U.K Police Shoot to Kill......

[Rich Parsons]

Well, then, maybe someday, I can hope to know everything. 'Til then, I'll just have to muddle through with imperfect knowledge.

The Police Policy is correct.
An innocent man is dead.

Something still doesn't seem right there.

The Policy Changes

5000 innocent people die because a terrorist can do his will?

Is that right also?

 

[Tgace]

I have also heard that the officers were given a "green light" by they're supervisor when they observed the man heading to the station. As to why they didnt stop him when he got on the bus..like Hicks said, who knows what the assignment was. Perhaps they were hoping he would lead them to more terrorists. When he got off at the subway station they may have thought "damn hes got a bomb". They try to stop him and he runs just reinforcing their belief. Now its decision time. Be right and be a hero, be wrong and get lynched. This is the classic "take months to dissect (and lay blame) a police action that had to be decided in seconds" situation.

 

[Shu2jack]

Maybe I have the story mixed up, but several reports metioned that the young man was "chased" down towards the tubes before being shot. Can anyone clarify this?

While I do not support shooting suspects who run from the police because we are depriving someone of life before they were given due process, I think the decision in this situation (if I understand it correctly) was right.

I don't care if I am innocent or guilty of something, if officers ask me to stop or "freeze", I stop. If it turns out they are wrong in their stop or they arrest me illegally, then I have the proper channels to fight it legally. Running doesn't solve anything, no matter the situation and if the police suspect something like a suicide bomber, then I am giving them a reason to shoot to kill.

A couple decades ago the United States and I believe the U.K. didn't have to worry so much about suicide bombers, thus the need to shoot fleeing suspects was not there. Now we have that need. I think shoot to kill is appropiate for fleeing suspects IF the police can prove they had enough evidence to have a reasonable suspision that many lives are in danger.

 

[Tgace]

Do a google news search and you will get as much info as anybody not involved in the investigation can get. From what was put out, yes he ran when the police confronted him. The victim apparently knew english and the police (from one source Ive read) did have ID and markings displayed when they approached him. One theory is that his Visa had expired and he may have thought that they were trying to arrest him for that. I dont know the truth of that, but even then the logic of running into a subway being a London resident...one would think that the police would have been on edge about that.

 

[Tgace]

I don't care if I am innocent or guilty of something, if officers ask me to stop or "freeze", I stop. If it turns out they are wrong in their stop or they arrest me illegally, then I have the proper channels to fight it legally. Running doesn't solve anything, no matter the situation and if the police suspect something like a suicide bomber, then I am giving them a reason to shoot to kill.

IMO you are absolutely correct there. However some people seem to have a problem with the concept. If Im asking you something like "could you come here?" or "may I search your car?" or "can I see your ID" or "can I talk to you?", you have the option of telling me NO just like you can to anybody else. When Im ORDERING you to do something, you better do it because there is a reason for it and more than likely consequences if you dont.

 

[shesulsa]

**Moderator Note.
Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Please review our sniping policy. http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=314 Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.

-G Ketchmark / shesulsa
-MT Senior Moderator-

 

[michaeledward]

The Policy Changes

5000 innocent people die because a terrorist can do his will?

Is that right also?

Rich, you are not 'really' asking me to tell you that a terrorists actions are 'right', are you?

And I am not talking about what a terrorist does, or does not, do. I am talking about the actions of the state. If the state has a policy, in which its citizens die, I am proposing that the policy needs to be seriously reconsidered.

Someone once said:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.
​

I guess my point is, I am looking at, perhaps, the first (or at least some early) event in what may be a 'long train of abuses and usurpations.

Ahh, what the hell do I know about Mr. Jefferson's thoughts after all.

 

[Tgace]

Perhaps we should declare independence from Britain...oh wait.

 

[Dan G]

They dont understand the reason for it. The goal is to stop the guy before he can detonate. One or two shots, even to the head, isnt a guarantee. When it comes down to it, one shot or 20..whats the difference? If the shooting was justified, you shoot until there is no longer a threat. Anyway, with a semi-auto you can fire 8 shots in 2-3 seconds.

I'm not really sure what the general feeling over here is to the incident, I don't think it has fully settled in yet. It's possible as has been said that the number of shots fired makes some people uneasy, but I suspect a lot of people take your view. The Police have been pretty firm in saying that the policy stands, and I believe this is generally supported, but it is not as if I have conducted an opinion poll. This link may give a rough indication of the range of views out there.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4711189.stm

The fact that the man was pinned down may be viewed negatively, but for the life of me I can't see why. The officers would have been acting with phenomenal courage in the belief that they were literally holding onto a human bomb. I defy anyone to judge their decision negatively. It is not the tactics it is the intelligence and the suspects panicked response that seems to be the cause of the error.

There have been about 250 bomb scares since 7 July, so it puts the pressure the Police were under into some perspective.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4719551.stm

One likely reason for the relative lack of Police response is the inevitable inquiry that will follow, and the need to give the officers involved the fairest hearing and avoid too much media pressure.

It comes at a sensitive time as the results of a previous inquiry into a fatal police shooting led to a large number of officers refusing to do firearms duty.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3973261.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4086725.stm

More on the tazer arrest. The risks taken are outlined by the Met Comissioner. Personally I think they took a huge risk and I think it took great courage. I hope they were not pressured into taking extra risks because of the London mistake.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4726485.stm

It is a hypothetical question, but it would be interesting to know what your colleagues' professional opinions are on the Tube shooting and the tazer arrest, Tgace? Would their answer be different if they were working under UK conditions? Tough question, I know.

Interestingly last time there was a controversial fatal Police shooting it was based on flawed intelligence and a seemingly malicious tip-off. (The Harry Stanley shooting)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3974461.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4711619.stm

Any suggestion that the Police are unacountable is laughable, the pressure and scrutiny they are under is intense. Working in an armed response role or SO.19 (Met SWAT) is a huge responsibility and potentially a career or life ending task for an officer.

What may be much less accountable is the possibly flawed intelligence sources they were acting on - don't hold your breath waiting for details there.

Dan

 

[Tgace]

Here (and probably in the UK as well as we are based on the same model) we work under the concept of "reasonable belief" when it comes to justifying the use of deadly force. Would a reasonable person under these circumstances believe that his (or anothers) life was in danger? All the Cops Ive talked to say, based on what they have heard, is that it was tragic but not negligent.

The "armed duty" concept is foriegn here. We LEO's are all armed. Many with shotguns and carbines in our vehicles as well. The Taser response in a home vs. shooting in a public venue...well there may have been fewer people at risk justifying the taser response. More risk for the officers thats for sure. Sucks to be a Cop sometimes.

 

[Knarfan]

Not really. I'm just calling BS on folks who say, "If you question a cop, then you want cops to die."

That's just because you tend to use odd syntax. It's an international forum, so I try not to presume.

You were. All you were doing (from what I could tell at least) was making a bad attempt at mocking my post. Your followup doesn't disabuse me of this notion.

Not really.

So in other words, never question anything they (the police of soldiers) do. If you do, you've irreparably undermined the efforts of the protectors.

I declaire a truce , because I believe you are sincere & are intitled to your POV . I'm think it's time to take a positive approach . I hope we understand each other a little better now .

FF

 

[Dan G]

Sucks to be a Cop sometimes.

Better to be a cop than a lawyer... :jaws:

Dan

 

[Dan G]

Rich, you are not 'really' asking me to tell you that a terrorists actions are 'right', are you?

And I am not talking about what a terrorist does, or does not, do. I am talking about the actions of the state. If the state has a policy, in which its citizens die, I am proposing that the policy needs to be seriously reconsidered.





Someone once said:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.




​

I guess my point is, I am looking at, perhaps, the first (or at least some early) event in what may be a 'long train of abuses and usurpations.



Ahh, what the hell do I know about Mr. Jefferson's thoughts after all.

Well argued post.

I imagine most people would agree that any action by the State that risks the life of a citizen deserves careful scrutiny, I certainly believe it important.

If there isn't scrutiny then I also agree there is the risk that a 'long train of abuses and usurpations' might ensue.

Good well thought out starting point, pretty much everything that follows, if your opinion is accepted, becomes matters of implementation, interpretations of fact, discussion of level of public scrutiny required and so forth.

I think you have outlined the key underlying principle behind any discussion of a "shoot to kill" policy or similar. If someone does not accept that the actions of the State need some form of checks and balances then there is little to discuss in the first place.

This Jefferson person might have been onto something...:wink:


Dan

 

[Tgace]

Bottom line is, if he had been a bomber the cops would have been heros. The question is, were they acting reasonable under the circumstances?

 

[Dan G]

Bottom line is, if he had been a bomber the cops would have been heros. The question is, were they acting reasonable under the circumstances?

With what little information is public the police did seem to be acting reasonably - and in the belief that they were operating in circumstances that posed great personal risk to themselves and the public.

I suspect that any inquiry will focus heavily on the intelligence they were relying on. With the current situation it is highly unlikely that any of that can be examined publicly, and with very good reason.

Ultimately this is a situation which calls for considerable levels of trust in the executive - I personally don't believe this trust is misplaced, and I hope I am right to believe this.

I hope the officers involved don't end up getting scapegoated, and I hope that they are able to cope well with any personal impact the incident might cause them or their families.

Dan

 

[Rich Parsons]

Rich, you are not 'really' asking me to tell you that a terrorists actions are 'right', are you?

And I am not talking about what a terrorist does, or does not, do. I am talking about the actions of the state. If the state has a policy, in which its citizens die, I am proposing that the policy needs to be seriously reconsidered.

Someone once said:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.
​

I guess my point is, I am looking at, perhaps, the first (or at least some early) event in what may be a 'long train of abuses and usurpations.

Ahh, what the hell do I know about Mr. Jefferson's thoughts after all.

ME,

I am a constitutionalist, if anything. And I Agree about rights being infringed upon. I also think that many of the responsibilities of citizens have are also ignored, expecting the state to take care of them as well.

And no I do not expect you to state the Terrorist is right. But when you use logic, in a zero sum game, and on both sides, their are deaths, it turns into a zero/zero ga,e with no absolute correct answer.

Is it wrong to want it to be better? no. You stated after, that you do not have the answer, and that is fine, but, we should be offering possible solutions, on how to use our responsibilities and also our rights, to make it better.

The only problem I see with that though is that, we are talking about England, where the general population is a subject and not a citizen. Big difference in what you can expect from the state in my opinion. I also think it is a failing the we the US has, and that we assume that everyone looks at the issue the same we do.

Peace
:asian:

 

[Dan G]

The only problem I see with that though is that, we are talking about England, where the general population is a subject and not a citizen. Big difference in what you can expect from the state in my opinion. I also think it is a failing the we the US has, and that we assume that everyone looks at the issue the same we do.

We are a constitutional monarchy so we are technically Crown subjects, although British or UK citizen is the more commonly used term now.

You do have a point, as we do not have a single written Constitution many of our rights as citizens are more vulnerable to change.

On the other hand we have a huge body of common law (much of which the US shares or has adapted) which gives us considerable personal freedoms, and cannot be easily tampered with. To a certain extent how a country implements it's laws is as important as how good the legal framework is in the first place. Ours has faults for certain, but with a lot of trial and error over the best part of 1000 years it works pretty well now.

As an EU Member State we are obligated by our treaties with the European Union to have laws harmonious with other States. Initially these were trade matters, but partly by design and partly by logical development these have extended to include a broad range of individual rights. Rulings by the European Court of Justice have from time to time forced the English Parliament to write new laws, and have considerable influence on the interpretation of law by the UK Courts. EU membership Acts as a very useful check should a state get out of hand - particularly on Human Rights issues.

One result of EU pressure was the enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998. It does not come close to the US Bill of Rights as there are numerous exemptions e.g. moral, public health and security issues (imagine getting every EU country to agree on a common Bill of Rights - not a bad first effort but a long way to go.)

On face value our common law is more than sufficient to protect the rights of a victim of a Police shooting. However, where there is a security angle the security sensitive evidential issues could cause real problems to an inquiry and much would not be made public. Disclosure would also rely heavily on the integrity of the executive, and those members of the legislature and/or courts conducting the inquiry.

There were considerable advances by the courts in limiting the scope of the Official Secrets Act in the 70's and early '80's but this is probably still the area where the UK differs significantly from the US in approach. It is definitely an important difference.

I personally believe that the US has managed to achieve about the best legal structure to date (within the limits of a state and federal structure) - it preserves the strong points of the English legal system, which for much of history was one of the most free in existence, with the protection of a powerful Constitution and Bill of Rights (I'd like one!).:asian:

I appreciating your pointing out that we may not neccessarily share the same views over here as in the US. I actually think the relevant differences in view here are relatively subtle, but nevertheless important. It is nice though when people keep it in mind - stops us getting needlessly prickly and "little Englander" in approach.:uhyeah: Thanks!

Respectfully,

Dan

 

[Rich Parsons]

I appreciating your pointing out that we may not neccessarily share the same views over here as in the US. I actually think the relevant differences in view here are relatively subtle, but nevertheless important. It is nice though when people keep it in mind - stops us getting needlessly prickly and "little Englander" in approach.:uhyeah: Thanks!

Respectfully,

Dan

All in being a system's engineer. I know it is wierd, but I solve system problems and process problems all the time, and to get a chance at a solution you have to look at the system and try to understand how it works. Not just from your assumptions, but from actual data points

You are welcome and I hope more people express it, even though may have assumed the differences, just not stated them.

Peace

 

[sgtmac_46]

I never said it did, but I do give more scrutiny to my surroundings than many people I talk to. In this instance, I'd try to make sure my family was safe by getting out of there. If you consider that "counter-terrorism", so be it. I call it "common sense".

As far as what transpired with the officers, I too am sure they did what they felt was best, and I am glad to hear no innocents were injured. I guess I'm just curious where the line between judicious(sp?) action and reckless endangerment gets fuzzy, and if it will disappear?

The only absolute I know of is the fact that I'm going to die someday (and i'm not entirely sure of it ). Past that, everything else is shades of grey. I'm sorry, but without being in that train station first hand, I can't answer with a heavy-handed yes/no.

What i'm suggesting is that officers actions may turn out to be objectively reasonable based on the totality of the circumstances, even IF the man they shot was not about to commit a suicide bombing. Your honest statement that you can't answer yes or no is a valid one. By that measure, we can't say, without having been in that train station, whether the officers actions were objectively reasonable. Further, without being the suspect, the officers had no way of knowing what his intentions were. That's the problem with being a human being, we have to deal with objective reality.

The only question necessary at this point were whether or not the officers answers were objectively reasonable given the facts that they knew PRIOR to making the decision to pull the trigger. What facts weren't available to them or facts available only afterwards are completely irrelavent. We tend to try to judge people on the information available to us in hindsight. I suggest that is an entirely unfair method of deciding guilt. We must judge these officers on the information and facts available to them at the time, and what course of actions these facts would cause the reasonable to make.

 

[Corporal Hicks]

Surely its not the officers we are judging but the policy under which they were trained and the method it was carried out is that which we are questioning?

I agree with OUMoose without all the facts, and simply that we were not at the station first hand, that we did not make (or have to make) a decision that could result in one innocent death through obeying policy, or a hundred possible deaths through lack of action...

What was the point I was making?....nope its gone....blurgh!

Damn...
:whip:
...