Yes
13% (4 votes)
Yes
13% (4 votes)
No
37% (11 votes)
No
37% (11 votes)
Total votes: 30
User login
Author Information
Poll
Why have you visited this website?
To check for updates
11%
Read posts
39%
Contribute to discussions
6%
Share content
3%
Social media brought me here
6%
Tis fate
35%
Total votes: 632
Active forum topics
Recent blog posts
Upcoming Events
- 21 Apr 2024 - 11:00 to 16:00
- 5 May 2024 - 11:00 to 16:30
Quick Links
Who's online
There are currently 0 users online.
SALAAM
[b]SHOOT TO KILL?[/b]
Everyone is talking about the death of an innocent man who was shot and killed by police officers last Friday. The police are now implementing a 'shoot to kill' policy.
What do YOU think about this and the death of Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes? Are the police implementing a tough strategy that protects all our lives OR is this policy simply going too far in taking away the very freedoms we so love in Britain? Have your say....
WASALAAM
Police say more innocents could die in bomb hunt
LONDON (Reuters) - Police say more members of the public could be shot in error as they escalate their battle against terrorism and hunt for four men who tried to set off explosions on London's transport system last week.
The warning comes after police, who are engaged in one of the biggest manhunts in the country's history, mistakenly shot dead a Brazilian man on Friday, thinking he was a suicide bomber.
"This is a terrifying set of circumstances for individuals to make decisions," Blair told Sky News television. "Somebody else could be shot."
Electrician Jean Charles de Menezes, 27, was shot five times in the head after being chased on to an underground train by undercover police, witnesses said.
The shooting has sparked intense debate about the shoot-to-kill policy in a country which takes prides in having a largely unarmed police force. Only 10 percent of police in London routinely carry weapons.
"A mistake was clearly made which will be regretted forever," he told the BBC. "But I don't think that means that they are wrong to have a policy (to deal) with these appalling circumstances."
Police said Menezes had been followed from a block of flats in south London which had been under surveillance since the July 21 attacks and was shot after running away from armed police who had ordered him to stop.
[url=http://uk.news.yahoo.com/050725/325/fo2x5.html]Yahoo[/url]
NO ONE should be shot in "error" in their hunt for the terrorists.
How on Earth can they ressure the public by telling them that this may happen again?
Its like what Irfan pointed out, who should one fear more?
I've been travelling to Central London even after the 7/7 but after this fatal error by the police I have no inclination to go there any time soon.
I don't agree with the policy on the whole, but at the same time I do feel the Met have a huge amount of pressure on them not just from the authorities but from the public aswell atm, so as carelessly, wrong as last week's shooting was, I still feel we have one of the best, fairest police forces in the world. In certain countries, that guy wouldn't have even made it onto the train - and he'd have had more then one officer shooting at him. I don't envy the task our bobbies have atm one bit.
~Judgements prevent us from seeing the good that lies beyond appearances.~
"God put me on this earth to accomplish a certain number of things. Right now I am so far behind that I will never die" ~ Bill Watterson
the met expect to be killing a lot more innocent people.. who's terrorising britain now!!
[b][i]Round and round the Ka'bah,
Like a good Sahabah,
One step, Two step,
All the way to jannah[/i][/b]
If your gonna look at this 'shoot to kill' policy than you should really look at it from an un-biased way.
The facts are that London has faced 2 bomb attacks in the last month alone (well one kinda failed but it was still a threat), the only way to get things back into control is to tighten security and have more officers on the streets patroling to make the public feel more safe.
Im sure many of you have read that article where they say that the 'shoot to kill' policy is in place bcoz there would be no other real way of stopping the bomber/s (shoot them in the chest aint a good idea thats where the explosives are likely to be, shoot him in the leg he may fall but he will still detonate) the basic idea is to prevent the bomber from even having a chance of detonating the explosives and kill other innocent people with them.
Whats the life of a single bomber compared to the many innocent people in the blast radius?
Ofcourse another fact is that the police recently shot dead an innocent man; well thats the reality of the situation. Ofcourse its a terrible thing an innocent was lost but the police need to be seen to be making a firm stand against these bombers or they'll walk right over us.
Back in BLACK
Very well put, Eeyore. That's what I was trying to say... but I'm tripping off caffeine atm so cannot string decent sentences together to save my life
~Judgements prevent us from seeing the good that lies beyond appearances.~
"God put me on this earth to accomplish a certain number of things. Right now I am so far behind that I will never die" ~ Bill Watterson
i dont agree with it
whos 2 say the next 'suspected suicide bomber' will not also be an innocent person?
Whose also to say the next 'suspected sucide bomber' wont be the real thing.
Are you will to take that chance?
The police dont go around shooting people at random coz they looked fishy?
Back in BLACK
They did once, who's to say it won't happen again?
When was that?
I'd like to know. B4 i give a response.
Back in BLACK
The Brazilian guy.
He looked “fishy” cos he was wearing a bomber jacket on a hot day and he didn’t respond to a bunch of guys who didn’t even look like the police.
If police have a reasonable suspicion that someone is a potential suicide bomber then they have the right to take him out.
But I am not convinced that the grounds for suspicion of the Brazillian man were sufficient. He only left a block of flats that were being monitored. That's all.
The implementation of the 'shoot to kill' policy was way too liberal in this case.
Well said.
both the british home and foreign policies are wrong.
its gona go down in history post 911, Britain drew first blood.
rather than adopting Israeli murder rules, blair should remove the soldiers from Iraq.
imagine if it had been you're innocent brother whom they killed on this shoot to kill policy.. would you retaliate..? Even If you don't, there will be hundreds out there who will.
Yes it may be wrong in Islam to retaliate, but we're talking about human emotions here.. These sort of policies fuel terrorism.
u can't stick a plaster on a bullet wound... troops need to be removed from Iraq without delay.
[b][i]Round and round the Ka'bah,
Like a good Sahabah,
One step, Two step,
All the way to jannah[/i][/b]
I agree with the shoot to kill policy. But only as a last resort.
There need to be proper procedures and processes to make sure that innocents are not caught up.
There were atleast five officers shadowing the brazilian. Now if they did not panick, and had decent procedures, three of them could have safely overpowered him without the use of lethal force:
Two officers slowly approach from behind. Its a busy environment, and the suspect will not notice people walking behind him, unless for prolonged periods of time. They only need to approach once they decide to apprehend.
Each officer simultaneously grabs the persons arm, yanks back, and push shoulder forward, flooring the suspect. The officers have control of the suspect.
A third officer will be there just in case the first two fail, and will have the option to use lethal force.
Non will shout 'stop' before hand, as it will startle innocents, and warn terrorists, so its counter productive.
If the guy then runs, make sure you mention you are police. If he does not stop, unfortunately it will have to be lethal force.
On this ocasion there were five people tailing him, so you have a further two officers you can bring into the fray.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
deleted
After shooting the Brazillian man, plain clothes officers chased the driver of the train and held a gun to his head.
Where'd you get this from Irfan, as I've not heard about it?
~Judgements prevent us from seeing the good that lies beyond appearances.~
"God put me on this earth to accomplish a certain number of things. Right now I am so far behind that I will never die" ~ Bill Watterson
Channel 4 News at noon today.
yeah i heard dat as well...
driver heard some shots...legged it for his life....got attacked by our "hero" cops who stuck a gun to his temple...
not suprisingly he now off work wiv shock...
train drivers all wanted to go on strike...dont blame em...
its easy for smarmy politicans like blair and jack straw to say "buisness as usual"...but dey aint taking any risks...
all politicans got armed guards, bullet prooft vests, SAS hitmen wiv em....
da rest of us gotta take r chances...
POWER TO THE PEOPLE
Hello,
I'm definately all for the shoot to kill policy. My only worry is that more innocents may be shot / killed.
But I do think that, our armed response officers are not gung ho, they are highly professional people. It is a real tragedy for that Brazilian mans family, but suppose he was a bomber, suppose the police had chased him, not killed him and he had set his bomb off and potentially killed dozens of people including the police officers. Then there would have been absolute chaos Why didn't they stop him? Why didn't they shoot? Dozens of families demanding answers.
Its a job I could never do. I hope it is just an isolated case, but the police should get our full support.
TTFN
:twisted:
[url=http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.j... 4 News[/url]
here here
Back in BLACK
Apparently the Brazilian guy was running from the cops because his Visa had expired and he was thought that was the reason why the police were running after him.
Salam Muslims
Peace Non Muslims
Apparently the ‘shoot to kill’ policy was launched six months after the 9/11. At present the only targets are Muslims. Why? (While the IRA are ‘disarmed’ and the real IRA not to be seen) Muslims, are notably, the only sector of the British society capable of undertaking these bombings. Hence every Muslim is guilty until proven innocent. (I.e. just condemning is not enough)
Salam Muslims
Peace Non Muslims
shoot to kill only breeds a state of terror giving the government power to do as they will
accepting such a barbaric law is sickening
Hello Almas,
Shoot to kill is surely the only way to stop a suicide bomber. He / she intends to kill themselves anyway........!
As I said previously, my only concern is for possible innocent victims. The power ultimately is with the officer (s) with the gun, he / she pulls the trigger
What do you suggest would be a better alternative?
TTFN
:twisted:
shoot to stun
Stunning sends electric currents through the body. Very real danger of detonating the explosives.
Not an option.
with all these advances in technology there must be a poison dart gun which disables on contact. or are such options only reserved for game animals
[size=24]furthermore i dont believe for 1 minute the police are ever going to spot a real bomber to kill him[/size]
only more innocents are going to be killed
All the money they have spent all the man power and all the hype on anti-terrorist training dont tell me they cant still stop such things without it ever getting to the chase and shoot to kill stage
Pages