Shoot to kill

Problem with these scenarios is the officers would have to be on site when this occurred as with all planned terror attackslike those in France there is no one on sight as it happens so the shoot to kill piece is sort of void until the officers arrive at scene at which point in my eyes it's a war field in essence and the officers should be shooting to kill without hesitation

Now carrying out a raid at a suspected terrorists house you could argue that whilst weapons will be used would they necessarily be on shoot to kill orders? I think that scenario would be debatable but when responding to actual terrorism actually happening then I don't see much other choice than a shoot to kill policy

As for the football this evening I think that's a debatable one, no punt the officers were on the lookout for any suspicious activity however is that a good surrounding to have shoot to kill orders? Lots of innocent people around etc in this case would anyone be suspicious enough to shoot without them pulling out a weapon first? And again once they'd pulled that weapon then I agree they have intent to use it so I would say the authorisation of shoot to kill would then be valid but until then I would say it's a sticky scenario


Thankfully we had no issues this evening

So how do you decide on when and when not to shoot ? Does he have a bomb strapped to him ? Can he get a few coward shots off killing one or two children or mothers in the process

Only of there is absolutely no threat to innocent civilians should the leg options be used

right well first off pal, i aint trying to argue, i was basically askign surely its better to take someone down to get intell rather than just kill them and then find out later 5 other attacks have happened but in response to your question,

again, i will repeat myself "if there is NO option other than shoot to kill, then fair enough"....... if a man removes a coat, shows bombs, and police have enough time to shoot him dead, no arguements here, take him down...end him fine. i never argued against that

if like you said a terrorist was shooting people, then first off, i doubt he was walking round with a gun on show before he did an attack, so chances are he would open fire on innocent lives anyway before police could respond to it. now then maybe....if the police that day thought there wold be multiple attacks, but no idea where and when, our intell would probably know in advance, and would maybe advise to try and shot to take one down for information.

but AGAIN, if there is NO option other than shoot to kill, then fair enough

You can't talk these cunts down, they are ready to die as soon as they make there way to their target, they are fucked up individuals

You under-estimate the "techniques" of the SAS to gather intel.

okay, everyone on here thinks shoot to kill is the right move..........but what if they shoot to disable, surely making them talk is better than having no intel at all ?.

So If one of your family was killed because a terrorist was shooting people but we had a no shoot policy, that could have saved them if we shot the scum coward on sight, you would be ok with this ?

wait, so in your hypothosis, the police would be standing there watching this person shoot my family doing nothing ?....i highly doubt it, if there is NO option other than shoot to kill, then fair enough HOWEVER, LIKE I STATED, surely its better to shoot to disable, i.e. stopping the person from hurting someone else, and therefore using them to get information on who else could be involved preventing others from dying

(i edited a spelling mistake, sorry if theres a few, rush typed)

What we guna do threaten with 25 years in one of our holiday camp prisons so they can infiltrate the minds of prisoners

Corbyn is spot on once again.

Over a hundred innocent people died on Friday. The police in this country have killed loads of innocent people over the years. If we adopted this then more innocent people would die. Is that what you really want?

Action needs to be taken by a group of nations but this is not the answer.

Who are the loads of innocent people? Maybe someone was innocent, but most of those shot were criminals, either engaged in illegal activities, or on their way to carry one out. You cannot accuse people of murder (killed loads of innocent people) without evidence.

think people are misinterpreted what was said? its if confronted with hostage situation the SAS & police have tbe right to shoot to kill rather than negotiate!

Does Corbyn want to be elected ?

Does Corbyn want to be elected ?

There's no way I'd vote Labour with that cretin in charge. I wouldn't feel safe living in this country with him running the show. He thinks the answer is talking. Well good luck talking to an Isis nut bar with a bomb vest on you bellend.

So how do you decide on when and when not to shoot ? Does he have a bomb strapped to him ? Can he get a few coward shots off killing one or two children or mothers in the process

Only of there is absolutely no threat to innocent civilians should the leg options be used

right well first off pal, i aint trying to argue, i was basically askign surely its better to take someone down to get intell rather than just kill them and then find out later 5 other attacks have happened but in response to your question,

again, i will repeat myself "if there is NO option other than shoot to kill, then fair enough"....... if a man removes a coat, shows bombs, and police have enough time to shoot him dead, no arguements here, take him down...end him fine. i never argued against that

if like you said a terrorist was shooting people, then first off, i doubt he was walking round with a gun on show before he did an attack, so chances are he would open fire on innocent lives anyway before police could respond to it. now then maybe....if the police that day thought there wold be multiple attacks, but no idea where and when, our intell would probably know in advance, and would maybe advise to try and shot to take one down for information.

but AGAIN, if there is NO option other than shoot to kill, then fair enough

You can't talk these cunts down, they are ready to die as soon as they make there way to their target, they are fucked up individuals

You under-estimate the "techniques" of the SAS to gather intel.

Some of the bombers are just kids. They caught a 17 year old not long ago who came clean, started crying and repenting his actions when caught. Some of these bombers are forced into it it isn't a choice. But others are more dedicated prob like the ones in parris

They are trained to aim for the biggest target...which is the Torso...just happens all the vital organs are there....YOU CANNOT SHOOT TO DISABLE... they are still capable of firing back and with adrenalin can still move off...there are too many risks of missing or nicking am arm or leg if you shoot other than at the torso.

Hear hear Steve.

Corbyn and his followers are taking the piss with our position in the world

Police Officers shoot to "stop" - by that I mean eliminate the threat. You aim for the largest part of the target as previously stated.

If it was ultimately to lead to the death of the offender - so be it.

So how do you decide on when and when not to shoot ? Does he have a bomb strapped to him ? Can he get a few coward shots off killing one or two children or mothers in the process

Only of there is absolutely no threat to innocent civilians should the leg options be used

right well first off pal, i aint trying to argue, i was basically askign surely its better to take someone down to get intell rather than just kill them and then find out later 5 other attacks have happened but in response to your question,

again, i will repeat myself "if there is NO option other than shoot to kill, then fair enough"....... if a man removes a coat, shows bombs, and police have enough time to shoot him dead, no arguements here, take him down...end him fine. i never argued against that

if like you said a terrorist was shooting people, then first off, i doubt he was walking round with a gun on show before he did an attack, so chances are he would open fire on innocent lives anyway before police could respond to it. now then maybe....if the police that day thought there wold be multiple attacks, but no idea where and when, our intell would probably know in advance, and would maybe advise to try and shot to take one down for information.

but AGAIN, if there is NO option other than shoot to kill, then fair enough

You can't talk these cunts down, they are ready to die as soon as they make there way to their target, they are fucked up individuals

You under-estimate the "techniques" of the SAS to gather intel.

Some of the bombers are just kids. They caught a 17 year old not long ago who came clean, started crying and repenting his actions when caught. Some of these bombers are forced into it it isn't a choice. But others are more dedicated prob like the ones in parris

Naturally. But just saying the SAS have their methods. Maybe be inhumane but works.