snowbunny

Then you and I agree, really. However, if it was unclear in my mind that the suspect had be correctly identified, I could not in good faith go through with the shoot-to-kill policy. If we are going to presume "innocent until proven guilty," or even "reasonable doubt" -- if there was a reasonable doubt in my mind that the suspect might not have been identified correctly, I would not have shot. I would have continued to follow him, but I wouldn't have shot. I would have detained him and pulled the emergency stop and gotten off at Stockwell Station, gone above ground and to questioning.

Now, those of you thinking "yeah but what if he was about to blow up the carriage....." .... what can I say? You'd better have a very damned good profile, preferrably the identity of a suspect, before you can issue shoot-to-kill orders on someone. In this case neither was true.

Brit'n'TX

so ... you think the surveillance officer should have had somebody take over when he went for a pee?

anotherlimey

Well we give them the training and trust they can make the right decision at the time.

The more I think about it the more I feel sorry for the guys who had to pull the trigger; they aren't cold blooded killers, they're just like you and me, they've got families to go back to and they probably feel sorry for the Brazilian's family too.

I can't imagine I'd ever want to make the same decisions as they had to; they'll probably have nightmares and flashbacks just like some soldiers do after returning from war.

All for, what, maybe £30,000 a year? I don't know exactly but it's probably not much.

paddingtongreen

For the ones who are at peace, there are other markers, but overall, I don't disagree. But then how do you distinguish them from everyone else?

ImHere

What you mean they arent unfeeling robots?!

About 30k not a lot more.

ImHere

With great difficulty. And there in lies the rub.

Heres the scenario:

Its the day after more attempted bombings and intelligence suggests more attacks may well occur.

You are in London and are tailing someone who almost fits a profile but not quite, but intel has id'd as a possible. Its a hot summers day but he's wearing a jacket. He enters a crowded public area in fact the very area that has just been and still is a target. Are they acting suspicisiously? Maybe a little, maybe not. As you follow them your comms go out. So you are now flying solo...its your call. They head down to the station platform which is crowded and noisy. You call out to them but they ignore you or dont hear you. A train pulls in and the doors open. The guy looks around sees you but doesnt pay any attention and climbs aboard. As soon as he gets on the crowded train he starts glancing around..is he looking for a seat or looking for somewhere to pull a trigger? Its hot sweaty noisy and full of innocent people going about their business. You call out again to him but again he ignores you even though he is only a couple of feet away. As you reach out to him he steps towards a seat...next to it is a mother and child. He glances around, reaches into a pocket and.... WHAT DO YOU DO NOW? Your heart is thumping, you can hear the rush of blood in your ears. Tunnel vision kicks in and all the noise fades away. Its just you and him for a split second...

...for a split second....

Is it a mobile phone he's going for? If it is and you dont pull the trigger then good call. If it isnt (and intel suggests it may not be) and you dont pull the trigger, you and 50 other people are dead and dying IN A SPLIT SECOND.

To all those critics....WHAT DO YOU DO in that split second?

snowbunny

I agree with you. I do feel sorry for them, because they were the business end of a bad decision, and they took someone's life. I hope that they receive the psychological care that they are doubtless going to need, and if they need to retire, that they are allowed early retirement, or a transfer to a job that is less stressful.

Brit'n'TX

fortunately, very few, if any here, will ever be in that terrible position - I, for one, think the shoot to kill policy is a terrible but necessary consequence of the bombings BUT it is indefensible to brush off the death of an innocent bystander with "tough luck - he shouldn't have been there anyway"! is human life that cheap?

how many of our families would not press for compensation, if it were one of us? what the ***** are we afraid of? a rash of people acting suspiciously on purpose, in the hope of getting compensation for their families?

anotherlimey

Some posts make me wonder what people think they are.

Lion in Winter

Perhaps you should take up writing novels.

ImHere

No. Im just fairly adept at desriibing things. Not telling stories.

Dont see any answers though.

Mercedes

You don't thats the problem, Al Quaida picks people who don't have criminal records, just people who appear ordinary and living every day lifes, they have often had no contact with any known terrorists or criminals. Thats why they are popular with Al Quaida. That suicide bomber could be a woman/child or man. They are targeting students, people who are young and may be depressed and disallusioned with life. Computer students are one of the areas. Normal everyday, student from a nice family, studying. The other thing is some are recruited via the internet and they can make bombs at home. It might not be a bomb but a chemical agent, easy to make and cheap, can do as much damage as a bomb. Think what a university student can do with access to a lab. What about bilogical weapons, the reactors are being made smaller, so easier now to carry, that may be not a so distance future threat.

Al Quaida intelligence is often better than our Security services, they will have plants in the police etc as well, so they will sometimes know what intelligence they have got and on who. Who cares if one lot are caught, there are other dominant cells to activate and more recruits who are willing to step into anothers shoes. Its the biggest problem they are having in Iraq is that the intelligence is very good. Whatever counter measures they put in the terrorists just change their tactics. They like to see how people react to one scenario and the next one will be totally different.

With open borders the unknown Terrorists can float in an out as they please, who knows who they are meeting when they leave, and often no one is aware of who is back in again. I go through Europe all the time, half the time they don't even check my passport. Think how many illegal people are living in the country and people do bring their prejudices, and history of hates with other nationalities with them and that also includes us.

Today someone may *appear*to be a "innocent" student, electritian, teacher, woman, child with nothing on them, tommorrow they will/could be a suicide bomber travelling the same routine they normally do, with no criminal record etc, with the aim to kill and maim as many people as they can, that unfortunately is the reality our security services are having to deal with. I feel sorry for anyone who has to make a decision to pull that trigger to try and save as many lives as they can, at the same praying that it is the right one.

Lion in Winter

I don't see how you can describe something when you were not present and have not been in that situation. Then it's just fiction - we can all imagine as well as you.

Said everything I had to say yesterday, and, in fact, several times before that.

Don't see any point in going in circles.

The discussion, as far as I'm concerned, is about what went wrong and what has to happen so it doesn't occur again. That's about it.

Lion in Winter

Well 99.9999999999999999999999999999% of them are innocent students, electricians and teachers. We don't want them shot, do we?

If it comes down to a decision being a matter of prayer then we are all in big trouble.

paddingtongreen

I kept your last paragraph because that is the crux of the matter. I am less worried about the capabilities than you but that is perception, not evidence. Iraq is a different case because, whatever George and Tony say; to the Iraqis, they are an occupied country, and most of the insurgency is indigenous, so it's not surprising that are as successful as they are. The coalition forces started using the "Malaya Protocol" but the American military seems to be moving away from it. It does take time but it works.

Your last para. spells out the dilemma, but finish it with a protocol. how many mistaken deaths can be tolerated in the absence of an attack; how many if there is an attack? Fighting almost any insurgency is necessarily reactive rather than proactive because you can't guard against every possibility.