English police lay down the law

lemansky · 13-09-2007 2:03pm #1

A few searches told me that this hasn't been posted yet, but if it has been...then apologies.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1283944,00.html

Damn straight.

Let's hope that the officers involved don't get second guessed by all the bleeding hearts, like they would here.

garthv · 13-09-2007 2:04pm

English police officers shoot to kill now?

Britain will turn into George Orwell's 1984 before you know it.

Hellm0 · 13-09-2007 2:09pm

Cant say I approve either ^^

Oriel · 13-09-2007 2:10pm

The scumbags got that they deserved.

lemansky · 13-09-2007 2:12pm

Well shooting to disarm isn't always appropriate. If there is a way around it then yes shoot to wound, but if not, like if they point guns at you, then you don't give them a second chance.You need to put them down.*

It's easy to say shoot to wound here in front of a computer.

EDIT:* I would imagine that this is what happened.They don't kill for no reason. It's not worth the stress. Police officers have resigned over the resulting enquiries over shootings.

Wacker · 13-09-2007 2:14pm

I'd always prefer to see a bank robbery end with the perps being arrested, but if the guys are armed, it is certainly better to have dead criminals than police officers or civilians.

I hope the third guy gets picked up quickly.

lemansky · 13-09-2007 2:15pm

Wacker wrote:

I'd always prefer to see a bank robbery end with the perps being arrested, but if the guys are armed, it is certainly better to have dead criminals than police officers or civilians.

I hope the third guy gets picked up quickly.

Exactly. They are given a chance to drop their weapons, but if they don't, they make their own luck.

FranchisePlayer · 13-09-2007 2:16pm

Well to be honest I think the police did the right thing who knows how many people could have got hurt if it had turned into a full blown shootout like that bank robbery in america with the two lads with over a 1000 rounds of ammunition and two ak-47's..

Hellm0 · 13-09-2007 2:16pm

A witness in the article (a woman in that bath?) said she heard three gunshots after she heard someone shout "get down!".

Three gunshots, two robbers dead. That means that either one got shot twice or one of the deceased let a shot off. If she he a shot off at the cops fair enough, they were under threat. Tbh though theres not enough information to make a judgement call on it anyway. I just dont like hearing about folks getting gunned down.

Ce la vie

lemansky · 13-09-2007 2:19pm

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.

Firing in bursts of two, double tapping, is also normal. If they choose to fire once, it's their choice. But two bullets into one aremd robber is justifiable.

FranchisePlayer · 13-09-2007 2:22pm

Hellm0 wrote:

I just dont like hearing about folks getting gunned down.

Ce la vie

Yeah man that is valid point but these people were armed and were obviusly going to commit a crime it is not like they a shooting children for no god damn reason

ejmaztec · 13-09-2007 2:34pm

I'm just waiting for some smart defence-lawyers to sue the police for loss of earnings.

Dave! · 13-09-2007 2:41pm

Good form outa the police...

Can't stand when people are up in arms about the police shooting to kill. Some morons expect the coppers to shoot the gun out of the robber's hand and bring them to trial. Nice theory, but if someone has a gun and isn't shy about using it on innocent people, then they should be taken down in whatever way is necessary.

BTW, I think there's a video floating about somewhere that shows coppers actually shooting a gun outa someone's hand! Pretty sweet

Hellm0 · 13-09-2007 2:48pm

The discharge of a firearm is fully justifiable in case of self defense or defense of the public however if you look to the recent attempted bankrobbery in sandyford, there were no wounded by gunfire. From the sounds of this robbery they did have some forewarning, my only concern is whether this was handled in a professional manner by those involved. Of course I, a member of the public leave questions suchs as that to the officers involved it is always worth an investigation when a member of the police force does have to shoot a member of the public(especially when he feels it nessecary to "double tap")

PS. I know what double tapping is. I've fired a few guns in my time thx:P

cjt156 · 13-09-2007 2:48pm

DaveMcG wrote:

Good form outa the police...

BTW, I think there's a video floating about somewhere that shows coppers actually shooting a gun outa someone's hand! Pretty sweet

That video's been shown on "When America's Dumbest Skangers Strike Back!!!" or whatever.
Long term standoff with a guy expecting to be shot - sniper shoots the handgun clean out of his hand. Not a scratch on the nutter.

About the above story; Reap the Whirlwind IMHO.

joe_chicken · 13-09-2007 2:48pm

If you use a gun, expect to get shot.

lemansky · 13-09-2007 2:49pm

DaveMcG wrote:

Good form outa the police...

Can't stand when people are up in arms about the police shooting to kill. Some morons expect the coppers to shoot the gun out of the robber's hand and bring them to trial. Nice theory, but if someone has a gun and isn't shy about using it on innocent people, then they should be taken down in whatever way is necessary.

BTW, I think there's a video floating about somewhere that shows coppers actually shooting a gun outa someone's hand! Pretty sweet

People watch too many films Dave:D

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=5_RfhDY8NME

It's not the one I had in mind, but it'll do:)

lemansky · 13-09-2007 2:53pm

HellmO, I was't trying to lecture you:D

It's just that you pointed out that 3 shots were fired, and you know yourself how people will cry out at how they weren't given a chance when they were hit twice. The comment wasn't aimed at you, you just put me in the mind to point it out to others who don't know.

Hellm0 · 13-09-2007 2:59pm

I didnt take offense but thanks for the retraction:P

I just dont like people gloating over what may have been avoidable deaths. Prison is far more suitable a punishment for criminals as after all, death from a gunshot is(for the most part) quite quick. 20 years in prison is a tad more....painful:P

MrPudding · 13-09-2007 3:02pm

lemansky wrote:

People watch too many films Dave:D

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=5_RfhDY8NME

It's not the one I had in mind, but it'll do:)

I remember that one on tv, quite the shot. Much easier to do that kind of thing when you have time to prepare.

In a situation which is very fast moving and there is real risk of the bad guys shooting, shooting to wound is idiotic and amount to dereliction of duty. Very careful though should be given to whether or not to shoot, but once the decision has been made the shot should be to kill.

MrP

pid() · 13-09-2007 3:03pm

The cops that busted that raid in Sandyford should take note of this.

lemansky · 13-09-2007 3:04pm

Agreed. I would have preferred a different outcome, but they seem to have been given warning, so the gunmen decided the outcomes for themselves.

I mean the units involved are excellent, so they only would have done what was necessary. I prefer to see dead perps than dead officers. It also shows that when needed to, the police will not hesitate, so it sends out a message to those who think that they can turn on the police.

RoyalMarine · 13-09-2007 3:05pm

every police should shoot to kill.

and the guardai should be armed.

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.

oh, and just noticed. the security van belongs to group 4

i work for them and i would prefer the police kill the armed robbers incase the robbers decide to use hostages as leverage over the police.
hostages = civilians and group4 personnel

lemansky · 13-09-2007 3:08pm

MrPudding wrote:

I remember that one on tv, quite the shot. Much easier to do that kind of thing when you have time to prepare.

In a situation which is very fast moving and there is real risk of the bad guys shooting, shooting to wound is idiotic and amount to dereliction of duty. Very careful though should be given to whether or not to shoot, but once the decision has been made the shot should be to kill.

MrP

Couldn't agree more. What you had there was a still situation where people had the time to take stock of everything and prepare. Then a sniper did it, with a rifle.

The officers who shot today were probably not holding sniper rifles, were dealing with a tense, dynamic, high risk situation involving people who were a real threat to them. Shooting to wound would not have worked very well and would have been careless.

seamus · 13-09-2007 3:11pm

MrPudding wrote:

In a situation which is very fast moving and there is real risk of the bad guys shooting, shooting to wound is idiotic and amount to dereliction of duty. Very careful though should be given to whether or not to shoot, but once the decision has been made the shot should be to kill.

Agreed. The protocol in such situations for most police forces around the world is to aim for the torso/chest.
Aiming to disarm may result in escalating the situation. Imagine a copper aims to disarm, and manages to graze the guy's shoulder. The guy has an uzi in his hand, he's going to just open fire.

There's also the very real possibility that if the copper misses, someone else may get hit by the stray bullet.

Police forces should aim to use as few bullets as possible and prioritise the lives of everyone else. If an armed robber has fired his weapon (even a warning shot), then he's signed his own death warrant. They get one warning and no hesitation.

MrJoeSoap · 13-09-2007 3:11pm

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? And then promoted the commander in charge of the MURDER to Deputy Assistant Commisioner.

Nobody was ever charged.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Charles_de_Menezes

Pompey Magnus · 13-09-2007 3:15pm

So Britain has reintroduced the death penalty, but this time without a right to trial. Great news indeed.

Turner · 13-09-2007 3:15pm

RoyalMarineComm wrote:

every police should shoot to kill.

It is always shoot to kill.

There is no such thing as shoot to injure.

Turner · 13-09-2007 3:18pm

Depeche_Mode wrote:

So Britain has reintroduced the death penalty, but this time without a right to trial. Great news indeed.

God not this brigade again...

IF one of these robbers had a gun to your head would you like a police marksman to terminate him?? Sorry i mean "give him the death penalty without trial" :rolleyes

Or hope that the drug crazed robber decides not to kill you and go down in a blaze of bullets.

Zambia · 13-09-2007 3:21pm

Anybody who shoots to wound has no business with a firearm.

These officers have to live with the fact they have killed someone because a few w*nkers couldn't obey simple instructions.

If you shoot someone you take away all they where and all they ever will be.

Pompey Magnus · 13-09-2007 3:24pm

Chief--- wrote:

God not this brigade again...

IF one of these robbers had a gun to your head would you like a police marksman to terminate him?? Sorry i mean "give him the death penalty without trial" :rolleyes

Or hope that the drug crazed robber decides not to kill you and go down in a blaze of bullets.

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

MrJoeSoap · 13-09-2007 3:36pm

Chief--- wrote:

God not this brigade again...

IF one of these robbers had a gun to your head would you like a police marksman to terminate him?? Sorry i mean "give him the death penalty without trial" :rolleyes

Or hope that the drug crazed robber decides not to kill you and go down in a blaze of bullets.

And on the slight off-chance they get it wrong and "terminate" the wrong person? What do they do then? You can't undo murdering someone.

You can try and cover it up and offer £585,000 in compensation I suppose.

Zambia · 13-09-2007 3:37pm

Depeche_Mode wrote:

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

Poor lad , wrong place wrong time. However you can hardly compare his shooting to this.

Dave! · 13-09-2007 3:39pm

MrJoeSoap wrote:

And on the slight off-chance they get it wrong and "terminate" the wrong person? What do they do then? You can't undo murdering someone.

You can try and cover it up and offer £585,000 in compensation I suppose.

You got a better idea when faced with a possible suicide bomber other than shooting them dead? Shoot their hands off?

MrJoeSoap · 13-09-2007 3:41pm

DaveMcG wrote:

You got a better idea when faced with a possible suicide bomber other than shooting them dead? Shoot their hands off?

Who was the possible suicide bomber?

Pompey Magnus · 13-09-2007 3:43pm

Zambia232 wrote:

Poor lad , wrong place wrong time. However you can hardly compare his shooting to this.

Wrong place, wrong time, wrong skin colour. I don't see why you can't compare the two. The police shot him because they assumed he was going to blow a train up, they got it completely wrong and ended up killing an innocent young man.

If people are willing to accept the police using lethal force then they must be willing to accept innocent people being shot dead by the police also.

Dave! · 13-09-2007 3:46pm

MrJoeSoap wrote:

Who was the possible suicide bomber?

Jean Charles de Menezes, as far as the officers were aware.

Pompey Magnus · 13-09-2007 3:48pm

DaveMcG wrote:

You got a better idea when faced with a possible suicide bomber other than shooting them dead? Shoot their hands off?

I wonder would you be saying that if you were of Middle Eastern origin? Luckily for us Grahan Norton and Dermot O'Leary etc have made the Irish cool and pretty liked over in England, otherwise it'd be back to the 70s and 80s of "Oh no, evil Irish IRA terrorist, kill him, kill him"

MrJoeSoap · 13-09-2007 3:52pm

DaveMcG wrote:

Jean Charles de Menezes, as far as the officers were aware.

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.

robinph · 13-09-2007 3:53pm

Depeche_Mode wrote:

Luckily for us Grahan Norton and Dermot O'Leary etc have made the Irish cool and pretty liked over in England, otherwise it'd be back to the 70s and 80s of "Oh no, evil Irish IRA terrorist, kill him, kill him"

Whereas now they just point and laugh instead.

8k2q1gfcz9s5d4 · 13-09-2007 3:53pm

GaRtH_V wrote:

English police officers shoot to kill now?

Britain will turn into George Orwell's 1984 before you know it.

would you prefer if they didnt shoot him and were killed?

Boston · 13-09-2007 3:54pm

And what about the 12 year old kids shoot dead afew weeks ago. You critise but whats your solultion? Armed police are needed and shoot to injure isn't viable.

humanji · 13-09-2007 3:55pm

Depeche_Mode wrote:

I wonder would you be saying that if you were of Middle Eastern origin? Luckily for us Grahan Norton and Dermot O'Leary etc have made the Irish cool and pretty liked over in England, otherwise it'd be back to the 70s and 80s of "Oh no, evil Irish IRA terrorist, kill him, kill him"

For the love of f***! The man was, in the eyes of the police, acting suspiciously, when told to stop, he ran. This was the day after a terrorist attack. So the cops had a choice: Stop the man in anyway they could and as quickly as they could, or let him run away and possibly explode a bomb, killing many people.

The cops were terrified that this man was going to kill himself, them and anyone near. They had little choice but to kill him. Would you have the same objections if he really was a terrorist?

KamiKazi · 13-09-2007 3:56pm

They deserved it, good riddance.

seamus · 13-09-2007 3:56pm

MrJoeSoap wrote:

And on the slight off-chance they get it wrong and "terminate" the wrong person? What do they do then? You can't undo murdering someone.

You can try and cover it up and offer £585,000 in compensation I suppose.

So even when someone is running out of a bank with alarms going off, people screaming and waving a gun around, you would prefer that the officers remembered the "innocent until proven guilty" rule and refrained from protecting innocent people?

It's quite simple:

You get a warning to stop, drop the weapong, or you will be shot. An innocent person will think, "Well golly-gee, I haven't done anything wrong so I think I'll stop and do exactly what the guy with the gun tells me". If the person fails to comply with the warning, that in my mind is sufficient proof that they intend to use the weapon.

The very fact that after the shooting, officers were attempting to resuscitate one of the men proves adequately to me that they're not just trigger happy plods, but people who did what they thought was the right thing at the time.

Here's a question: Have you got a better idea? Let them run off with their weapons and money and get away with it?

Orange69 · 13-09-2007 3:59pm

KamiKazi wrote:

They deserved it, good riddance.

++

I get a warm feeling when i hear about a couple of bags of human scum being liquidated..

Pity the authorities in Ireland are not as serious about law and order as those guys...

Dragan · 13-09-2007 4:00pm

GaRtH_V wrote:

English police officers shoot to kill now?

Pretty much any armed officer is trained to aim for center mass, so pretty much all of them are shooting to kill.

Guns are not for tickling people with, they are for killing people. Who knew?

MrJoeSoap · 13-09-2007 4:02pm

Dragan wrote:

Pretty much any armed officer is trained to aim for center mass, so pretty much all of them are shooting to kill.

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

lemansky · 13-09-2007 4:17pm

MrJoeSoap wrote:

Or the head, if they think the person is a suicide bomber.

Correct. If it were possible to size up a head shot when faced with this situation I would take it.

Here was me thinking that you were trying to be smart, when in fact after I reflected on the comment I see that you're actually a tactical genius.

seamus · 13-09-2007 4:23pm

I don't see why you feel the need to compare the two incidents Mr Soap. They're clearly a million miles apart.

lemansky · 13-09-2007 4:29pm

seamus wrote:

I don't see why you feel the need to compare the two incidents Mr Soap. They're clearly a million miles apart.

They're trying to make the point that they don't like it when armed police officers actually practice their trade, much in the same way that whenever anyone gets shot by the Gardaí in this country, we're met with "but...but....but.....Abbeylara....incompetence......shíte training.....Gardaí must have done something wrong"

We could dwell on the odd situation that has question marks, or we could remember that they face armed confrontation everyday and they manage perfectly well.When they are forced to play their hand though some people don't like it.

But don't try and tell them that seamus.

English police lay down the law

Comments