[Grug]

Thought I'd do an 'aldo'.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200507/s1421179.htm

British police remain under orders to shoot suspected suicide bombers in the head if necessary, London's police chief Ian Blair has said, despite having mistakenly killed an innocent man.

I wonder, if at any time they may abuse that order...

//Update:

Aldo's Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706913.stm
Karajorma's Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4712061.stm

[Fineus]

You know, if terrorists were out to spread fear and panic, they may as well hang their bombs up on a coat hanger right now.

The threat of being gunned down by armed policemen while on your way to work in the capital is a much more worrying threat. "Well done" to the English Government.

[Goober5000]

So what happens if some smarter-than-usual bomber decides to make a bomb with a kill switch?

[karajorma]

Then he does what he would have managed to do had he not been shot in the head. At least this way he might get taken down before he reaches his choosen target.

Fact is that the guy was acting suspicously and then ran. While I hate the idea of a shoot to kill policy, as long as the police still challenge before shooting the alternative is many times worse.

[Fineus]

But they had the guy pinned on the floor - if he had triggered something it would go off regardless of them shooting him.

On top of that it turns out he was innocent. I wasn't aware that running was a crime these days. Nor would I say he deserved it for acting suspiciously (whatever that means..).

To avoid this they should have subjects freeze and instantly drop to the floor, spread eagle. Therefore unable to trigger anything (not counting a dead mans switch.. which would go off regardless of whether the subject was shot or not). As it is, we've a massive transportation system with thousands of civilians travelling it on a daily basis... and a lot of trigger happy armed forces with orders that they can shoot to kill if they feel it necessary.

Suffice to say, I'm damned if I'm going up to London any time soon. Between the bombers and the armed forces - the likelyhood of being unfortunately caught up in something just doesn't seem worth the risk.

[achtung]

You know most people that come out of sex shops and what not usually act suspicious.  

[redmenace]

was this individual running from the police?

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Kalfireth
But they had the guy pinned on the floor - if he had triggered something it would go off regardless of them shooting him.

It's pretty easy when you're in a situation like that to trigger a bomb. Had the man been a suicide bomber shooting him was the only way to cancel the possibility of him setting off the bomb without a dead mans switch.

Originally posted by Kalfireth
On top of that it turns out he was innocent. I wasn't aware that running was a crime these days. Nor would I say he deserved it for acting suspiciously (whatever that means..).

I wouldn't say he deserved it either but had he been sensible enough to stop when he was challenged the police would probably have simply felt him up and sent him on his way. Choosing to run towards a tube train the day after 3 attempted tube train bombings when being ordered to stop by armed police was certainly not a smart idea.

Originally posted by Kalfireth
To avoid this they should have subjects freeze and instantly drop to the floor, spread eagle. Therefore unable to trigger anything (not counting a dead mans switch.. which would go off regardless of whether the subject was shot or not).

Which is exactly what they did to that guy in Whitehall. It's probably what they would have done in this case too had the guy not run away.

It's very easy to make judgements about what the police should or should not have done in that situation but I'm keeping an open mind until the report is published and the full facts of the case are available for everyone to read.

Originally posted by Kalfireth
As it is, we've a massive transportation system with thousands of civilians travelling it on a daily basis... and a lot of trigger happy armed forces with orders that they can shoot to kill if they feel it necessary.

They've always had that order. All that has changed is that now they target the head rather than the heart.

Originally posted by Kalfireth
Suffice to say, I'm damned if I'm going up to London any time soon. Between the bombers and the armed forces - the likelyhood of being unfortunately caught up in something just doesn't seem worth the risk.

I'm going in on Tuesday. I'll be damned if I'm letting anyone scare me out of living my life.

[Clave]

There is no such thing as a 'Shoot to Kill' policy.

The rules state that you may open fire if there is a threat to you, or the people you are protecting.

You must give a warning, if there is time to do so.

You may NOT aim to wound - it is clearly laid out that you 'aim for the exposed part of the target'

Basically - If you can see all of them, then aim for the centre of the body, if you can only see their head, then aim for the centre of their head.

The requirement is to STOP the threat, and if that means killing, then that is what will happen, but nowhere does it state 'shoot to kill' in the Green Card (Rules of Engagement)

There is a lot of stuff in there about giving three warnings and such, but the fact is that all of these decisions are made in seconds or less, and there is no way back once committed.  If the guy HAD been a bomber, and got onto the train killing another 20-30 people, then everyone would have been condemning the police for being too slow.

I no longer have a Green Card, but you can be certain that those policemen would have followed the rules laid down there....

[karajorma]

Exactly Clave. I'm waiting for the real story on this to come out rather than assuming the police cocked it up.

As far as I can see the police acted on their information in exactly the way they should have. If new evidence comes to light I'll change my point of view but I'm willing to give the police the benifit of the doubt until there is a reason not to.

[Fineus]

Meh, perhaps I'm alone here in feeling that the public should not live in fear of armed forces for going about their daily lives.

Why did the guy run? I don't know. I've never had a gun pointed at me and been ordered to freeze... and perhaps he did have something to hide. Perhaps it'll turn out he was a major leader of a child porn ring or something - I don't know. Or perhaps he just ran rather than froze. Perhaps he was late for work / home / whatever. I don't know the details.

I do know that the way this country is going really bothers me. Joe public shouldn't have to wander around worrying about being pulled in for questioning by the police or being bombed by whoever. I will admit that I'm a little biased on that front though, as a friend of mine had his jaw broken as he was attacked by a group of youths about half a minute from his own home.

In a country where an innocent man is shot, thug culture seems to be on the increase and the goverment resorts to rewarding children for going to school by giving them IPods... I fail to see why I should have much respect in the establishment. The word "cock up" springs to mind.

Still - if you're happy with the way things are then power to you

[Kie99]

I think it's a cear case of suicide by cop, or the guy should get a Darwin Award.  According to the TV, he spoke good English and when the police aimed guns at him and yelled at him to stop, he ran away and jumped over a ticket barrier.  Then he runs into a train, when trains have been attacked 6 times in the last 15 days.

They are not the actions of a mentally stable person who retains the will to live.

[Fineus]

Fair enough then, I retract that part of my arguement.

[Kosh]

From what I've been hearing, he could not speak english. He was also an illegal. That certainly explains why he was running from the cops.


The fact that they had him pinned to the ground and THEN emptied half a clip into him is just over kill.

[Bobboau]

you know we have cops with guns, we've had them for some time in fact, and no one is too worried about getting guned down by them on there way home...

[Fineus]

Originally posted by Kosh
The fact that they had him pinned to the ground and THEN emptied half a clip into him is just over kill.

That's mostly what I was thinking

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Kalfireth
I do know that the way this country is going really bothers me. Joe public shouldn't have to wander around worrying about being pulled in for questioning by the police or being bombed by whoever.

So blame the government for putting us in that position. What I'm seeing is people blaming the police for the cock-ups the government are responsible for.

It's the current govenrment that's responsible for making things worse with a stupid unnecessarry war in Iraq instead of trying to make things better by using the money sensibly in Afghanistan as I've said time and time again.

And yet as a country we elected that prick Blair and gave him a third chance to screw us over. I'm definately not happy with the state of affairs but until the man in the street starts to realise how badly we're being f**ked over as a nation I see little we can do about it.

[Roanoke]

weren't the cops chasing him in plain clothes though ?

[vyper]

Look, guys, you can't argue with 5 shots to the head (of which apparently one in the mouth) was reasonable force. It defies reason.

[Clave]

I'm not saying it was right, just that it was one of those things that happens, and it was a case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time (ie just after the bombings) and doing the wrong thing.

I don't particularly care how many bullets were used, or whether he was pinned down or not, the fact remains that he behaved in EXACTLY the same way a suicide bomber would have done, and paid the price.

And no, I'm not 'happy' that we have police with assault rifles or SMGs roaming the streets, it's not really ideal, but for the time being, that is how things must be.