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

[Tgace]

Im a police Sergeant with a mid-size department in NY. Troll.

 

[Macy5]

Uh we got into name calling "Troll?"
What happened to C.P.R. ?
You would arrest me if you could, would not you?

 

[Tgace]

Dont bother responding Macy..you are on the ignore list already.

 

[Macy5]

Hm, allot of time spend behind the computer by a cop,
well I feel very protected.
Serve and protect, sir, serve and protect.

 

[Corporal Hicks]

OH boy someone with a cop picture is speaking.

Do you want to be a cop when your grow up?

Or you like men in uniforms?

or may be doughnuts?

Somehow I knew that you would reply to this,
so if you are a cop, do you keep your hands behind your back permenantly?

You know I agree with Tgrace on this, I think the only person that actually needs to grow up is you!
How old are you? Because you sound pretty young to me? Maintaining a childish attitude like that!

Most become cops because the can't do anything else and have no brain for education. Not because they are brave, the research have been done.
We all know it. Sorry to say it, soldiers I deeply respect, police---nahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh."

Most become cops because they cannot do anything else and have no brain for education?
Soldiers you deeply respect, police nah?????

Lol, kids these days! Honestly!

 

[Tgace]

A troll is as a troll does...

 

[Corporal Hicks]

A troll is as a troll does...

LOL

 

[Tgace]

Back on topic. What is the general feeling about this incident in the UK?

 

[Corporal Hicks]

Back on topic. What is the general feeling about this incident in the UK?

Well from somebody who's over here, the majority of people think that the killing was a tragic incident but whether policy should be changed or not is boarding upon the fact it shouldnt be!!!
The main thing people puzzle about however is that they dont understand why the person was shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulders. People cannot understand the reasonality behind the action and therefore feel uneasy, as though that many shots was not justified.
Had the guy simply been shot once or twice then people may have dropped the subject by now!
There just seems to be a minority that seem totally opposed towards the policy!
Regards

 

[Tgace]

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.

 

[Corporal Hicks]

They do not 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.

Unfortunately the public dont seem to understand that. The majority of their viewpoints come from a mental image. That is imagining a man being pinned to the floor, held there, somebody lowering a gun to his head and firing off 7 or 8 rounds, well thats the impression I get so far, especially when the media use such words as 'pinned' or 'physically restrained'.
Most see to many movies, thinking that one shot takes a person down, that one shot to the head is sufficient to stop all muscle movement and response.
Majority hardly know anything about weapons either, since they are banned here! Ask the average person and I would say that they could not picture the difference between a semi-auto, or a single shot, as far as it seems, they picture about a 10 second gap of killing. In which a person stood there and literally took their time in firing into the head!
Thats the media for you!
In essence, most people = One shot (especially in the head) is enough?!

 

[Macy5]

I wonder if cops actually did ther jobs,

would so many people practise martial arts?

Who knows may be you are one of the very few good one's.

But I doubt it, seeing how much time you spend kissing the monitor.



Ok, I am done talking. Felt good.

 

[michaeledward]

non-answer.

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.

 

[Corporal Hicks]

I wonder if cops actually did ther jobs,

would so many people practise martial arts?

Who knows may be you are one of the very few good one's.

But I doubt it, seeing how much time you spend kissing the monitor.



Ok, I am done talking. Felt good.

Who you talking to? Cops in both countries do a fine job most of the time!
Why dont you go out and do something for a change? You know maybe you want to be shoved in a world without police, then your be coming back for security and the fact that they are there, if they are need (most of the time)!
Maybe you want to stop the pointless statements now? Maybe you should spend more time away from the monitor and learn to grow up.

 

[Corporal Hicks]

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.

Nothing in this world is perfect. You seem to make it sounds as though the police just shot a random guy with no justification behind it!
As said before would you rather one innocent man dead and others protected or many others dead because the police hesitated to shoot. Not to mention the bomber dies as well. Dont get me wrong I'm not having a go at you, its good debating, you just have not given me an alternative policy that would be more suited?

Regards

 

[dubljay]

OK here's how I see it.

After the initial bombings, there was a cry for better security. Everyone seemed to agree that the best option was to fight fire with fire (I direct your attention to "we're not afraid").

In this situation the police had a decision to make in seconds. If they had opted to not shoot, or simply wound the man and he was indeed a suicide bomber they would have been blamed for failing to do their duty to protect other citizens. If the man had indeed been a bomber and the police had killed him before he had a chance to detonate they would be hailed as heroes.

A single innocent person being killed by the police is just as tragic as masses of people being killed in a terror attack. Has anyone stopped to consider how the police officers feel having killed an innocent man? How the officers feel at being criticized for doing as people wished (meeting force with force)?


Michael you are right, an innocent man died and that isn’t right. However the opposite side of the coin is that many more innocents could be dead if the policy had been not to kill him, and he was indeed a bomber. Would that be right?


I haven't been following this thread, or these events too closely. People of the UK are begining to understand the problems we are facing here in the US, we are losing our freedom under the patriot act. Though the situations are different, as is our ways of life, but the question is still the same: Was this the right course of action?

Just my opinion.

-Josh

 

[Bester]

Uh we got into name calling "Troll?"
What happened to C.P.R. ?
You would arrest me if you could, would not you?

Yo, Macy-Troll-Boy.
You're in the Study. That means serious discussion. Not the juvilile pap you're spewing.

You have anything serious to add, or are you just going to continue to be a jackass?

If it's the former, then add it and stop being a jerk.

If it's the later, enjoy the ride on the boot-to-groin-slide.

 

[Corporal Hicks]

OK here's how I see it.

After the initial bombings, there was a cry for better security. Everyone seemed to agree that the best option was to fight fire with fire (I direct your attention to "we're not afraid").

In this situation the police had a decision to make in seconds. If they had opted to not shoot, or simply wound the man and he was indeed a suicide bomber they would have been blamed for failing to do their duty to protect other citizens. If the man had indeed been a bomber and the police had killed him before he had a chance to detonate they would be hailed as heroes.

A single innocent person being killed by the police is just as tragic as masses of people being killed in a terror attack. Has anyone stopped to consider how the police officers feel having killed an innocent man? How the officers feel at being criticized for doing as people wished (meeting force with force)?


Michael you are right, an innocent man died and that isn’t right. However the opposite side of the coin is that many more innocents could be dead if the policy had been not to kill him, and he was indeed a bomber. Would that be right?


I haven't been following this thread, or these events too closely. People of the UK are begining to understand the problems we are facing here in the US, we are losing our freedom under the patriot act. Though the situations are different, as is our ways of life, but the question is still the same: Was this the right course of action?

Just my opinion.

-Josh

Good post! You pretty much summed it up again!
So it seems you guys have lost your freedom, for security?

As its happening over here? Sorry but I dont think I fancy living in a totalitilarian society!
Regards

 

[michaeledward]

Nothing in this world is perfect. You seem to make it sounds as though the police just shot a random guy with no justification behind it!
As said before would you rather one innocent man dead and others protected or many others dead because the police hesitated to shoot. Not to mention the bomber dies as well. Dont get me wrong I'm not having a go at you, its good debating, you just have not given me an alternative policy that would be more suited?

Regards

I don't quite know why you think I am implying the police shot a 'random' guy.

I have stated, I don't know what the answer is. But the fact remains, that someone is dead, who shouldn't be.

As I understand the story .... and I too am not following it that closely .... the police watched Mr. de Menezes come out of an apartment, some reports say he got on a bus, he travelled to the subway, where he may have jumped a turnstyle, he got all the way down to the platform, where he was shot to death.

Wouldn't a good alternative policy be to stop this young man sooner? Maybe when he came out of the building wearing (or not wearing) a bulky coat?
How about knowing more about who he is, before he comes out of the building ... he had to go in to the building at some point, didn't he? Couldn't some police work go on about Mr. de Menezes while he was in the building?

If the policy is correct ... and the policy leads to innocent people being dead, then something seems wrong.

If we start killing people, as a matter of policy, because of what we are afraid of what they might do, . . . . well, I don't know .... maybe you can fill in your own analogy here.

I understand that some are supporting the position that Mr. de Menezes presented a clear and present danger, therefore the shooting was 'justified'. Except, evidence seems to indicate that Mr. de Menezes was not the clear and present danger the officers believed. I understand the officers had to make a decision on incomplete information. Was everything done to get as much information to the officers as was possible?

The supposition is the Police Policy is correct.
The fact is an innocent man is dead.

Seems there is something disconnected between these two statements.

 

[Corporal Hicks]

I don't quite know why you think I am implying the police shot a 'random' guy.

I have stated, I don't know what the answer is. But the fact remains, that someone is dead, who shouldn't be.

As I understand the story .... and I too am not following it that closely .... the police watched Mr. de Menezes come out of an apartment, some reports say he got on a bus, he travelled to the subway, where he may have jumped a turnstyle, he got all the way down to the platform, where he was shot to death.

Wouldn't a good alternative policy be to stop this young man sooner? Maybe when he came out of the building wearing (or not wearing) a bulky coat?
How about knowing more about who he is, before he comes out of the building ... he had to go in to the building at some point, didn't he? Couldn't some police work go on about Mr. de Menezes while he was in the building?

If the policy is correct ... and the policy leads to innocent people being dead, then something seems wrong.

If we start killing people, as a matter of policy, because of what we are afraid of what they might do, . . . . well, I don't know .... maybe you can fill in your own analogy here.

I understand that some are supporting the position that Mr. de Menezes presented a clear and present danger, therefore the shooting was 'justified'. Except, evidence seems to indicate that Mr. de Menezes was not the clear and present danger the officers believed. I understand the officers had to make a decision on incomplete information. Was everything done to get as much information to the officers as was possible?

The supposition is the Police Policy is correct.
The fact is an innocent man is dead.

Seems there is something disconnected between these two statements.

Now I understand your view, I'm sorry that I did not earlier!
Yes you have a fair point, especially with the fact that Mr. de Menezes could have possibiliy arrested earlier, but on what charge? Unfortunately I know hardly anything about the Police Tatics involved in this situation, maybe if we did understand everything then we can draw a logical conclusion. I dont know if the officers wanted or hoped he would lead them to more suicide bombers or potential suscepts or what, maybe they panicked when they realised he was heading into the tube and only caught up with him them.
As for a change in policy? Who knows? Some deem it not necessary? If I knew all the facts then I could really make my own mind up!
Nice debating, Kind regards
C.h