Originally Posted by Manc

as I said, I don't blame the police, I blame the gov't and the shoot to kill policy.

Originally Posted by Sally

One would hope the intel was slightly more detailed than "swarthy-looking 'erbert alert".

Originally Posted by Rushman

That was me adding a Rushism....was getting too serious and its too late for a serious discussion.

Originally Posted by Manc

as I said, I don't blame the police, I blame the gov't and the shoot to kill policy.

Originally Posted by Dogbyte

So according to some voicing their opinion on this, we should disband the Police armed units fully as they are incompetent and unable to carry out firearm duties effectively.
In future then, if an armed incident arises call out the Army. After all the Police is responsible for maintaining law and order within the community.Insurrection/Acts of war within a country is surely the Army's job.Bring out the tanks, I say !!

Originally Posted by Scouse Express

I think some people are living in the past, when it comes to the Police. The days of Dixon of Dock Green are long gone, thanks to the threat of Terrorism and the Drug Wars that plague the UK.

Evenin' All!


Jim.

Originally Posted by another bloody yank

I'm no cop, but I doubt that it's usually the first response, it depends on the situation I'm sure. Put yourself in the mind of the cops, if you've been told that a man has just shot someone and is certainly armed and very dangerous, then late that night you stop a man fitting that suspect's description exactly, you're going to very keyed up and the thought that he is going to pull a pistol and fire on you is playing over and over in your mind until you've practically convinced yourself it's going to happen. Then he ignores your command to raise his arms and instead quickly reaches inside his jacket pulls an object out. You fire and he falls dead. Turns out that he was a foreign national that did not speak english and was removing his ID from his pocket.

I know police train using scenarios just like that, but that isn't going to stop such incidents all the time. Especially with a young, inexperienced officer. We had just such an incident in a nearby town a few years ago. Two men dead, and the officer went to trial for manslaughter. I think he was aquitted by a jury, IIRC. EDIT: Aquitted, but settled a civil suit with another civil suit pending http://www.columbiamissourian.com/st...amilies-grief/

BTW I don't know the ins and outs of the particular case that is the original topic, I'm just giving general information based on my very limited knowlege of such things.

Originally Posted by Dogbyte

The shoot to kill policy has always been denied and I for one do not know why. There are rules of engagement in any conflict and terrorists acts on British soil is a conflict. Why not state if you are found committing a terrrorist act YOU will be shot and then no one can misunderstand.This is yet another example of Britain dogooders seeking excuses to justify wrongdoers actions.

Originally Posted by Ray

I never heard of a shoot to wound policy ...
and if I had shot to wound I would have failed any firearm course.

Originally Posted by hatfield1

Shwww….man I glad your not a cop I guess I don’t have hid my bong from you anymore.
My new motto is F**k ‘m shoot’m all, if someone complains shoot them to.

Originally Posted by Bob

That's the attitude

Originally Posted by Michaelmike5556

hit an one of the main arties that run through the legs and thighs you can bleed to death in under a min

Originally Posted by Michaelmike5556

hit an one of the main arties that run through the legs and thighs you can bleed to death in under a min