English police lay down the law

Colonel Sanders

lemansky wrote:

Just before anything starts being said here, and it hasn't yet, but to nip it in the bud now, police officers do not need to be fired upon before they open fire.

is police procedure not similar to the armies 'yellow card'. They can fire without giving a warning if they feel their life or another persons life is in danger and/or if to give a warning would place either their own or someone else's life in danger.

Wacker

MrJoeSoap wrote:

Thats problem number one right there so.

Jean Charles was followed, on a bus, by surveillance officers.
He got off the bus,
got on another bus,
got off that bus,
picked up a newspaper,
WALKED through the turnstiles,
ran for a train,
sat down in his seat,
started reading his paper.

What part of that is suicide bomber material? Just because the police couldn't tell the difference between a Brazilian man and an Ethiopian man, this guy got seven bullets to the FACE.

I know what you're saying; that was a terrible miscarriage of justice.

However, that has nothing to do with this case, and bringing it up doesn't help anyone. If you have an issue with the actions of the police in this instance, then discuss it. If you're point is that on account of the mess that was made with Jean Charles de Menezes that the British police should never use lethal force, well I strongly disagree with you.

Giblet

Depeche_Mode wrote:

Go and tell that to Jean Charles de Menezes' mother and father.

I'm sorry, but this doesn't apply at all in this case. Just because there was a shooting involved doesn't mean the circumstances were in any way identical. Armed robbers in the process of committing a crime got shot. Hard luck.

lemansky

Colonel Sanders wrote:

is police procedure not similar to the armies 'yellow card'. They can fire without giving a warning if they feel their life or another persons life is in danger and/or if to give a warning would place either their own or someone else's life in danger.

Yep. They don't always have to give a warning, they don't need to be fired upon, they don't even need a gun to be present.

MrJoeSoap

MrJoeSoap wrote:

7 bullets to the face

Post that bit again. I missed it the first 3 imes. How many bullets? and where?
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

The 2 incidents are incomparable. I too would love to know what your alternative solution would have been, when faced with this situation. If you were calling the shots, what would you have done? Talked to them?

Wacker

MrJoeSoap wrote:

Or the head, if they think the person is a suicide bomber. Apparently 7 bullets to the face should do it.

Yes. If the person has an explosive device attached to their chest, you don't want to shoot it and possibly set it off. So you shoot him in the head. Simple really.

Now, as for identifying the guy as a potential suicide bomber, that is not so simple, and this is where the police failed terribly.

Colonel Sanders

Deleted User wrote:

The 2 incidents are incomparable. I too would love to know what your alternative solution would have been, when faced with this situation. If you were calling the shots, what would you have done? Talked to them?

pretty much my opinion in a nutshell

tallus

RoyalMarineComm wrote:

every police should shoot to kill.

to make a blunt point, how many people are going to commit a crime when the likely chance they will end up being chased down by a cop who is allowed to shoot at them? with serious intent to kill.

If it doesn't work in countries where the cops are armed, what makes you think Ireland is going to be any different? and cops are armed here, uniformed gardai aren't but detectives are.
Personally I dont think they should be armed, and I am glad the bankrobbers got what they deserved, but would be pretty sure that the cops who shot the robbers weren't normal uniformed officers. So why should the gardai be armed? they showed how to disarm suspects in Sandyford without killing/shooting them.

Wacker

tallus wrote:

Personally I dont think they should be armed, and I am glad the bankrobbers got what they deserved,

Me too. I think what they deserve is about eight years in jail though, so long as no one gets injured in the robbery.

GreeBo

MrJoeSoap wrote:

Or the head, if they think the person is a suicide bomber. Apparently 7 bullets to the face should do it.

dont you mean FACE
:rolleyes:

lemansky

In Sandyford the threat of weapons in the hands of the Gardaí is what brought about that outcome. It wouldn't have been the same if they had been confronted by nothing.When used in law enforcement guns don't always need to be used to make their mark.

Giblet

tallus wrote:

If it doesn't work in countries where the cops are armed, what makes you think Ireland is going to be any different? and cops are armed here, uniformed gardai aren't but detectives are.
Personally I dont think they should be armed, and I am glad the bankrobbers got what they deserved, but would be pretty sure that the cops who shot the robbers weren't normal uniformed officers. So why should the gardai be armed? they showed how to disarm suspects in Sandyford without killing/shooting them.

Without the people involved in the Sandyford robbery being the exact same people as in this case, it's impossible to know how they reacted to the armed police presence. They could have surrendered much easier after a warning. Armed police were there, so they were prepared to take action if required.

tallus

I heard the robbers in sandyford nearly pissed themselves when the stun grenades, or whatever it was the cops used to surprise them went off. I dont think they surrendered, per se, otherwise what use would stun grenades be.

lemansky

They piss themselves when the stun grenade goes off, then while they're disorientated they find a load of guns pointing at them, so they surrender as they don't know what else to do.

The grenade gives the police the upper hand, but to safely make the arrest guns are still needed. Of course not every situation is suited to a stun grenade.

Pyr0

Regarding the 3 shot thing, the armed police of any country are trained to shoot once in the chest and another to the head to assure the kill if needed, now if he shot one of the guys and he didn't go down, chances being he could of returned fire and hit either the police officer or a innocent person. The police did the right thing IMO.

Put it this way, if the robber was holding the gun to my head, i'd gladly let the police man shoot the guy, i'm not taking a bullet in the head over some bleeding heart ideas of non lethal force in a situation like that.

tallus

lemansky wrote:

They piss themselves when the stun grenade goes off, then while they're disorientated they find a load of guns pointing at them, so they surrender as they don't know what else to do.

The grenade gives the police the upper hand, but to safely make the arrest guns are still needed. Of course not every situation is suited to a stun grenade.

Agreed.

Pompey Magnus

Giblet wrote:

I'm sorry, but this doesn't apply at all in this case. Just because there was a shooting involved doesn't mean the circumstances were in any way identical. Armed robbers in the process of committing a crime got shot. Hard luck.

That is nonsense I am afraid. So you are suggesting that it is ok to kill armed bank robbers but when it comes to possible suicide bombers it is a different matter? Get real please, you just want to distance the two scenarios because in one the police got the right people and in the other the police killed an innocent young man.

You either accept the use of lethal force or you don't, and if you do then you must accept that mistakes inevitably will happen, and as a knock on from that you must also accept that should the mistake be at the cost of the life of one of your family you will hold your hands up and say "Unfortunate, but it was for the greater good".

I remember my dad telling me about how he was driving through Northern Ireland in the height of the troubles late one night in a southern reg car. To cut a long story short he had been having trouble with engine and was forced to pull over to the side of the road in some small town. He got out, opened the bonnet and had a look inside for a minute before walking to a nearby garage to see if there was anyone around to help. He brought a guy back but when the bloke saw where he parked he gave him an earful, he had left it right outside a British Army watchtower which he completely missed in the dark and with his mind on the engine. I would expect that if the soldiers on watch inside were doing their jobs properly there would have been a rifle pointing at him whilst he was working on the engine. I wonder if that had been today and he been Middle Eastern might he have expected to get a bullet in the back followed by an excuse on how he had been "acting suspiciously" and he was a "suspected car bomber"?

Grim.

yep lemansky totaly agreed got what they deserved

yomchi

At least this time the perps WERE armed. The Brit police have a disgraceful record of shooting dead unarmed people - remember the Brazilian guy on the train and then there was Dermuid O'Neill to name a few

lemansky

Depeche_Mode wrote:

I wonder if that had been today and he been Middle Eastern might he have expected to get a bullet in the back followed by an excuse on how he had been "acting suspiciously" and he was a "suspected car bomber"?

Now THAT is nonsense.

They didnt just decide that jean charles was a suicide bomber because they saw him acting suspiciously, they mistook him for somebody else. A hell of a difference.

Pompey Magnus

lemansky wrote:

They didnt just decide that jean charles was a suicide bomber because they saw him acting suspiciously, they mistook him for somebody else. A hell of a difference.

Sorry? It almost seems like you are suggesting that shooting someone because he looks like someone who might be a terrorist is in someway excusable.

monkey tennis

Hellm0 wrote:

especially when he feels it nessecary to "double tap"

I agree with the opinion that there should always be an investigation into the use of a firearm, but I don't know why you're specifically pointing out double-taps, as it's pretty well known that most police forces will only ever use firearms with fully lethal intent.

MrJoeSoap wrote:

This is the same country whose police force shot a man 7 times in THE FACE because he committed the crime of running for a train?

How is that relevant to the current discussion? De Menezes' killing was a screw-up that shouldn't have happened. This case (people actually holding guns to people's heads) is clear-cut.

MrJoeSoap wrote:

And on the slight off-chance they get it wrong and "terminate" the wrong person?

Again, irrelevant to this discussion. Someone threatening innocent people with a loaded gun is not the 'wrong person' to terminate.

Depeche_Mode wrote:

Wrong place, wrong time, wrong skin colour. I don't see why you can't compare the two.

De Menezes didn't hold a gun to someone's head. These guys did.

Depeche_Mode wrote:

You either accept the use of lethal force or you don't

Nope. You're trying to split a grey-area topic into black and white. It's not possible to say 'lethal force is wrong, full stop' - there are situations in which lethal force is necessary, and situations in which it's not. You can't write off lethal force completely, it's not a realistic outlook.

You're continually trying to compare a terrible, shameful accident with a case in which two criminals wilfully and knowingly put people's lives in danger. You can not expect to compare someone getting shot for holding a gun to someone's head with someone getting shot for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and expect to be taken seriously.

lemansky

Depeche_Mode wrote:

Sorry? It almost seems like you are suggesting that shooting someone because he looks like someone who might be a terrorist is in someway excusable.

Nope that isn't what I said at all. That is however maybe what you want me to have said.

You were going on about how if somebody was Middle Eastern they might be shot for being suspected car bombers, and for no other reason than that.
My point is that they didn't mistake him for being a suicide bomber because of how he looked or because of how he was acting, they mistook him for a bomber because they thought that he was one of the people that they were to be on the lookout for. There is a big difference between both scenarios. I never said that one was more right than the other but there is a difference.

Giblet

Depeche_Mode wrote:

That is nonsense I am afraid. So you are suggesting that it is ok to kill armed bank robbers but when it comes to possible suicide bombers it is a different matter? Get real please, you just want to distance the two scenarios because in one the police got the right people and in the other the police killed an innocent young man.

Nonsense? These guys were in the process of committing the crime, which had been foiled by prior police work. Get real? I think you need to step off your high horse and get grounded in reality yourself. What, in your opinion, was the right course of action to be taken? I'm not distancing them because of the outcome, but the actual situation both the incidents came about. I mean, if you have two guys with guns in the process of committing a crime that the police were tipped off about, what do you do? Walk up and ask them what they're doing and why do they have guns?

THEY WERE EVEN WARNED!

This wasn't some guy who looked like a suspect and ignored warnings and ran, this was an actual crime that was known to be taking place, where it took place.

Honestly, do you have any alternative course of action here?

Pompey Magnus

lemansky wrote:

My point is that they didn't mistake him for being a suicide bomber because of how he looked or because of how he was acting, they mistook him for a bomber because they thought that he was one of the people that they were to be on the lookout for. There is a big difference between both scenarios. I never said that one was more right than the other but there is a difference.

Really? It had nothing to do with how he looked? So had he been a nice white Anglo Saxon chap he would have been just as likely to have been shot? Can I ask, just out of pure personal interest, do you really believe that?

Giblet

Depeche_Mode wrote:

Really? It had nothing to do with how he looked? So had he been a nice white Anglo Saxon chap he would have been just as likely to have been shot? Can I ask, just out of pure personal interest, do you really believe that?

Of course it was how he looked, he fit the description of what they were looking for.

Pompey Magnus

Giblet wrote:

Of course it was how he looked, he fit the description of what they were looking for.

Precisely. And that of course is justifiable means for deciding if a man dies or not, his facial similarities to another man.

monkey tennis

Depeche_Mode wrote:

Precisely. And that of course is justifiable means for deciding if a man dies or not, his facial similarities to another man.

What's this got to do with the topic of the thread?

Giblet

Depeche_Mode wrote:

Precisely. And that of course is justifiable means for deciding if a man dies or not, his facial similarities to another man.

I gather you forgot that he also ran when confronted.

I suppose the police should wait 100% of the time, until it's too late. I've asked this before, but what course of action do you propose should be taken in cases like this? And who's fault is it when it goes wrong? I doubt it matters, because the same people will always be blamed. The authorities didn't do enough.

Pompey Magnus

monkey tennis wrote:

What's this got to do with the topic of the thread?

What I am saying is that I find it downright two faced for people here to praise the police when they get it right in choosing their target, but then to cower away from facing up to the responsibility that their acceptance of lethal force by the police can lead to the deaths of innocent people because the police are not infallible.

Ciaran500

So we can't praise them for getting it right because they have got it wrong in the past?

Giblet

Depeche_Mode wrote:

What I am saying is that I find it downright two faced for people here to praise the police when they get it right in choosing their target, but then to cower away from facing up to the responsibility that their acceptance of lethal force by the police can lead to the deaths of innocent people because the police are not infallible.

No-one is denying it can lead to wrongful deaths. What's the alternative though?

Pompey Magnus

Giblet wrote:

I gather you forgot that he also ran when confronted.

He ran? You mean to say there was a bunch of guys, not in police uniform, running towards him and pointing guns at him and he didn't wait to find out what they wanted? My gosh, I take it all back, that certainly is suspicious behaviour. He deserved it :rolleyes: .

Giblet

Depeche_Mode wrote:

He ran? You mean to say there was a bunch of guys, not in police uniform, running towards him and pointing guns at him and he didn't wait to find out what they wanted? My gosh, I take it all back, that certainly is suspicious behaviour. He deserved it :rolleyes: .

Stop trolling. I never said he deserved it. Grow up. It's not ****ing lollipop land out there, nothing goes 100% right all the time. I accept that, regardless of what you might think. That doesn't mean I'm willing to allow criminals to get away with it.

Everyone knows what happened was a tragedy, but they accept this along with the benefits a deterrent to criminals brings. You cannot offer an alternative solution, because any alternative just isn't good enough.

If anything did happen, and the police hesitated, imagine the fall out. And that's not just conjecture, apply it to any case where lethal force was justified.

Pompey Magnus

Ciaran500 wrote:

So we can't praise them for getting it right because they have got it wrong in the past?

No, praise away, just have the balls to admit that by accepting lethal force you will also be condoning the (albiet accidental) death of innocent people by the police.

mike65

As Dirty Harry put it.

Well, when an adult male is chasing a female with intent to commit rape, I shoot the bastard. That's my policy.

When confronted by men with guns you shoot to kill. Anything less is an abdication of responsibility.

The location of this incident Chandler's Ford, I know from childhood. Its pretty much the last place you'd imagine this happening, the quintessential quiet English village.

Mike.

Pompey Magnus

Giblet wrote:

Stop trolling. I never said he deserved it. Grow up. It's not ****ing lollipop land out there, nothing goes 100% right all the time. I accept that, regardless of what you might think. That doesn't mean I'm willing to allow criminals to get away with it.

Everyone knows what happened was a tragedy, but they accept this along with the benefits a deterrent to criminals brings.

I apologise, of course you didn't mean he deserved it. But I stand by my claim that by accepting one you should also accept the other.

seamus

You're constantly ignoring the one big question Depeche_mode - What do you think was the right course of action in this case? You clearly think the police were wrong.

I personally accept that where firearms are required, there is a chance that mistakes will be made. Whether this is an innocent person being wrongly shot, or a misfired shot hitting an innocent person. All you can do is limit the use of firearms to places where they are strictly necessary, by people who know how and when to use them and to put controls in place to ensure that this is always the case. Every single bullet coming out of an officer's weapon should be explained and accounted for.

Pompey Magnus

Seamus wrote:

You're constantly ignoring the one big question Depeche_mode - What do you think was the right course of action in this case? You clearly think the police were wrong

How about not shooting? The guys weren't going anywhere, the police had the place surrounded, and let the whole thing end peacefully. How about that?

Giblet

Depeche_Mode wrote:

How about not shooting? The guys weren't going anywhere, the police had the place surrounded, and let the whole thing end peacefully. How about that?

Wishful thinking.

humanji

Depeche_Mode wrote:

No, praise away, just have the balls to admit that by accepting lethal force you will also be condoning the (albiet accidental) death of innocent people by the police.

But nobody is denying it. Seriously, what is your point?

monkey tennis

Depeche_Mode wrote:

admit that by accepting lethal force you will also be condoning the (albiet accidental) death of innocent people by the police.

That's not a reasonable statement to make, and you're continuing your thread-long habit of trying to put words into other people's mouths. This is a cheap arguing tactic (plus you're still off-topic, Jesus)

Depeche_Mode wrote:

How about not shooting? The guys weren't going anywhere, the police had the place surrounded, and let the whole thing end peacefully.

You're assuming that the guys with the guns to people's heads were not going to pull the triggers. That's not an assumption the police can make.

Dave!

MrJoeSoap wrote:

Thats problem number one right there so.

Jean Charles was followed, on a bus, by surveillance officers.
He got off the bus,
got on another bus,
got off that bus,
picked up a newspaper,
WALKED through the turnstiles,
ran for a train,
sat down in his seat,
started reading his paper.

What part of that is suicide bomber material? Just because the police couldn't tell the difference between a Brazilian man and an Ethiopian man, this guy got seven bullets to the FACE.

I don't know, I'm not a police detective. But you're basically concedeing there that the problem is in the INTELLIGENCE they had the time, and not the fact that they shot him dead.

If it turned out that he was in fact a suicide bomber, then would you commend the officers for it, or criticise them? Or to put it a different way, if they had 100% certainty that they had a suicide bomber in their crosshairs (the day after terrorist attacks in the same area), would you be okay with them shooting him as he was getting onto the public transport system? Yes or no?

By the way, putting 'FACE' in capital letters and repeating it does not make a difference. If he was a suicide bomber, then the more bullets they put in his head, the better. I'm sure that may gross you out :rolleyes:, but the deader they are, the less likely they are to press the detonator.

humanji

Oh, and Jean Charles was shot in the back of the head, not the face.

Tzetze

Shoot to kill policy Land-Of-Freedom style.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeOaTpYl8mE

Pompey Magnus

monkey tennis wrote:

That's not a reasonable statement to make,

Well I think it is, unless you believe the police will get it right 100% of the time then you have to accept that innocent people will get killed and you shouldn't wash your hands of it. As someone said earlier, it isn't lollypop land out there, mistakes happen. Also I don't see how my arguing against a lethal use of force by police is off-topic.

You're assuming that the guys with the guns to people's heads were not going to pull the triggers. That's not an assumption the police can make.

And you accuse me of "trying to put words into other people's mouths"?

I guess all I am trying to do is to put across the other side of the argument. Most people here seem all for allowing police the right to kill, I just hope that people fully understand that it not always go according to plan, that's all. If people feel that is a price worth paying then I will accept their opinion. I don't feel it is, and I freely admit that I might be wrong, but it is just my opinion on the matter.

the_syco

Depeche_Mode wrote:

That is nonsense I am afraid. So you are suggesting that it is ok to kill armed bank robbers but when it comes to possible suicide bombers it is a different matter?

Yup. Armed robber with a gun in a bank is different than a Brazilian male with a backpack. And a Brazilian male with a backpack is different from some Islamic dude on a bus with a backpack.

mike65

Lusk Post Office 2005

I expect the thread on this had the same bleeding hearts on it.

Mike.

Pompey Magnus

the_syco wrote:

Yup. Armed robber with a gun in a bank is different than a Brazilian male with a backpack. And a Brazilian male with a backpack is different from some Islamic dude on a bus with a backpack.

Can I ask had you been in charge of the operation would you have given permission to the officers to use lethal force in that case knowing when the officers announced that they were following the suspect into the tube station?

Apart from that I think I need to admit defeat and recognise that I'm not really getting anywhere in this thead .

Colonel Sanders

Depeche_Mode wrote:

How about not shooting? The guys weren't going anywhere, the police had the place surrounded, and let the whole thing end peacefully. How about that?

wishful thinking +1

Do you really think that if a siege situation had developed these people would have got fed up after a while and have come out with their hands up without incident?