The man is a total nutter

[Bosswhite]

One reason why the "Shoot to Kill" is flawed, armed Police storm Property in Cambridge, only to find its the wrong building and the incident was fifteen miles away.
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Arm...Cambridge-15/story-28191155-detail/story.html

 

[handyjack]

One reason why the "Shoot to Kill" is flawed, armed Police storm Property in Cambridge, only to find its the wrong building and the incident was fifteen miles away.
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Arm...Cambridge-15/story-28191155-detail/story.html

How does that make the policy flawed, did they shoot anyone?

 

[hi1]

Trying to get away from the mechanics of shoot to kill I do find that Corbyn is refreshing in a politician in that he has some morals, be some right or wrong, that he has obviously thought about what he believes in and answers that stance with reasoned arguments unlike the rest of the oily weasels in parliament who cant give a straight answer at any time. Their only argument is to bash the other side of the political spectrum. We need 29 power stations to prevent the lights going out soon, are government doing anything other than getting a French company with Chinese money to build one nuke are they Fu*k.

 

[WalksWithTurkeys]

I thought you originally said police aim for the heart, then changed it to chest?

I merely pointed out that they don't aim for any specific part of the centre mass and they probably don't care where they hit as long as they hit the target, whether it be legs, arms or anywhere else. Don't forget most perps will wear ballistic vests so a hit is a hit and buys you time to better place the next round.

A good example is the Lee Rigby attackers, not one died, why? Cos the police were c rap shots? Or did they not get lucky?

This is what I said:

"I think armed coppers are taught to aim for the heart, as the chest is the easiest target to hit, and almost guarantees immobilising the intended target."

I meant chest, but wrote heart, anyway, we're agreed on what they do, and you clarified.

As for the Lee Rigby case, I don't know why they were not shot dead since they charged the police. Perhaps they decided they had time to take down the targets by wounding rather than a kill shot.

UK armed police do not shoot to kill per se, and they can be charged with murder or homicide even when on duty. They are allowed to shoot to defend themselves or someone else, but must justify their actions i.e. it must be judged to have been a proportionate response. Despite the many times armed officers are called out, it is very rare that one of them discharges a weapon. And when they do, there is an investigation.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Obviously it depends on the situation.

It's not much use shooting in the leg someone wearing a suicide bomb.

 

[terrypin]

Thorough investigations that are totally transparent in an opaque sort of way.

 

[WalksWithTurkeys]

Obviously it depends on the situation.

It's not much use shooting in the leg someone wearing a suicide bomb.

That is why they shot the Brazilian electrician in the head. It seemed a bit of an extreme reaction to not having a Part P certification.

 

[handyjack]

Obviously it depends on the situation.

It's not much use shooting in the leg someone wearing a suicide bomb.

That is why they shot the Brazilian electrician in the head. It seemed a bit of an extreme reaction to not having a Part P certification.

That was out and out murder. Shame the officers involved never served serious time.

 

[Bosswhite]

One reason why the "Shoot to Kill" is flawed, armed Police storm Property in Cambridge, only to find its the wrong building and the incident was fifteen miles away.
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Arm...Cambridge-15/story-28191155-detail/story.html

How does that make the policy flawed, did they shoot anyone?

Why did they go in armed if they did not expect to shoot someone .

 

[hi1]

Why did they go in armed if they did not expect to shoot someone .
Because you dull cu*t they thought there was someone there who might shoot them. Would you instead have someone go up against an armed offender and offer them a cup of tea? Because if you think that's a way forward you can present yourself at the next armed incident and work your magic, that would save someone useful stopping a round and ensure that they use up their ammunition, win win.

 

[Bosswhite]

Why did they go in armed if they did not expect to shoot someone .
Because you dull cu*t they thought there was someone there who might shoot them. Would you instead have someone go up against an armed offender and offer them a cup of tea? Because if you think that's a way forward you can present yourself at the next armed incident and work your magic, that would save someone useful stopping a round and ensure that they use up their ammunition, win win.

Yeah, they burst into a Public property all hyped up full of adrenaline armed to the teeth, if any member of the Public made a wrong move in panic they would have been shot dead,

oop`s wrong property, the right place is fifteen miles away in the opposite direction,

to late once they have shot an innocent member of the Public, even without shooting a member of the Public those that were in the building and subjected to "shock tactics gun law" by the Police would be traumatised.

 

[terrypin]

Why did they go in armed if they did not expect to shoot someone .
Because you dull cu*t they thought there was someone there who might shoot them. Would you instead have someone go up against an armed offender and offer them a cup of tea? Because if you think that's a way forward you can present yourself at the next armed incident and work your magic, that would save someone useful stopping a round and ensure that they use up their ammunition, win win.

Yeah, they burst into a Public property all hyped up full of adrenaline armed to the teeth, if any member of the Public made a wrong move in panic they would have been shot dead,

oop`s wrong property, the right place is fifteen miles away in the opposite direction,

to late once they have shot an innocent member of the Public, even without shooting a member of the Public those that were in the building and subjected to "shock tactics gun law" by the Police would be traumatised.

Or they'll be dining out on that story for yesrs.
"Remember that time we were in......"
"Oooooh yes, exciting wasn't it"?

If I were being held hostage or threatened with being shot I know who I'd want responding and it ain't PC plod with his night stick.

 

[WalksWithTurkeys]

What's the betting mi

Why did they go in armed if they did not expect to shoot someone .
Because you dull cu*t they thought there was someone there who might shoot them. Would you instead have someone go up against an armed offender and offer them a cup of tea? Because if you think that's a way forward you can present yourself at the next armed incident and work your magic, that would save someone useful stopping a round and ensure that they use up their ammunition, win win.

Yeah, they burst into a Public property all hyped up full of adrenaline armed to the teeth, if any member of the Public made a wrong move in panic they would have been shot dead,

oop`s wrong property, the right place is fifteen miles away in the opposite direction,

to late once they have shot an innocent member of the Public, even without shooting a member of the Public those that were in the building and subjected to "shock tactics gun law" by the Police would be traumatised.

Or they'll be dining out on that story for yesrs.
"Remember that time we were in......"
"Oooooh yes, exciting wasn't it"?

If I were being held hostage or threatened with being shot I know who I'd want responding and it ain't PC plod with his night stick.

30 years ago while walking to the supermarket I was stopped by two plain clothes chaps claiming to be police officers. They refused to provide ID, just flashing a card for so short a time it could not be read. I was pushed against a fence and searched. I was left trembling. I imagine an armed raid would be very frightening. Maybe not for big men like you - - but maybe for many if not most of us.

 

[terrypin]

Not a big man, at all.
I can understand your feeling of vulnerability and fear, its only natural.
When relaying this story do you still feel scared?
Let's be honest, if we were in the position where armed police entered an establishment we were attending would you be scared, scared so much that it would scar you for life? I doubt it, yes you may be fearful at the time but not scarred for life.

Fast forward a few years, we are in a pub together with a few friends, chatting about **** in general and the topic of armed police came up, would you relay the events with fear in your heart or would it be a tale with a bit of humour, police raiding wrong address etc?

I think you, and I would still be dining out on this story for years to come.

 

[WalksWithTurkeys]

It created a deep distrust and dislike of the police for years. The reason was that they tried to set me up for a drugs bust, which I did not realise when I later recounted the events to my father. He was less naive and knew what they were up to.

As to an armed raid, it depends. We have a tendency to overestimate our resilience. Some people look forward to action in a war. But once they experience it for real, they usually change their minds. Bravado among mates is one thing. You might indeed see it as fun afterwards. Maybe not. I wonder what people who have experienced an armed raid think?