Terrorist shootings and Mosque raid

[iranu]

Rave obviously believes the movies where good sharp shooter cops can head shot a running target from 75 yards with a pistol. (he was shot with a pistol)

Not in the real world pal. If they challenged him and he ran, opening fire would have been bad. Not only from the point of view of hitting passers by, but also hitting the torso and detonating a potential bomb in a crowded street.

SAS, very doubtful. Such short notice and they're military specialists - not their patch until the real Sh1t hits. MI5, maybe. Plain clothed police, most likely. Sounds like someones been watching too much telly.

Those that think you can shoot someone in the head from anymore than 20 feet with a pistol are living in the dreamworld of Hollywood. Having had a father who was trained as an armed copper and carried firearms at Heathrow airport during the IRA bombings of the 70' and 80's and has had to make the choice of shooting someone or not, I can honestly quote him - "this was a last resort". He says they were probably less than 5 feet away when they shot him. The police, in the case of suspected suicide bombers, are trained to kill (like he was), not pussyfoot around.

The "oh! they weren't coppers cos they're not trained to jump on someone and pump five bullets into them" is nonsense. In that scenario police have to make sure - that means get close and fire until there is no doubt.

Anyone who believes that it's easy to kill or you can, hey, "pop a cap in someones ass" needs to get real. Killing someone even though it is absolutely necessary (thinking veterans) does not become a distant memory. It is not a natural thing to do.

Monumental cockup - No. It would have been if the guy had been a bomber and detonated a bomb on the train. Regrettable yes. Unfortunate yes. Tragic yes.

There are many independent news sources that say the undercover police were tailing him in the hope that he would lead them to other addresses and bombers. They challenged him very close to the tube station because when he got close to the station they thought they had a bomber. This thought was reinforced when he ran into the tube station. Bit difficult to trail someone in full uniform isn't it, or is this another fabulous Rave initiative - undercover uniformed police.

The likelyhood is that as he was followed by few police. More armed police were called into the location as backup as he approached the station - hence 20 police.

Murder - well I hope Rave you retract that when the bloke who shot him is cleared. Given teh situation there is no chance in hell any court will find that copper guilty of murder or manslaughter. Oh he was murdered for running away - BS. Grow up, wake up and smell the coffee. Jeez.

Obviously had that copper been you, you would have made the split second, crucial judgement perfectly. But then again you always make the perfect judgement don't you? I'm sure you would have disregarded the wider public safety or the intelligence given. I'm sure that the events of the past two weeks would not have entered your mind. I'm sure that you have had experience of this scenario and would know exactly what to do in the circumstances. I can see the advert now - the Rave 9000 - upgrade from the HAL 9000 - guaranteed to be right all the time.

If an armed policeman shouts "stop, armed police" and the suspect runs could I ask the almighty Rave what the correct proceedure the armed policeman should follow given he is trailing a suspected suicide bomber? I'd like an answer, please do let us share your infinite wisdom. Perhaps you would like to let the Met police know too, seeing as they got it so so wrong.

And eqiuivalent - yep if I'm gonna do it on this issue I'll go out all guns blazing seeing as you guys think thats what the cops like to do. "A history of being chased by armed men" FFS. Armed policemen do not challenge a suspect or shout "stop, armed police" without their weapons drawn. If you saw a load of people in casual clothes pointing hand guns at you shouting stop, armed police (goes on all the time in London town, hence the history ) what would you do?

All this crap about whether they were "ordered to do it" is nonsense. F**k it. Let's say I was the Prime Minister, the Met Commisioner, the Mayor of London Would I say - who gives a monkeys if Londoners get blown limb from limb. Could I give a t*ss - no, not me. Order my officers to shoot potential suicide bombers after giving adequate warning to suspects to safeguard the wider public - Not me Gov, let the public take the flak (literally), not my shout.

We live in a democracy, we elect decision makers, law makers, hence we have people in authority to make these decisions. If you disagree either vote for someone else or stand for election or campaign for your view.

The "oh he ran for a different reason" brigade are so self rightous, but you never hear what their police policy would be. I'd love to see the procedure they would lay down for armed police given this scenario. I bet it wouldn't be as thorough as what is in place now.

I agree with the slow justice part for other crime but "wise before the event" wtf is that supposed to mean? I suppose you had access to all the intellegence and would have made a different decision have you equivalent?

Bearing in mind people are being killed by extremists would you not say that it is imperative that police/security forces move fast and cover every aspect or would you rely on dead cert, gospel intelligence before acting? Pictures, confirmed ID what are you on about? Apologisers never vent their views infront of the families of the dead or the people missing limbs, scarred in hospital.

I'm with PrivatePyle, Stewart and Dorza on this one. I don't like to see members of the public killed by police anymore than anyone else. We are lucky in this country that this happens very rarely and there is always a tribunal/trial carried out under the rule of the land, however, those that think they could do better always sit back in their arm chairs and never go and join the forces that they constantly moan about.

Sry for the war and peace post but it's about time that people realise that it's not black and white, clear cut, plain sailing work preventing nutters blowing up people on the tube or legitimately carrying a gun in their job.

[oralpain]

Anyone who believes that it's easy to kill or you can, hey, "pop a cap in someones ass" needs to get real. Killing someone even though it is absolutely necessary (thinking veterans) does not become a distant memory. It is not a natural thing to do.

Fact is, plenty of people find it very easy to kill. The threat of punishment is all that holds back many. As for not being natural, well thats even more wrong. The self preservation instinct is as natural as you can get. So are fear, anger, hate, and the violence that often results.

[rajagra]

This is a question of policy. The criteria for shooting or not shooting a suspected bomber have to be decided in advance, albeit in general terms of course.

Given the current situation, I would say it is a reasonable policy to shoot someone who has left a house that was "under police surveillance because of a suspected link to Thursday's attempted bombing", wearing clothes unsuited to the weather but well suited to hiding explosives, who subsequently not only refused to stop when challenged by armed police, but also headed towards the Underground, which is the main target of current terrorist activity.

Rave, you've got it in your head that if the person shot dead is innocent that means the police/SAS/whoever must have cocked up. That simply isn't true. If they enforced the policy as ordered, they themselves did nothing wrong.

You can have a good policy, applied correctly, that still leads to an innocent man being shot. It's a reality that has to be faced. And this kind of policy has been forced upon us by the terrorists. Blame them. Not the people trying their damndest to give us what protection is possible.

You are clearly of the opinion that the police should never shoot anyone unless they know the suspect is about to commit murder. Realistically, you can never know anything for sure, to 100% certainty. So by your thinking, the police should never shoot anyone, so we may as well not have armed police (or miltary acting as police) at all.

That's actually a perfectly acceptable point of view. I just wish you would come out and say it.

[equivalent]

So Rave can't be 100% sure of anything, but you're sure the policy was OK? That the information was specific? Your 'benefit of the doubt' seems biased.

Look, I repeat, they were supposed to have a name and positive ID. I for one would have supported the action if they had these. Instead they just had an address. That's not good enough. If they had time to set up surveillance, they had time to surround the house, which is maybe what they should have done.

Your arguments seem a bit confused. I agree it's about policy, but we have to stop continually focussing on the the police/SAS/whoever carried out the final action. They don't decide policy, and they don't decide to go in. That comes from higher up. And from one comment by a senior policeman yesterday, there is disagreement over that decision, and this policy. He obviously has alternative ideas about what should have been done, and he should know. (That's what I'm basing my position on, ovartu, what about yours? And btw, we don't elect police, that has caused a few problems in the past, if you care to look. It's also a good reason to, say, discuss it. Maybe on a forum?)

Second, how can your good theoretical policy be 'forced' on us by the terrorists? If it was that good, why didn't we adopt it as a matter of course?

The 'he ran away for a different reason' group are not self-righteous. They're right. He obviously did. It's a fair reply to 'suspicion' group now, isn't it?

I think some suspect we're not capable of taking responsibility for killing (I'm thinking the generalising iranu). That's a common belief, but stupidly obvious, and, I think, just an extension of bravado. Funny how any issue has an easy answer when you consult your balls though, isn't it?

Even if someone would rather not kill, or hate and question unnecessary death (like say, this one), they can still sanction killings which are the only option to save the greatest number of people. It's called reasoning.

[autopilot]

Rave, you've got it in your head that if the person shot dead is innocent that means the police/SAS/whoever must have cocked up. That simply isn't true. If they enforced the policy as ordered, they themselves did nothing wrong.

WTF, could you say that again please! Not only was it a cockup, it was a monumental cock like no other. What kind of a world would it be with that kind of thinking. The authorities must be acountable for everything they do. How on earth can killing an inocent man be anything other than a cock up? However, before you flame me, I have to say i agree with your overal statement that it's a question of policy. A shoot to kill policy probably should be in place right now. If what the police are saying is true, the SAS (yes, he was ex-SAS) guy should not lose his job. He was just doing his job. Seems like more of a failure of intel rather than policy too me. His actions, if we are getting the real truth feed to us, do seem odd. A tragic mistake indeed.

Something very fishy is going on here if you ask me. We now know that the guy was totally unconnected to the terrorists. Just a guy from Brazil who worked as an electrician. I suspect the police may be lying, or at least bending the truth in thier favour as usual. For all we know he maybe have just been running late to get his train, so the police hammed it up a little in thier favour. It just does not add up for me. Thier is obviously a lot more to all this.

Oh and Rave, get of yer soapbox mate. It's getting a little boring. Posting all those faces is just arrogant. No-one said "I'm glad an innocent man has been killed". Please don't insinuate people are either stupid or callus becausing they don't match up to your outstanding post-incident wisdom. And also don't flame people for simply speculating, even if it turns out they are wrong, because you do it all the time yourself. In fact you are doinf it right now - were you on that train?

[Swafe]

The guy deserved to be shot *awaits flaming from anti policy forumers*

From what I've heard, the cops saw him and he legged it (Obviously got something to hide from the cops right?) Anyway, he runs into a tube station (Wearing a big thick ski jacket in the middle of summer, which could of easily consealed something, for example, a bomb), he was a telecoms technician apparently (Which explains the wires hanging out, but still, why would you run into a tube station with wires hanging out of your jacket after the current events, asking for trouble)

Anyway, the police said not once, not twice, but 3 times, stop or we will shoot, not once did he listen, he just ran straight for packed tube, looking probably as supsicious as you could get in light of the cirumstances, I think the police did a good job, made a policy, and stuck to it, said we will shoot to kill, and they shot, to kill. Whether the man was innocent or not, it was very suspicious behavouir, and lead the police to belive something that might not have been true.

Would you run in a tube station after a few coppers, with guns shouted stop or we will shoot? Stupid man, at least it will be a lesson, innocent people wont do anything stupid now, and the terrorists know we won't take this shizzle lying down.

[iranu]

Fact is, plenty of people find it very easy to kill. The threat of punishment is all that holds back many. As for not being natural, well thats even more wrong. The self preservation instinct is as natural as you can get. So are fear, anger, hate, and the violence that often results.

During WW2 it was found by the military that only 2% of combat soldiers shot to kill the enemy and it is thought that that 2% may have been psychopaths i.e. they were having a good time. The rest (of the combat solidiers) either fired over the heads of the enemy or did other tasks such as fetch ammo, carry stretchers etc. This lead the US Marine Corps to change their training.

During the American civil war regiments were scoring 80% hits on targets ranges yet when it came to battle the number of enemy dead would range in the teens. There is an account of a soldiers weapon found to contain 17 musket shots. He stood in the line of fire and loaded his weapon repeatedly for almost 2 hours but did not fire.

During the Vietnam war, studies were carried out on usage of ammo with the aim of working out the armies combat effectiveness. It was found that 50% of soldiers were not fireing their weapons even in the heat of battle when you would think the "self preservation mode" would kick in.

The majority of human conflict whether fighting in the street or in combat is more posturing and bravado than killing. This is why the modern soldier is trained the way he is. The British army has a shoot to kill percentage of 98%

Talk to any psycologist (my source is a lecturer at Nottingham Uni - Dr Pierce) and they will tell you how lots of brain functions switch off and a more primeval part takes over under extreme stress. This part of the brain ensures that when the adrenaline is flowing you still have an animalistic instinct to protect other human beings.

Extreme situations like hand to hand combat, yes, the self preservation mode will kick in but in nearly all other situations it's the reverse unless you have been trained to kill.

[rajagra]

So Rave can't be 100% sure of anything, but you're sure the policy was OK?

Firstly, I'm saying you can never be 100% sure of anything in the real world. So setting that as the target is unreasonable.
Secondly, I never said "the policy" is OK. I don't know what "the policy" is. My 2nd paragraph gave an example of when I think it is right to shoot a suspect. It seems to apply in this case, but time will tell. There should be an enquiry.

we have to stop continually focussing on the the police/SAS/whoever carried out the final action. They don't decide policy

That's exactly what I'm saying.

Second, how can your good theoretical policy be 'forced' on us by the terrorists? If it was that good, why didn't we adopt it as a matter of course?

Because it's an anti-terrorist policy designed to deal with the current threat!

How on earth can killing an inocent man be anything other than a cock up?

Like I said, "You can have a good policy, applied correctly, that still leads to an innocent man being shot."

To disprove that, all you need to to is provide one example of an effective anti-terrorist policy that when followed to the letter in the field cannot possibly result in an innocent man being shot.

I await your response.

[nichomach]

PrivatePyle, the usual policy with police shootings is to aim for the centre of mass, that's to say the torso. It's a larger target and is thus easier to hit and is likely to prove immediately incapacitating. However, on advice from the Israeli security services this has been discontinued when the suspect is suspected of being a suicide bomber in case they are wearing an explosive waistcoat, due to the danger of detonating the device. Instead, as part of "Operation Kratos", officers are being instructed to shoot in the head, in order to immediately disrupt and destroy the central nervous system. So in that sense, it is a move to a "shoot to kill" policy with regard to terrorist suspects. In the '70s and '80s there was a tacitly acknowledged policy of what was termed "hard arrest". This basically meant that if you knew that the IRA/INLA/whoever was actively engaged on a job, then shooting them was chosen rather than arresting them, as with the "Active Service Unit" that was shot on Gibraltar. It didn't mean assassination, just a more frequent resort to lethal force.

[iranu]

I doubt there is a shoot to kill policy, its more likely "use your training and make your own judgements"

To quote Sir Ian Blair the Met Police Chief.

"But he said the "shoot to kill" policy for dealing with suspected suicide bombers would remain in force."

From the bbc http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4712061.stm

[autopilot]

Like I said, "You can have a good policy, applied correctly, that still leads to an innocent man being shot."

To disprove that, all you need to to is provide one example of an effective anti-terrorist policy that when followed to the letter in the field cannot possibly result in an innocent man being shot.

I await your response.

I'm not really disagreeing with you in anyway, just the simple fact that I would classify that as a mistake, i.e. a cock-up, even the the policy was right and carried out in the best interests of the public. Maybe it was the officers fault, maybe his commanders, maybe even the guy that got killed (ultimately its the fault of the terrorists). A terrible mistake, a cock-up. There is no logical sence in saying it was not a mistake. Even the police admit that, while rightly standing by the policy. In my mind, it's 100% the right policy in these horrific times. But even when implemented properly mistakes will be made, no policy can be 100% effective all of the time (in fact if you think about it, it has a 100% failure rate right now!). I would hope the officer would do the same thing again in a simular situation (hoping that they were actual terrorists then). All that is of course dependent on if we are actually being told the whole truth.

The guy deserved to be shot *awaits flaming from anti policy forumers*

How about a flaming from a pro-policy forumer then; Thats twisted mate. Have a little respect. No-one deserves to die for such a silly mistake, thats one f***ked up statement to make. I think it a little sad and insensitive. People do daft things, we are human. Sad thing is we will never know what went though his mind <DON'T insert joke about a 9mm here>.

We don't know the full details, and you can be sure as hell we will have a carefully worded and filtered version of events at best. To be fair, i think it unlikely that you really ment that the way it look's, "deserved" is certainly the wrong word there mate.

At the end of the day, Jean Charles de Menezes's life was ended by the same people who took all those lives on the 7th of July.

[nichomach]

It's worth bearing in mind that the guy was from Brazil; now with the best will in the world, they don't have the greatest record in terms of firearms use by the police (matter of fact my wife knows someone who's been working with one of their prosecutors who's trying to get the police to stop just killing streetkids). You come from an environment like that and are suddenly confronted by a load of guys in plain clothes pointing guns at you and even if you understand that they're police officers (he'd have been first language Portuguese, second language Spanish in all probability), that doesn't mean that your first (and in light of what you may have seen in your home country very sensible) reaction isn't going to be to run like **** as fast as possible away from them.

[equivalent]

Yes, I was hinting at the same myself nichomach, you've explained it well. There's also a greater chance of running into gangs in Brazil (not police, iranu).

Why the hell do these discussions always degenerate into 'what I would do if I was faced with a terrorist?' It's just fantasizing.

The important point isn't personal, it's political. Yet even the question of policy gets bent around into the shoot to kill scenario. You can have policy about what to do with intelligence. It's there to stop people's intuition deciding someone is a suspect on insufficient evidence, and calling out the hit squad. It's there to provide a procedure like surrounding the suspect's house first, especially if you don't know who you're looking for. I'm not saying that (should have) certainly happened here, but there are serious questions which may just disappear in the current climate.

btw iranu, I wouldn't talk to any psychologist, I'd talk to a neuroscientist if I were you. The idea of 'more ancient' parts of the brain is 60's stuff, all parts are the same evolutionary 'age'. The really simple defensive parts of the brain lead you to hit out wildly at anything that touches you (rare cases of epilepsy have led to this behaviour).

And I seriously doubt the evolutionary advantage of being heroic. And desperate self preservation would not be rational or selective enough either. Regions will naturally switch off as you focus attention, and overcome frontal inhibition. And the training, I suspect, is mainly to achieve the latter.
A primaeval state of mind is not a good defence legally, either.

And before you ask, iranu, yes, I am a neuroscientist.

[oralpain]

Did this guy even speak english? How long had he been in the UK? I've heard surprisingly little about him.

During WW2 it was found by the military that only 2% of combat soldiers shot to kill the enemy and it is thought that that 2% may have been psychopaths i.e. they were having a good time. The rest (of the combat solidiers) either fired over the heads of the enemy or did other tasks such as fetch ammo, carry stretchers etc. This lead the US Marine Corps to change their training.

During the American civil war regiments were scoring 80% hits on targets ranges yet when it came to battle the number of enemy dead would range in the teens. There is an account of a soldiers weapon found to contain 17 musket shots. He stood in the line of fire and loaded his weapon repeatedly for almost 2 hours but did not fire.

During the Vietnam war, studies were carried out on usage of ammo with the aim of working out the armies combat effectiveness. It was found that 50% of soldiers were not fireing their weapons even in the heat of battle when you would think the "self preservation mode" would kick in.

The majority of human conflict whether fighting in the street or in combat is more posturing and bravado than killing. This is why the modern soldier is trained the way he is. The British army has a shoot to kill percentage of 98%

Talk to any psycologist (my source is a lecturer at Nottingham Uni - Dr Pierce) and they will tell you how lots of brain functions switch off and a more primeval part takes over under extreme stress. This part of the brain ensures that when the adrenaline is flowing you still have an animalistic instinct to protect other human beings.

Extreme situations like hand to hand combat, yes, the self preservation mode will kick in but in nearly all other situations it's the reverse unless you have been trained to kill.

I am well aware of these "statistics", but I hardly thing all of them examples you have shown were the norm. Many civil war battles resulted in a singificant number of fatalities. Still, even if accurate overall, 2% of people is still a very significant number.

As you have mentioned, very little of this now applies to modern military (and to a lesser extent, police) forces. Most militaries' of first world countries have a very high rate of involvement. It is obvious that "psychopaths", as some people put it, are of far more use in combat, so this is what modern training is designed to make, "psychopaths" that follow orders.

I think your perspective on the self preservation instinct is flawed. Self preservation in the heat of combat can be many things. It can be killing who ever is shooting at you, it can be hiding, or it can be killing who ever is keeping you from getting out of this situation. Training exists to either supress instinct, so real though can command one's actions, or to produce the "correct" conditioned response (ie, not running, not hiding, not shooting your CO in head, but attacking the enemy).

Personaly, I think psychiatry (and to a lesser extent psycology) is a false science and almost total BS. I put it in the same category as astrology. Not a single thing about it is objective, it's all opinion, and it's all based on societal/cultrual perceptions, which are fantastically biased. I'm a "psychopath" then being a psychopath is obviously a good thing, cause I've got no regrets and I like being who I am.

I certainly have never felt an instictual desire to protect other human beings is a stressful (or any other) situation. In fact such a suggestion seems ludicrous (and more than slightly offensive) to me. I will protectthose i personally know and like because I have willfully decided to, not for any other reason. I've never been one to display much bravado, or to bluff, or posture. I act. I make a judgement about what would be best for me in a given situation and I do it. Foreplay sucks. I do have far fewer qualms about resorting to violence (if I think I can win/survive) than many people. I do not think this has much to do with my innate disposition, and I've certainly never been trained. A little bit of trial and error in a sometimes harsh world can make anyone overcome these types of hesitation. I learned early that you don't walk away from a fight unless your foe is restrained or is hurt to the point where they cannot get up. I learned that jsut casue you fight fair or hold back, does not mean that anyone else will. Hesitation and restraint are mistakes, if you are unlucky and run into an enemy that knows this, you could very well wind up dead. I always assume that everyone I run into is one of those 2% who have zero problem with, or throughly enjoy violence, and will have no problems shooting me, stabbing me, or tearing me limb from limb, if they think they might beable to, if I give them even the faintest pretense to do so. I have learned that showing strength I do not have (as someone is always waiting to test it), or showing the weaknesses I do (as someone always waiting to take advantage of it), attracts attention of the worst kind.

[SilentDeath]

I dont agree with the policy at all, but I dont think the officers themselves can be blamed for what happened. i think they should learn from this and make a compleatly new policy as one is obviously needed.

They should have confronted him earlyer, imo. To let him actually get on the train, was stupid. What about the people outside the train? or at the gates where you put your ticket in? they are usually quite busy and he could have detonated it there.

I think to kill him when he has already got to what-they-thought was the target, is just wrong. The WHOLE station could be a target, becuase it would be busy. Its not just the trains that have people on them He was clearly just trying to get away from them and would have had plenty of opotunity to detonate earlyer if he was really a bomber.

As for shooting people at range with a pistol - it cant accuratly be done. However they should have had a sniper ready to take a ranged shot - And should have confronted him BEFORE the station. They should be armed properly for the situation they might encounter.

Maybe he ran becuase he thought he could get away? if it was very public where he was confronted, the police would not shoot (WHY didnt they?). they said stop or we will shoot, but he still managed to run 50-100 meters? before he fell over on the train.

[iranu]

The reason they didn't stop him earlier was they were tailing him to see if he lead them to any of the bombers. Only when he got near the train station did they think they had a suicide bomber. That was when he was challenged.

If this bloke had been a bomber we would all be cheering the police on - good work old chap - saved alot of people today - bravo.

equivalent - yes my friend actually teaches in Neuroscience I got that wrong although he does have a degree in psychology - my bad. http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/neurosci...irce_jon.phtml

I think we should also realise the unbeleivable pressure on a policeman who carries a gun. Especially under the circumstances we have seen. I'm sure that the officer in question woke up on Friday and never dreamed that he would kill someone later that day. He will be going through an awful period (irrespective of whether the guy killed is innocent or not.) I am very glad that we have people in this country willing to accept the responsibility and hence the consequence of carrying a gun in their job.

My own father's justification for having to carry one was that the terms were dictated by the terrorists actions. If people weren't trying to kill him or the general public he would not of had to carry one.

Can I ask Silentdeath what should be in the new policy for police who confront suicide bombers?