Several dead in German knife attack

kildare lad · 26-06-2021 3:19pm

bubblypop wrote: »

Yes they are.
And they can stop them whatever way they can, sometimes that means people are killed.

So they are trained to kill people then ?!

26-06-2021 3:20pm

kildare lad wrote: »

You don't have a clue , just because they're trained to kill people doesn't mean they do it. Anyone that carrys a gun has the capacity to kill someone . Do you think the ERU and the garda snipers are trained to kill people ??

I think we will leave it there.
There is one of us that doesn't have a clue, that's for sure.

26-06-2021 3:20pm

kildare lad wrote: »

So they are trained to kill people then ?!

Nope.
They are trained to stop.

seenitall · 26-06-2021 3:21pm

bubblypop wrote: »

No, he is a well trained member of AGS, who is trained in the use of firearms among other less lethal weapons. He is not trained to kill.

Oh yes, yes he is. And all the better for it.

I know you’re a member of the force so you may have a compulsion to word-play and dissimulate about the job itself, as everything has to be put into very PC terms and ran through political procedures these days, but the proof is in the pudding, as they say. Trained to shoot at a target and to use the skill in the pursuit of a goal involving a dramatic shortening of a person’s life.

Timberrrrrrrr · 26-06-2021 3:23pm

kildare lad wrote: »

You don't have a clue , just because they're trained to kill people doesn't mean they do it. Anyone that carrys a gun has the capacity to kill someone . Do you think the ERU and the garda snipers are trained to kill people ??

Fùcking irony overload there :pac:

Police are NOT trained to kill! They are trained to shoot accurately, they are trained to aim for the center mass as this is the largest part of the body and easiest to hit (head too difficult, arms and legs moving and harder to aim for).

One shot to the center mass can kill you, then there are people who have been shot many times and survived.

26-06-2021 3:27pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

****ing irony overload there :pac:

Police are NOT trained to kill! They are trained to shoot accurately, they are trained to aim for the center mass as this is the largest part of the body and easiest to hit (head too difficult, arms and legs moving and harder to aim for).

One shot to the center mass can kill you, then there are people who have been shot many times and survived.

The centre mass is where most of the vital organs are.

I agree, they aren't trained to kill, but the reason they are trained to shoot for centre mass is because it will incapacitate the assailant (victim) and that is quite likely to be fatal due to the vital organs.

seenitall · 26-06-2021 3:28pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

****ing irony overload there :pac:

Police are NOT trained to kill! They are trained to shoot accurately, they are trained to aim for the center mass as this is the largest part of the body and easiest to hit (head too difficult, arms and legs moving and harder to aim for).

One shot to the center mass can kill you, then there are people who have been shot many times and survived.

More pointless semantics. But I don’t mind, as long as it results in dead criminals. Who no one killed presumably. At least no one who was trained to do so. Perish the thought!

26-06-2021 3:29pm

kildare lad wrote: »

He's just after killing 3 people and wounding another 7 more , that should be enough authority to kill someone . I don't understand your logic sometimes you care more for murderers and criminals than the victims

Do you have any proof that the police acted improperly, your complaint appears to be that they failed to kill him. There's every indication that they used the necessary force and handled things appropriately.

Timberrrrrrrr · 26-06-2021 3:30pm

seenitall wrote: »

More pointless semantics. But I don’t mind, as long as it results in dead criminals. Who no one killed presumably. At least no one who was trained to do so. Perish the thought!

I've read that four times and still can't work out what you're attempting to say, try harder next time :rolleyes:

kildare lad · 26-06-2021 3:30pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Fùcking irony overload there :pac:

Police are NOT trained to kill! They are trained to shoot accurately, they are trained to aim for the center mass as this is the largest part of the body and easiest to hit (head too difficult, arms and legs moving and harder to aim for).

One shot to the center mass can kill you, then there are people who have been shot many times and survived.

What organs of your body are contained in the centre mass of the body

seenitall · 26-06-2021 3:32pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I've read that four times and still can't work out what you're attempting to say, try harder next time :rolleyes:

Excellent, cos that’s kind of a compliment coming from you

There won’t be a next time, getting bored now.

26-06-2021 3:33pm

kildare lad wrote: »

What organs of your body are contained in the centre mass of the body

Almost every vital organ. Heart , lungs, liver etc.

Timberrrrrrrr · 26-06-2021 3:33pm

kildare lad wrote: »

What organs of your body are contained in the centre mass of the body

Most of the major ones, it still doesn't guarantee death, if the police are "shooting to kill" as you claim then why call an ambulance after the act? Why perform first aid after the act?

The fact is police are NOT trained to kill they are trained to stop, this sometimes results in death.

Timberrrrrrrr · 26-06-2021 3:34pm

seenitall wrote: »

Excellent, cos that’s kind of a compliment coming from you

There won’t be a next time, getting bored now.

Off you toddle then kiddo.

LillySV · 26-06-2021 3:35pm

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000 wrote: »

Religion of peace. I'll bet the house on it.

Why is there a yellow sign beside this ?

26-06-2021 3:37pm

LillySV wrote: »

Why is there a yellow sign beside this ?

I'd wager because it was unnecessarily inflammatory at the time of posting and breached the "don't be a dick" rule.

26-06-2021 3:38pm

kildare lad wrote: »

What organs of your body are contained in the centre mass of the body

Very vital one in your head too......

LeBash · 26-06-2021 3:40pm

kildare lad wrote: »

From going by everything I've ever read, it's very bad practice to shoot someone like that in the leg. If he had a suicide vest he'd still be able to trigger the bomb . The police want to kill them as quick as they can without putting more loves at risk , he'd already killed 3 people why risk him killing anymore . They'd be better off killing him than wasting hundreds of thousands of taxpayers money keeping him locked up for life .

If there is a potential suicide vest, shooting to kill is even more dangerous until you know the trigger for the vest going off. The contact can be N/C and not N/O (triggered on the release of something, not the pushing of something). Killing the guy could potentially have brought down a building.

26-06-2021 3:45pm

LeBash wrote: »

If there is a potential suicide vest, shooting to kill is even more dangerous until you know the trigger for the vest going off. The contact can be N/C and not N/O (triggered on the release of something, not the pushing of something). Killing the guy could potentially have brought down a building.

If there's a lad slashing and stabbing people with knives, you should shoot the prick until he can't move.

kildare lad · 26-06-2021 3:46pm

LeBash wrote: »

If there is a potential suicide vest, shooting to kill is even more dangerous until you know the trigger for the vest going off. The contact can be N/C and not N/O (triggered on the release of something, not the pushing of something). Killing the guy could potentially have brought down a building.

Operation Kratos was a set of tactics developed by London's Metropolitan Police Service for dealing with suspected suicide bombers, most notably firing shots to the head without warning. The tactics were developed shortly after the 11 September 2001 attacks, based in part on consultation with Israeli and Sri Lankan law enforcement agencies on how to deal with suicide bombers. Little was revealed about these tactics until after the mistaken shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes on 22 July 2005, in the wake of the 7 July 2005 London bombings. The term is no longer used by the Metropolitan Police, although similar tactics remain in force.

26-06-2021 3:47pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If there's a lad slashing and stabbing people with knives, you should shoot the prick until he can't move.

Can you provide any proof that the police didn't use the necessary force or behaved improperly? Cause so far it's just seeming like a bloodlust on your part more than anything.

Timberrrrrrrr · 26-06-2021 3:52pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Can you provide any proof that the police didn't use the necessary force or behaved improperly? Cause so far it's just seeming like a bloodlust on your part more than anything.

Too much call of duty will do that to lads, meanwhile in the real world they would run in the opposite direction.

26-06-2021 4:05pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Can you provide any proof that the police didn't use the necessary force or behaved improperly? Cause so far it's just seeming like a bloodlust on your part more than anything.

None whatsoever.

Never claimed that they didn't though.

I would have assumed that anyone causing immediate threat to innocent bystanders should be dealt with with immediate lethal or (at least) incapacitating force.

Not sure where the claim I have bloodlust stemmed from, but it wouldn't be off brand for you to attribute incorrect motive.

26-06-2021 4:07pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Can you provide any proof that the police didn't use the necessary force or behaved improperly? Cause so far it's just seeming like a bloodlust on your part more than anything.

None whatsoever.

Never claimed that they did though.

I would have assumed that anyone being an immediate threat to innocent bystanders lives should be dealt with with immediate lethal or (at least) incapacitating force.

Not sure where the claim I have bloodlust stemmed from, but it wouldn't be off brand for you to attribute incorrect motive.

26-06-2021 4:08pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

None whatsoever.

Never claimed that they didn't though.

I would have assumed that anyone causing immediate threat to innocent bystanders should be dealt with with immediate lethal or (at least) incapacitating force.

Not sure where the claim I have bloodlust stemmed from, but it wouldn't be off brand for you to attribute incorrect motive.

There seems to be annoyance at the fact they didn't kill him. That's my reasoning tbh. If you're fine with how they handled it, fair enough. Actually thought I was responding to Kildare in this case, he seems to think it was a liberal agenda that led to not killing him.

Timberrrrrrrr · 26-06-2021 4:08pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

None whatsoever.

Never claimed that they didn't though.

I would have assumed that anyone causing immediate threat to innocent bystanders should be dealt with with immediate lethal or (at least) incapacitating force.

Not sure where the claim I have bloodlust stemmed from, but it wouldn't be off brand for you to attribute incorrect motive.

So someone glasses another person in your local tonight, they should be shot on sight by the police?

26-06-2021 4:10pm

Deleted User wrote: »

There seems to be annoyance at the fact they didn't kill him. That's my reasoning tbh. If you're fine with how they handled it, fair enough. Actually thought I was responding to Kildare in this case, he seems to think it was a liberal agenda that led to not killing him.

Well I disagree with that premise.

I can't speak for kildarelad but I don't think there was any liberal agenda whatsoever.

I wouldn't have shed a year for the bastard, but I'm not sad he wasn't killed.

26-06-2021 4:12pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So someone glasses another person in your local tonight, they should be shot on sight by the police?

That's a very dishonest way of framing what I said.

I'm not even going to bother explaining the difference between a jihaddi knife attack and a row in the local between two people.

Timberrrrrrrr · 26-06-2021 4:49pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That's a very dishonest way of framing what I said.

I'm not even going to bother explaining the difference between a jihaddi knife attack and a row in the local between two people.

You said

anyone causing immediate threat to innocent bystanders should be dealt with with immediate lethal or (at least) incapacitating force.

Police arrive, one person is covered in blood another has a broken bottle in his hand and is being aggressive, should he not be treated the same?

Now let's change bottle to knife, should he be met with "immediate lethal or (at least) incapacitating force"?

26-06-2021 4:55pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

You said

Police arrive, one person is covered in blood another has a broken bottle in his hand and is being aggressive, should he not be treated the same?

Now let's change bottle to knife, should he be met with "immediate lethal or (at least) incapacitating force"?

If someone has a sharpened knife/broken bottle and has stabbed or slashed people and is likely to do the same to others then yes, I think they should be incapacitated as soon as possible if they are an immediate danger to others around them.

I'm nearly as radical as those amnt I?

But I would also hope the police used discretion and ascertained, as any normal folk who weren't being needlessly obtuse on an internet forum would do, that there is a huge difference between a pub brawl and a jihaddi knife attack.

However, if someone was at risk of being murdered, the end result should be the same.

Several dead in German knife attack

Comments