http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story.jsp?sectionid=1258&storyid=3497291

 

Do you think this "shoot to kill" policy is right? I personnly do, providing the suspect has been given warnings and poses some danger. If it saves the lives of innocents, then in my opinion it's ok to kill a killer. Relating to the story, especially as he was reported to be wearing a "bomb belt", and refused to stop when officers told him to means that it was ok for them to open fire.

 

Anyway, opinions?

Different situations would call for there to be use of deadly force. This is a tricky question as I am on the fence about this. :/

I've just read that the man who was shot in Stockwell was 'completely unconnected' to the terrorist network. Now that may well be.. It is massively regretable that an innocent person was gunned down. But, how on earth where the police to know he wasn't carrying explosives when he's running for his life away from the police who have already warned him to stop on several occaisions. How on earth are they meant to know he aint packed to the shoulders with explosives. ESPECIALLY, when he dives on to an underground??

Shoot to kill will (rightly) remain, for the safety of us all.

there were un-uniformed officers so he thought some cunts were just chasing him. he didn't have a 'bomb belt' on. just a big jacket. the stupid cunt shot him 5 times in the back and head. fuck off if thats alright

No, Its idiotic. Like today, the person may have nothing to do with any bombings.

 

Even if they did, what if there was more than one bomb or a plan to bomb something later on. They could have found something out, but no you've just fucking shot him five times in the head.

They could shoot to the legs, arms or another extremitie to stop them instead killing. :idea2:

there were un-uniformed officers so he thought some cunts were just chasing him. he didn't have a 'bomb belt' on. just a big jacket. the stupid cunt shot him 5 times in the back and head. fuck off if thats alright

 

How often do you see groups of people pull guns out in broad daylight in the middle of a crowded city without good reason?

IT all depends on the situation, they should try at all cost not to shoot to kill, but in the end if they must and thier is no other option then they should.

Like Steppenwolf said they could shoot in the arms or legs...

If you shoot a buy with a bomb strapped to him in his arms or legs, is that really going to stop him? If he's intent on blowing himself up, that's not going to stop him. Obviously that wasn't the case with this poor guy, but the police didn't know that. It's always easy to sit here second-guessing with the benefit of hindsight.

There has to be a better way...

there were un-uniformed officers so he thought some cunts were just chasing him. he didn't have a 'bomb belt' on. just a big jacket. the stupid cunt shot him 5 times in the back and head. fuck off if thats alright

 

How often do you see groups of people pull guns out in broad daylight in the middle of a crowded city without good reason?

It's happend before

 

And how about using a strong tranquilizer instead? Atleast that way they can interigate the person later and get some more information?

^ Finally, some sense.

 

I'm honestly thinking of doing something about it...Protest or something.

If you shoot a buy with a bomb strapped to him in his arms or legs' date=' is that really going to stop him? If he's intent on blowing himself up, that's not going to stop him. Obviously that wasn't the case with this poor guy, but the police didn't know that. It's always easy to sit here second-guessing with the benefit of hindsight.[/quote']

 

agreed, if someone has a bomb on them, shooting them in the head is the only way of disarming them by force

i say a ridiculously strong taser would cripple and paralyse any fool

but not their getting mad about tasers. their a big debate in country's like america now about cops having tasers and alot of people dont want them to, which is stupid because it saves lives.

If you shoot a buy with a bomb strapped to him in his arms or legs' date=' is that really going to stop him? If he's intent on blowing himself up, that's not going to stop him. Obviously that wasn't the case with this poor guy, but the police didn't know that. It's always easy to sit here second-guessing with the benefit of hindsight.[/quote']

 

If I'm not wrong he got like 5 shoots?

 

C'mon...

How long does it take a group of police officers to fire five rounds? Two or three seconds?

 

Like I said, hindsight is 20/20 and it's a lot easier to question what they did when we know things they didn't.

I agree with Tom. It's easy to say they should have done this or that with hindsight. I really don't like this thing about shooting to kill, but I can't think of a better solution- it really pains me cause I'm very strong on civil liberties and individual rights- that guy did not deserve to die. My two cents:

 

1. Five rounds to the head: Come on, the policeman shooting him could have been nervous/psyched up, they don't do this routinely. Besides, the intent WAS to shoot to kill- 5 rounds, 2 rounds, heck even 1 might have been enough. But if he meant to kill, 10 rounds wouldn't have made a difference- the guy would have wound up dead. The shooter had to make sure he did it properly- there's no point trying to take him down and find out that he didn't do it properly and then allowing a potential bomb to go off...

 

2) Strong tranquilizers/stun guns might do it, but what about any residual side effects? From what I know, permanent paralysis of some sort is a distinct possibility... And I think the guns are less concealeable.

 

3) Giving warning shouts in itself is a risk. What if a the person was a bomber and decided to detonate himself there and then knowing he had been found out, or what if the bomber actually happened to be nearby? I think the police already tried their best to give the man his due rights without sabotaging themselves to upkeep public safety by warning him... they already took a big risk. Imagine if there was a bomb and it did go off... the police force would've been blamed left, right, front and center.

it's true innit, the police are gonna get blamed whatever they do. In their eyes, it was 1 life or god knows how many..... And all because this guy had an expired visa, thats why he was running.

 

Sods law at the end of the day...

 

Apparently, 85% of the population are in favour of it, I'm in favour, but i didn't vote? did anyone else?

Was the poll after the poor sod got killed?

awww shit that shooting incident was so fucked. wat the hell is wrong with those police. shouldve been wearing uniform

^They were stalking him thoguh, So they couldn't :/

If you see the house where his parents live, you´ll be shocked. They´re really poor, living in the contry side, and by the time he went to London, the family didn´t have enough money to buy food ! It´s such a sad situation :(

i say a ridiculously strong taser would cripple and paralyse any fool

 

An electric taser and explosives. Fun fun.