He didn't vault the barrier. He didn't run. Complete lies. He also had a light denim jacket on.

The death happened because the police messed up throughout the whole process.

Edited by jcreedy (18 Nov 2015 10.22am)

What's this aggression all about......?

Anyways... from your tone it sounds like you should take a chill pill.

Meanwhile, my offending post continues to get accolades from the free thinkers.

Annoying isn't it?

I don't generally agree with a shoot to kill policy in any situation either, except where the situation is conflict based. Its never worked in the past, it won't work in the future. You may have to shoot, but the problem of a 'shoot to kill' policy is that 95% of the time you don't actually know with any certainity who is and who is not a terrorist, and even when you do, capture represents a better source of intelligence than death.

Certainly in a situation where they're engaged in an operation and lives are actually in danger, or you've established the individual is engaged in terrorist activities beyond reasonable doubt, and capture is not possible.

But as an operating procedure, its always backfired and blown up in the face of the state.

What I don't like the idea of is forced abortion, forced sterilization, execution in some cases, infanticide, and the disappearance of millions of female children. If your only allowed one child then it has to be a boy right?

There are whole towns in China with no young females. Men cannot get married and start a family.

It is also said that the younger population have a distinct lack of empathy towards others and are more selfish as you spoil your only child. They call them "little emperors".

There was a good report on the BBC about the recent change in that policy. It was an absolute tragedy of a policy with very little benefit.

This whole thread has been a real eye opener for me. We have seen calls for the internment of millions of people. Calls for religious discrimination, eugenics as a possible solution for the ills of the world, the rivers of blood mantra, the all immigration is great mantra, a few shut ups, your a moron, no your a moron and ideologies that Hitler and chairman Mao would endorse...

Just another day on the HOL.

This site is a gold mine for the psychological profiler.

Cobblers. Iran Embassy ring any bells ?

The only situation where a shoot to kill policy would be enforced is where there "is an immanent threat to human life” you need to look up your Rules Of Engagement before you start telling people when and where deadly force can be used.

What the Government is talking about is applying the ROE of a battlefield to civilian streets to save life. The ROE are legal and approved by NATO. If the terrorist wants to bring war to our streets then we should not have our hands tied in our response.

I will repeat the point once more in case you decide to overlook it, Shoot to kill policy can only be implemented when there “is an immanent threat to human life”

The SAS and SBS involved were reacting to an armed situation, where hostages had been killed. That's doesn't require a shoot to kill policy, that's UK law in a nut shell, proportional force to the situation.

They were authorised to Kill, not capture. Kill they did effectively and professionally, without any further loss to human life.

There was a clear threat from the terrorists as they had already murdered hostages. Deadly force was authorised. Capture was not even on the cards.

The Government doesn't actually need to change the laws in order to allow officers to fire on armed suspects, we've even recently established with Duggan, that they don't have to be armed, only that its reasonable for the police to believe them to be armed and a threat to life, for them to open fire (which is beyond the ROE used by NATO'.

Another point that people are getting there pants in a twist about, if you shot someone with a high velocity rifle of significant caliber, if you got shot in the guts, the way the rounds bounce around inside you means your pretty f***ed up anyway. The only reall difference is aiming for head, rather than trunk. And no it isnt above and beyond the ROE for NATO, its the same really if you believe there to be a danger to your life or others you may open fire. ( I have attched a ROE card for your education).

No ones hands are tied, the law is quite clear about the use of force, where a real or reasonable threat to life exists, the use of deadly force is permitted. And that applies to everyone in the UK, not just the police or armed forces (although most of us don't have access to firearms). Certainly, if I was at my dads, saw an incident in progress where someone was threatening other people with a firearm, or knife, and then shot them with his firearms (shotguns), it would be reasonable force.

We are basically agreeing here again Jamie lad, leathel force is justified your just putting it slightly more tactfully than me, as already pointed out if've youv'e been shot with an MP5 unless you've been hit in a bodily extermity, your chances of survival are not great.

A shoot to kill policy is a bit different, as it permits the use of lethal force, without qualification of a threat to life. As far as using ROE, I think we'd be better off not doing so, as it would restrict the capacity for 'response' by armed police to a threat to life.

Errrrrr. No it does not that is just your sumation of the subject all it amounts to in reality is a volley or burst of shots rather than one, and possibley aiming for the bonce if the shot is on.