Shoot to kill

Jeremy Corbyn has said he dislikes the shoot to kill policy for terrorists as it could be counter - productive.

There isn't a 'shoot to kill' policy at the moment it is up to the judgement of the armed police officer, so what he is saying is no different to the current rules. Yet another example of the media getting on his back.

Shoot to kill is what killed the bloke on 21/7 a few years back.

I'd have thought any terrorists would have a dead man's switch anyway.

If your taking fire, or someone else is at risk of getting shot then you have to shoot to kill.

newspaper headline was sas ordered to shoot to kill rather than have hostage situation, so slight change in previous stance on terrorists

He stated that he would not be happy with a shoot to kill policy in the event of a similar attack such as happened in Paris.

I bet he'd feel differently if he was in the same situation as those in Paris on Friday night. As far as my limited knowledge of terrorists goes,if they get shot in the head,they may not be able to detonate their bombs attached to their bodies.

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.

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.

If a police officer has chosen to fire a round in the UK, you bet it's for a good reason. So why take risks by aiming for a leg?

If you're going to shoot, then you ain't going to aim for the leg. I'd imagine that unless you're a sniper, the biggest part to aim for is the trunk of the body.

With regards to Corbyn, the man's a dick.

Labour MPs slaughtered him about it in a meeting last night apparently

I bet he'd feel differently if he was in the same situation as those in Paris on Friday night. As far as my limited knowledge of terrorists goes,if they get shot in the head,they may not be able to detonate their bombs attached to their bodies.

Exactly - they normally go for a body shot - as it's a bigger target. Head shot would be difficult to get unless they are a sniper.
What they need is dumdum bullets I think they are called, extra large that explode once inside the body - killing instantly - most of the time.

ps - it should be shoot to kill - if they have a gun

Jeremy Corbyn is a complete wet blanket.

If your family died in a terrorist attack because there was a no shoot policy, how would you feel ?

Problem with all politicians is that they are not in the same danger as the average joe.

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 ?.

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 ?

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)

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)

So someone goes to a shopping centre and tales off his coat and has a bomb strapped to his body shout alah akbar

What do the police do ? Shoot the c**t in the leg to ask questions ?
No chance, we save the innocent civilians first in my opinion

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)

So someone goes to a shopping centre and tales off his coat and has a bomb strapped to his body shout alah akbar

What do the police do ? Shoot the c**t in the leg to ask questions ?
No chance, we save the innocent civilians first in my opinion

i will just repeat a line i used above for you...... if there is NO option other than shoot to kill, then fair enough..i dont understand did you read my reply, i didnt say DONT SHOOT TO KILL.....i said surely if theres a terrorist with a GUN which is what you stated to me first off, then surely it might be best to shoot to take him down not kill, to get information ESPECIALLY after whats happend in paris, where there was MULITPLE attackers....then that must end up saving more lives

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

Last edited by shinyBlueGlue on Tue Nov 17, 2015 5:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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.

If Corbyns old girlfriend, Diane Abbott was about to be shot by a terrorist, would he not prefer a policeman to shoot to kill the terrorist to save her

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.

If Corbyns old girlfriend, Diane Abbott was about to be shot by a terrorist, would he not prefer a policeman to shoot to kill the terrorist to save her

Jeremy Corbyn is a complete tosser, he is like a naive child living in an episode of the Waltons

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

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

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

look i have never met one of them before in my life, and i hope i never do. i dont know their mentality or how they think or anything, but surely if they fail in their attack, doesnt that mean they failed their god and are denied access to where ever they go ? i mean like i said, i was only asking the question wouldnt it be better to try and take them down for information that could save other lives, i didnt say we shouldnt shoot to kill.....i have never been in a situation where i have to shoot someone and i hope i never find myself there, so i dont know how it works but i trust the men who do have to make that choice, and its not politicains its the men who carry the guns to protect us.

We have pussy footed round these fundamentalists too long. Close borders to all imigrants unless they have a traceable background. Deport anyone who does not like the UK and its stance on terrorists. Close all borders and fence off all the muslim countries who isis are active in. Shoot to kill anyone who threatens the safety of our people. Close all mosques and religious schools linked with radicalisation. Put stronger controls on the internet, and monitor it more strictly.
Ps if anyone does not like it show them the door.

Corbyn latest outburst makes me feel that he must not get anywhere near the keys to No Ten

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

I know what you are saying and agree with you. It's down to that police officer who is pulling the trigger whether or not they can justify it. 9 times out of 10 there is probably going to be no option other than shoot to kill but in the 1 in 10 I would prefer he is arrested and interrogated.

sas & police on duty tonight for match have orders to shoot to kill and take no chances!

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 ?.

Valid point. I would suggest shoot to kill 'SLOWLY'

This way the terrorist filth would die in slow agonising pain but there would still be plenty of time to question them.

You either shoot to kill or don't shoot at all. Takes a split second for someone to detonate a bomb whether it's strapped to themselves or hidden out of sight. Shooting someone in the leg is not going to stop them pressing a button on their mobille.