Shoot to kill

International class · Post by **International class** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 8:38 am

Following on from the Westminster attack and last night's in Southwark, do we now have a shoot to kill policy with regard to a terrorist incident.

If so it saves on expensive trials and paying to keep them locked up.

It's a shame the killers of Lee Rigby weren't dealt in the same way.

HatfieldClaret · Post by **HatfieldClaret** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 8:43 am

There has never been a shoot to wound policy. That's the stuff of films.

There was a policy of shooting suicide bombers in the head but not sure if that still stands after Jean Charles de Menezez was shot dead at Stockwell station when he was mistaken for a suicide bomber.

barba · Post by **barba** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 8:45 am

Surely being killed is what they want. Hence the fake suicide vests.

Capturing them alive does have benefits.

2 Bee Holed · Post by **2 Bee Holed** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 8:46 am

If you shoot, you shoot to kill or you should be sacked!

HatfieldClaret · Post by **HatfieldClaret** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 8:51 am

You shoot to incapacitate.

TopCat · Post by **TopCat** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 9:00 am

Shoot to incapacitate, interview, trial and hang the bastards.

Firthy · Post by **Firthy** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 9:45 am

Shoot to kill is the only policy. Otherwise they could still shoot back or detonate a bomb if injured.

Once shot their bodies should be incinerated with no burial and their names not released. That's all they deserve and the less publicity they get the better.

MACCA · Post by **MACCA** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 9:50 am

Shoot to kill.

Shoot to protect.

Deport/kill any known associates , don't lock them up, that is wasting more money. The money you save by not housing these monsters can be put back into the police/nhs

International class · Post by **International class** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 10:03 am

I agree that not naming them would starve them of the publicity, but unlikely to occur with today's media and our "friends" on the other side of the pond leaking details.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 10:09 am

Double tap is the phrase you want.

Claretmatt4 · Post by **Claretmatt4** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 10:14 am

MACCA wrote:Shoot to kill.

Shoot to protect.

Deport/kill any known associates , don't lock them up, that is wasting more money. The money you save by not housing these monsters can be put back into the police/nhs

Kill any known associates? Isn't that a bit extreme?

Personally I wouldn't deport them, I'd rather they were locked up in our prisons than left to spread their **** elsewhere in the world only to come back another day.

BleedingClaret · Post by **BleedingClaret** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 10:15 am

barba wrote:Surely being killed is what they want. Hence the fake suicide vests.

Capturing them alive does have benefits.

The fake suicide vests will stop people trying to overpower them and they will get more time to kill

MACCA · Post by **MACCA** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 10:21 am

Claretmatt4 wrote:Kill any known associates? Isn't that a bit extreme?

Personally I wouldn't deport them, I'd rather they were locked up in our prisons than left to spread their **** elsewhere in the world only to come back another day.

Well kill it is then.

And you don't let them come back. anyone deported/chooses to fight for/against Syria etc, doesn't come back.

If a suspected terrorist ( who is known and on a list ) goes to Egypt/Libya/Syria etc for 6 months then wants to come back, hasn't been on a holiday turning his life around as he?

They simply do not come back.

If killing all associates only yields a 1 in 3 success rate it has been a success, as these people are trying to commit mass murder of innocent people.
At the same time if a zero tolerance stance on associates is used, maybe these people wouldn't house, or employ these people and possibly even make them go to police, should the suspect anything!

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 10:25 am

MACCA wrote:Well kill it is then.

And you don't let them come back. anyone deported/chooses to fight for/against Syria etc, doesn't come back.

Yeah. Because it's impossible for people to come here illegally.

Firthy · Post by **Firthy** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 10:26 am

Claretmatt4 wrote:Kill any known associates? Isn't that a bit extreme?

Personally I wouldn't deport them, I'd rather they were locked up in our prisons than left to spread their **** elsewhere in the world only to come back another day.

Far better to deport them. They would spread their shite in prison and create other extremists who would be able to carry on their extremist ideas when released.

Another option would be solitary confinement but a very expensive option.

morpheus2 · Post by **morpheus2** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 10:26 am

Shoot hugs and money at them and apologise for the crusades, that should do it.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 10:28 am

MACCA wrote:
If killing all associates only yields a 1 in 3 success rate it has been a success, ...

Holy ****. So you're happy if we deliberately kill people that have a 67% chance of being innocent?

And how would we be doing this? Knocking on doors and askign "do you know this man?" and showing whoever answers a picture. If they say yes then do we execute them on the door step or do we do it in a more civilised way like up against a wall?

MACCA · Post by **MACCA** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 10:29 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:Yeah. Because it's impossible for people to come here illegally.

Harder to get back, and I'm almost positive that if you deported 10,000 people, they all wouldn't get back.

But also whilst they are deported, they are not costing us money by being here, nor trying to brainwash others into their way of thinking.

Sticking you're head in the sand, doing nothing, supporting them financially, housing or employing them isn't exactly stopping them or scaring them into stopping.

MACCA · Post by **MACCA** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 10:33 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:Holy ****. So you're happy if we deliberately kill people that have a 67% chance of being innocent?

And how would we be doing this? Knocking on doors and askign "do you know this man?" and showing whoever answers a picture. If they say yes then do we execute them on the door step or do we do it in a more civilised way like up against a wall?

Come on, If you are living with a terrorist, buying things for a terrorist, talking to a terrorist you are innocent and really don't know what they are up to?

The police had a list of 500 men they thought posed severe risk to other people. You think not killing them all wouldn't have saved at least 30 INNOCENT as well as children's lives in the last 2 weeks? Locking a man up for 8 years when he could have potentially killed 100's of people is the right thing to do?

I think you are either on the wind up or a bit short.

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 10:37 am

You do realise that there is some middle ground between being a lily livered liberal and Genghis Khan ?

BigChaCha · Post by **BigChaCha** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 10:49 am

This will go on and on as long as we are still one of the most politically correct countries in the world. We have meddled for so long in other countries affairs both publicly and privately through the MI5 that this is not going to go away soon especially with the open to all policy we have had in this country for the last 30 years.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 10:56 am

MACCA wrote:Come on, If you are living with a terrorist, buying things for a terrorist, talking to a terrorist you are innocent and really don't know what they are up to?

The police had a list of 500 men they thought posed severe risk to other people. You think not killing them all wouldn't have saved at least 30 INNOCENT as well as children's lives in the last 2 weeks? Locking a man up for 8 years when he could have potentially killed 100's of people is the right thing to do?

I think you are either on the wind up or a bit short.

I might be wrong but even in Minority Report i think they only imprisoned you for pre-crime.

******* lunacy. Executing people without even a trial? ******* hell. Go on then. Execute 500 Muslims without telling anyone through a trial why they're being executed. Lets see what that does to the number of people radlicalised in this country. How quickly do you imagine the "severe risk" category will reach 500 again because of these executions?

MACCA · Post by **MACCA** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 11:04 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:I might be wrong but even in Minority Report i think they only imprisoned you for pre-crime.

******* lunacy. Executing people without even a trial? ******* hell. Go on then. Execute 500 Muslims without telling anyone through a trial why they're being executed. Lets see what that does to the number of people radlicalised in this country. How quickly do you imagine the "severe risk" category will reach 500 again because of these executions?

Yep decision reached very quickly.

I think anyone who is involved in terrorism is innocent, and committed no crimes at all, I think they are the pillars of the community and should be allowed to live here freely. I want them to come in contact with my family on a daily basis as they are innocent, and when they do harm them, it'll be their fault for obviously not supporting them enough.

There, run a long and troll elsewhere.

I don't like you bringing religion into the discussion either, you're trying to stir up hatred and push an agenda. I said terrorists/groups, you labelling all terrorists Muslims isn't fair.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 11:10 am

MACCA wrote:Yep decision reached very quickly.

I think anyone who is involved in terrorism is innocent, and committed no crimes at all, I think they are the pillars of the community and should be allowed to live here freely. I want them to come in contact with my family on a daily basis as they are innocent, and when they do harm them, it'll be their fault for obviously not supporting them enough.

There, run a long and troll elsewhere.

I don't like you bringing religion into the discussion either, you're trying to stir up hatred and push an agenda. I said terrorists/groups, you labelling all terrorists Muslims isn't fair.

Yeah, i'm the racist troll, not they guy who wants to go around killing brown people because they might know a terrorist.

ClaretMoffitt · Post by **ClaretMoffitt** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 11:13 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:Yeah, i'm the racist troll, not they guy who wants to go around killing brown people because they might know a terrorist.

This isn't about colour and you know it, you might wish it was then you could simply brand everyone racist but it isn't.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 11:17 am

ClaretMoffitt wrote:This isn't about colour and you know it, you might wish it was then you could simply brand everyone racist but it isn't.

It is. Locking up Muslims, or killing Muslims for being Muslim will be about skin colour because anyone can deny they're a Muslim but who do you think will be believed? The white guy, or the brown guy?

ClaretMoffitt · Post by **ClaretMoffitt** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 11:28 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:It is. Locking up Muslims, or killing Muslims for being Muslim will be about skin colour because anyone can deny they're a Muslim but who do you think will be believed? The white guy, or the brown guy?

There are plenty of white converts who are just as dangerous as those of Arabic descent. Colour has zero value in this other than the simple fact that more Arabic people tend to be Muslim.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 11:33 am

ClaretMoffitt wrote:There are plenty of white converts who are just as dangerous as those of Arabic descent. Colour has zero value in this other than the simple fact that more Arabic people tend to be Muslim.

OK. So a white guy and a brown guy are both denying that they're Muslim. The copper knows one of them is an Islamic terrorist but don't know which one. He can only kill one of them. If he kills the innocent one then he'll be arrested, tried, convicted and sent to prison.

Which do you think will get executed?

TsarBomba · Post by **TsarBomba** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 11:37 am

SFO's, CTFSO's and all other firearms officers, whether they be BTP, CNC or MOD are trained to aim for the central body mass.

There is no 'shoot to kill' policy.

Operation Kratos, which was a specific tactic in the wake of 7/7, is no longer in use.

Damo · Post by **Damo** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 12:01 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:OK. So a white guy and a brown guy are both denying that they're Muslim. The copper knows one of them is an Islamic terrorist but don't know which one. He can only kill one of them. If he kills the innocent one then he'll be arrested, tried, convicted and sent to prison.

Which do you think will get executed?

I thought the thread had bottomed out a bit further up. Well done though

Claretmatt4 · Post by **Claretmatt4** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 12:02 pm

Genuinely gobsmacked at the suggestions on here. Youre ******* mad.

ClaretMoffitt · Post by **ClaretMoffitt** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 12:04 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:OK. So a white guy and a brown guy are both denying that they're Muslim. The copper knows one of them is an Islamic terrorist but don't know which one. He can only kill one of them. If he kills the innocent one then he'll be arrested, tried, convicted and sent to prison.

Which do you think will get executed?

This situation is ridiculous, why can't they both be arrested?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 12:06 pm

ClaretMoffitt wrote:This situation is ridiculous, why can't they both be arrested?

Because i was originally replying to someone who said they should be killed, and then you interjected.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 12:07 pm

Damo wrote:I thought the thread had bottomed out a bit further up. Well done though

You think advocating the killing of people based on their associations isn't worse than me posting a hypothetical based on that suggestion?

BennyD · Post by **BennyD** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 12:15 pm

CM, it's because tIT doesn't work that way. His stupidly contrived scenario was designed to lead to the brown guy so he could play the racist card as well. However, there are dozens, hundreds or maybe thousands of white British Muslim extemists who would kill you as soon as look at them. It probably points to someone who is easily led being inducted into radical Islam and then easily led into carrying a back pack. Colour is not an issue here, it's more a question of gullibility.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 12:20 pm

BennyD wrote:CM, it's because tIT doesn't work that way. His stupidly contrived scenario was designed to lead to the brown guy so he could play the racist card as well. However, there are dozens, hundreds or maybe thousands of white British Muslim extemists who would kill you as soon as look at them. It probably points to someone who is easily led being inducted into radical Islam and then easily led into carrying a back pack. Colour is not an issue here, it's more a question of gullibility.

If we start killing people based on their religion and association then it's inevitably going to become about race when people realise they can just say "i'm not a Muslim". Of course it's a contrived scenario, ******* killing people just because of who they associate is a contrived solution and it's that which i was trying to demonstrate as eventually becoming about race.

Who did i call racist in this hypothetical? Absolutely no one. If you were willing to even try to get past your hatred of me and understand the point I was making then you wouldn't have made this mistake. But that's not how you work. Your hatred is more important to you.

dermotdermot · Post by **dermotdermot** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:15 pm

Aside from all the usual bickering, you have to admit that the police response last night was pretty impressive. There is, of course, a certain party who would argue that an attempt to arrest the culprits should have been made but this would have resulted in many more deaths. Shoot to kill.

mdd2 · Post by **mdd2** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:45 pm

Shoot to kill is a must if they are wearing suicide vests. I know Jeremy Corbyn would want the evidence that it was a suicide vest and not a fake one before shooting but in the real world the only sure way of ensuring the vests are not detonated is to shoot to kill. To wound them wouldn't necessarily stop the vest being detonated.

NCClaret · Post by **NCClaret** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 2:14 pm

TsarBomba wrote:SFO's, CTFSO's and all other firearms officers, whether they be BTP, CNC or MOD are trained to aim for the central body mass.
There is no 'shoot to kill' policy. Operation Kratos, which was a specific tactic in the wake of 7/7, is no longer in use.

TsarBomba this always used to be the case - presume it still is??
Some interesting comments on here; the fact that a shot delivered to central body mass may well prove fatal does not mean there is a 'shoot to kill' policy - incapacitation is the end result.

The comment on another thread about 'shoot to the head' is an interesting one too. At first look you would be safe to assume that this was 'shoot to kill'. However 'mens rea' is at play here. 'Intention' was, if my memory serves me well, utilised by the SAS against IRA terrorists in Gibraltar. The SAS said they had no intention to kill but nonetheless shot to the head to mitigate against the terrorist flicking a button in the the last throes of life to remotely detonate an IED or the like. This was deemed as lawful as the realistic prospect of a bomb being detonated was real.

bfcjg · Post by **bfcjg** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 4:10 pm

Let's get serious to quote the song
There's cling ons on the starboard bow starboard bow starboard bow( repeat)
shoot to kill shoot to kill shoot to kill If it's good enough for cling ons it's good enough for jihadists.

KeighleyClaret · Post by **KeighleyClaret** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 4:24 pm

MACCA wrote: The police had a list of 500 men they thought posed severe risk to other people. You think not killing them all wouldn't have saved at least 30 INNOCENT as well as children's lives in the last 2 weeks?

The Police thought the Birmingham 6 and the McGuire 7 were guilty too. I'd hope before we brought back capital punishment we would make sure it was on the basis of what we KNEW rather than what we THOUGHT.

The problem with most of the suggestions made in this thread is that rather than protecting our own way of life, we are going a long way into becoming clones of ISIS.

The fact that a solution might possibly work does not make it right or acceptable. Personally I think mowing down random associates of suspected terrorists is unlikely to make the problem go away.

BennyD · Post by **BennyD** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 4:31 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:If we start killing people based on their religion and association then it's inevitably going to become about race when people realise they can just say "i'm not a Muslim". Of course it's a contrived scenario, ******* killing people just because of who they associate is a contrived solution and it's that which i was trying to demonstrate as eventually becoming about race.

Who did i call racist in this hypothetical? Absolutely no one. If you were willing to even try to get past your hatred of me and understand the point I was making then you wouldn't have made this mistake. But that's not how you work. Your hatred is more important to you.

As far as I am aware you didn't call anyone a racist but there again I never said you did. Your post was confusing race and religion when, despite your weak 'argument', you were leading towards a straight brown V white scenario. IMO, the authorities have a duty to protect the common man even if it infringes the European 'human rights' of terror suspects or even people under observation. If any of your kith and kin got killed by such a fanatic would you be of the same opinion?

2 Bee Holed · Post by **2 Bee Holed** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 6:36 pm

TsarBomba wrote:SFO's, CTFSO's and all other firearms officers, whether they be BTP, CNC or MOD are trained to aim for the central body mass.

There is no 'shoot to kill' policy.

Operation Kratos, which was a specific tactic in the wake of 7/7, is no longer in use.

TsarBomba: I'd agree. Now why do we aim for the 'central body mass' ?
This might take a long time to drag out of you, it might be useful if you tell us what you understand by that.

Personally last night, if 50 rounds have been fired between 8 officers then given the circumstances, I think
that is showing huge restraint. I certainly don't think we need an IPCC investigation!
They were wearing suicide vests, or what I am sure would certainly appear in the dark to have been so.
Personally, I wouldn't have been afraid to have loosed off more than that, until they had stopped twitching at least.

Lowbankclaret · Post by **Lowbankclaret** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 7:52 pm

What Tsarbumba says is correct.
You guys seem to think its easy to choose a target area in a moment of high stress. They aim for the main body mass.

There are rules on how many rounds you can fire and the officers broke that last night, wrongly in my opinion. They should be able to shoot till they run out of ammo if thats what they think they need to do.

BennyD · Post by **BennyD** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 7:57 pm

A 9 mill pill through the back of their crusts is what these bastards deserve and it's about time we got down and dirty. If the odd Arab looking gentleman with a scratty beard and a back pack gets euthanised by mistake, so be it and if they don't like the reduction in the odds of them staying alive in this country, tough, they can shut the door on their way out.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 9:15 pm

We aren't talking about stop-and-search - we're talking about men with bloodstained knives which they are using to kill people. Now, hopefully it's not controversial to say that the life of a passer-by is worth more than the life of one of last night's murderers? If we can take that as read, here's my logic.

If you can shoot to incapacitate with 100% certainty that the murderer will not be able to do any harm to anyone else, then you must shoot to incapacitate. If, however, attempting to shoot to incapacitate will leave a 1% chance, or even a 0.1% chance, that he may harm someone else - whether with his knife or with the bomb or gun that you don't know if he has - then you shoot to kill. His life is not worth the life of a beetle.

(Actually, the idea of shooting to incapacitate has its attractions. If these murderers finished up permanently paralysed, we could arrange them in a circle in an empty soundproof room to look at each other for the rest of their lives.)

Lowbankclaret · Post by **Lowbankclaret** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 9:59 pm

DSR,
please consider these officers want to go home to thier families.

Would you truely try to incapacited someone whos whole being is just kill as many as possible.

You could pay the ultimate price for that.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 10:13 pm

Lowbankclaret wrote:DSR,
please consider these officers want to go home to thier families.

Would you truely try to incapacited someone whos whole being is just kill as many as possible.

You could pay the ultimate price for that.

Read it again. I said you can only shoot to incapacitate when you are 100% certain that doing so will give the murderer no chance to murder any more. In practice, that isn't possible.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 10:15 pm

I don't think anyone is going to argue that a shoot to kill policy (however you want to name it) is in operation right now when confronted with a possible suicide bomber.

Darnhill Claret · Post by **Darnhill Claret** » Sun Jun 04, 2017 10:18 pm

Will we be letting British mercenaries back into our country?