot him had not been following de mendendez themselves and had only been called in to kill him!
11 shots to the head and 1 to the shoulder over a 30 second period |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"To be fair the De Menezes incident, while being tragic and sad was a result of a belief that he may be carrying a bomb. The reason for multiple head shots is to incapacitate the brain stem and allow minimum opportunity for a terrorist to either press or release a button, resulting in detonation. An ugly necessity in our age sadly.
It takes a single bullet in the Medulla to stop someone in their tracks (snipers refer to it as 'the apricot'), not 7. De Menenezes had nothing on him to arouse suspicion and his only 'crime' was to run away from multiple men pointing guns at him.
That whole incident was a travisty and its even worse is that no one was convicts of murder as a result.
Getting a conviction for murder would have been almost impossible as much of the fault was not with the officers who pulled the trigger but with those who gave them the information. You must remember that those that fired the shots genuinely believed him to be a terrorist threat at the time."
how about they have some evidence, maybe a lot before anyone takes another persons life, either that or they present a clear danger. As in they do not shoot unarmed people that present no immediate danger. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Perhaps to get back to the original point. Senior police officers have lobbied that they will struggle to deliver sufficient armed officers for the future need.
The expectation that the future need will be the same or increased is based on current gun crime activity and also the ability to respond to a marauding terrorist firearms attack.
They have suggested that as it is British policy to take armed officers from the rank and file of uk police numbers they are effectively volunteers. It seems unlikely that sufficient numbers of suitable candidates will volunteer when it is clear that for subjecting themselves to massively elevated personal risk they are likely to be sneered at and pilloried should they ever be deployed. Increasingly they are also likely to be suspended, arrested, charged and tried based on the assessment over months and years of a decision they made in seconds. No 'help for hero' type support for those guys.
I can only assume from the derision, contempt and negativity towards people who have been asked by their government and senior officers to do a job, that many on here did not see what went on in Paris and hope that the UK would have a similar level of resource to deal so effectively with that threat.
Or perhaps many simply believe that the threat is overblown and we don't have any real need of highly trained, committed firearms officers? Or that they were French and impressive and all our men and women are fuckwits, which appears to be a popular sentiment. Well, let's hope you're right on the former or wrong on the latter. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"To be fair the De Menezes incident, while being tragic and sad was a result of a belief that he may be carrying a bomb. The reason for multiple head shots is to incapacitate the brain stem and allow minimum opportunity for a terrorist to either press or release a button, resulting in detonation. An ugly necessity in our age sadly.
It takes a single bullet in the Medulla to stop someone in their tracks (snipers refer to it as 'the apricot'), not 7. De Menenezes had nothing on him to arouse suspicion and his only 'crime' was to run away from multiple men pointing guns at him.
That whole incident was a travisty and its even worse is that no one was convicts of murder as a result.
Getting a conviction for murder would have been almost impossible as much of the fault was not with the officers who pulled the trigger but with those who gave them the information. You must remember that those that fired the shots genuinely believed him to be a terrorist threat at the time. how about they have some evidence, maybe a lot before anyone takes another persons life, either that or they present a clear danger. As in they do not shoot unarmed people that present no immediate danger."
I agree. The incident in inexcusable. I'm just giving my analysis of the likelihood of getting a conviction in this case. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Jean Charles de Menezes was a terrible mistake and, thankfully, a very rare one. It was also massive overkill and totally unwarranted.
We had this before.
The total number of homicides per year in the UK is a little over 600.
The total number of deaths at the hands of the police or in police custody is just under 150.
So you have a 1 in 5 chance of being killed by the cops.
It's not that rare.
Not 100% accurate. Those in police custody are not a representative sample. People in custody have a higher chance of being on drugs, d*unk, highly stressed or suffering injuries.
Correlation is not causation.
You have a much higher than normal chance of dying in hospital but you are not killed by the doctors; people in hospital may die in hospital but they are not killed by the doctors.
Similarly dying in custody is not being killed BY the police.
Yes, but if yr gravely ill, you don't generally go to the police station...
Sick people go to hospitals..."
No, but it often turns out that people who get arrested, who often have underlying health issues and often exacerbate them through drink or drugs, go to police stations.
Turns out not everyone knows they're gravely ill or has it stamped on their head.
You're too bright for such an obtuse comment, surely? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I have personal, local knowledge of how careless the police cam be when dealing with all manner of arrestees - from mental health cases, learning difficulties, racist abuse, outright lying, fixing of evidence... &c &c.
I'm afraid that my _iew of the Somerset & Avon Constabulary is a particularly dim one.
Two other qualifications for this opinion:
* I see minutes of the local Police Standards meetings
* I've worked extensively with the Police in London dealing with difficult, disturbing and dangerous behaviour.
Where I live, at least, the police *are* rubbish.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I have personal, local knowledge of how careless the police cam be when dealing with all manner of arrestees - from mental health cases, learning difficulties, racist abuse, outright lying, fixing of evidence... &c &c.
I'm afraid that my _iew of the Somerset & Avon Constabulary is a particularly dim one.
Two other qualifications for this opinion:
* I see minutes of the local Police Standards meetings
* I've worked extensively with the Police in London dealing with difficult, disturbing and dangerous behaviour.
Where I live, at least, the police *are* rubbish.
"
So yeah, to return to the beginning...
I don't think the police need more weapons just better training. Especially round here.
This is Somerset, not Kentucky |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Well coming from the states I feel that UK is safer than America. But that's a deep discussion so I'll just stop there. "
Over here just the criminals carry guns and a few select police. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Jean Charles de Menezes was a terrible mistake and, thankfully, a very rare one. It was also massive overkill and totally unwarranted.
We had this before.
The total number of homicides per year in the UK is a little over 600.
The total number of deaths at the hands of the police or in police custody is just under 150.
So you have a 1 in 5 chance of being killed by the cops.
It's not that rare.
Sorry, my maths aren't the greatest. Could you explain how I have a 1 in 5 chance of being killed by the cops...
Approx. 600 murders by the public
Plus
Approx. 150 deaths at the hands of the police
Equals
750 deaths total.
150 as a fraction of 750
Equals 1 in 5.
'k?
Ok, I understand now. If I am murdered there is a 1 in 5 chance it will be by police...
Still think I would take my chances with the police...
Maybe if I don't commit a crime or cause problems, the police might not notice me and I'll live longer...
I can't work out if you're as dumb as this sounds - or just role playing.
So whilst I'm working that out, do tell us what crime JCdM was committing on his way to work that morn?"
Obviously I was being awkward. It stated that you (meaning everyone) had a 1 in 5 chance of being killed by police...
That is wrong because approximately 500k people a year die in the UK. So 150 of those works out a lot less than 1 in 5 so it's a totally pointless statement...
I am sure that all the people saying that there is enough or too many armed police will still be saying that when people are getting shot by terrorists and the nearest armed police are 20 minutes away... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Jean Charles de Menezes was a terrible mistake and, thankfully, a very rare one. It was also massive overkill and totally unwarranted.
We had this before.
The total number of homicides per year in the UK is a little over 600.
The total number of deaths at the hands of the police or in police custody is just under 150.
So you have a 1 in 5 chance of being killed by the cops.
It's not that rare.
Sorry, my maths aren't the greatest. Could you explain how I have a 1 in 5 chance of being killed by the cops...
Approx. 600 murders by the public
Plus
Approx. 150 deaths at the hands of the police
Equals
750 deaths total.
150 as a fraction of 750
Equals 1 in 5.
'k?
Ok, I understand now. If I am murdered there is a 1 in 5 chance it will be by police...
Still think I would take my chances with the police...
Maybe if I don't commit a crime or cause problems, the police might not notice me and I'll live longer...
I can't work out if you're as dumb as this sounds - or just role playing.
So whilst I'm working that out, do tell us what crime JCdM was committing on his way to work that morn?
Obviously I was being awkward. It stated that you (meaning everyone) had a 1 in 5 chance of being killed by police...
That is wrong because approximately 500k people a year die in the UK. So 150 of those works out a lot less than 1 in 5 so it's a totally pointless statement...
I am sure that all the people saying that there is enough or too many armed police will still be saying that when people are getting shot by terrorists and the nearest armed police are 20 minutes away..."
Do you really think the chances of that are very high?
That's Daily Mail levels of sensationalist paranoia...  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Do you really think the chances of that are very high?
That's Daily Mail levels of sensationalist paranoia... "
Unfortunately as time goes on, I do think it could happen. I truly hope it doesn't but I think the odds are against us... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"......and the thing I really struggle with, especially when it's a member of certain communities who is shot by the Police, is the uproar from so many who were not present during the incident, who try to make political capital from it, or who riot in protest? All they appear to achieve is to apparently side with criminality and suggest they should be above the law. We are ALL subject to it and really ought to consider whether the UK is where we want to live if we don't respect those laws and condemn criminal behaviour. This in no way suggests that the Police should be above it either - indeed it's important they are also seen to be subject to AND be protected by it.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/nov/16/the-counted-killed-by-police-1000
The Counted was launched on 1 June, logging 464 deaths in the year to that point. At that time 102 or 22% of those killed had been unarmed. This proportion has since fallen slightly to 20% or 198 of the total 1,000. In 59 deaths, however, it remains unclear whether the suspect was armed.
As of 1 June, black Americans were more than twice as likely to be unarmed as white Americans when killed by police. At that point 32% of the 135 black people killed by police had been unarmed, compared with 15% of the 234 white people. This disparity has since shrunk, with 26% of the 248 black people and 18% of 490 white people being recorded as unarmed."
However if you also add in the other statistics that something like 40% of American police officers killed in the line of duty are killed by black people.
The figures of black people killed by police also includes traffic accidents and car chases. So when a police car on the way to an emergency crashed into a car at a junction killing the occupants who happened to be black, that was included. Also included was two black teenagers who crashed and died after a police car tried to stop them. These type additions should not be counted because their skin colour had nothing to do with their deaths.
Finally the 30k black people who die at the hands of other black people per annum is not mentioned.
Sorry to highjack the thread but if you are going to quote facts, quote all of them not just the ones that back your point...
Every avoidable death is a death too many... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"......and the thing I really struggle with, especially when it's a member of certain communities who is shot by the Police, is the uproar from so many who were not present during the incident, who try to make political capital from it, or who riot in protest? All they appear to achieve is to apparently side with criminality and suggest they should be above the law. We are ALL subject to it and really ought to consider whether the UK is where we want to live if we don't respect those laws and condemn criminal behaviour. This in no way suggests that the Police should be above it either - indeed it's important they are also seen to be subject to AND be protected by it.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/nov/16/the-counted-killed-by-police-1000
The Counted was launched on 1 June, logging 464 deaths in the year to that point. At that time 102 or 22% of those killed had been unarmed. This proportion has since fallen slightly to 20% or 198 of the total 1,000. In 59 deaths, however, it remains unclear whether the suspect was armed.
As of 1 June, black Americans were more than twice as likely to be unarmed as white Americans when killed by police. At that point 32% of the 135 black people killed by police had been unarmed, compared with 15% of the 234 white people. This disparity has since shrunk, with 26% of the 248 black people and 18% of 490 white people being recorded as unarmed.
However if you also add in the other statistics that something like 40% of American police officers killed in the line of duty are killed by black people.
The figures of black people killed by police also includes traffic accidents and car chases. So when a police car on the way to an emergency crashed into a car at a junction killing the occupants who happened to be black, that was included. Also included was two black teenagers who crashed and died after a police car tried to stop them. These type additions should not be counted because their skin colour had nothing to do with their deaths.
Finally the 30k black people who die at the hands of other black people per annum is not mentioned.
Sorry to highjack the thread but if you are going to quote facts, quote all of them not just the ones that back your point...
Every avoidable death is a death too many..."
not hijacking...but I did give the actual article link.Without sounding condescending of course..there was recent convictions on an officer wasnt there?- the poster I replied to mentioned not understanding certain members of communities being shot then people protesting/rioting...
my point would be that we dont need this on our streets..america doesnt need it on their streets(if they sorted out their stupid gun laws), I doubt the latter would happen due to the amount of corruption going on anyway.
I have little faith in giving police any more powers than they already have...and as for terrorists and armed police not by my side as it occurs?-its rubbish...no matter whats happening they cant be everywhere with guns blazing or not. Sure I wont mind them turning up during the crisis...but I dont want guns in my face everyday..I dont want to rush for my train/bus/last xmas gift on the shelf,wearing a back pack and suddenly be shot because I looked like a terrorist. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I understand what you are saying but that particular event was a perfect storm event.
Yes it could happen but very very unlikely.
Do I think the police are perfect, far from it. However do I think we need more armed police? Yes I do...
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
there is no such thing as a shoot to kill policy, it's a natural side affect of being shot.
all those that carry weapons legally, have training, refresher training and rules of engagement.
the rules of engagement are specific enough and clear enough for when the weapon can be discharged.
any terroist doesn't obey them.
the police are choosen and assessed on mental, physical ability. if there is any doubt then they are taken off duty.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It's a difficult one, we look to the police to help protect us and we need to ensure they are protected to the best of their ability. After all, they run to the situation whilst others run to safety.
I would vote yes, with reservations."
Me too |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *aucy3Couple
over a year ago
glasgow |
"Jean Charles de Menezes was a terrible mistake and, thankfully, a very rare one. It was also massive overkill and totally unwarranted.
We had this before.
The total number of homicides per year in the UK is a little over 600.
The total number of deaths at the hands of the police or in police custody is just under 150.
So you have a 1 in 5 chance of being killed by the cops.
It's not that rare.
I was referring to the de Menezes case and similar cases as rare. Being choked by a big burly copper kneeling on you throat is not uncommon at all... "
Although I seem to remember a couple of years ago,in Scotland a guy with learning difficulties, being shot dead
His crime,he was carrying a table leg in a bin bag.
We can be quite strict up here.
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Mistakes can happen and do happen.....but is that a price worth paying too make you feel safer on Britain's streets .....
No.
This isn't the States and more people with guns make me feel less safe, not more safe. "
totally agree, more armed police with budget constraints equals less skilled judgement keep it as it is. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
