On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 11:12:15 +0000 (UTC), Bruce Fletcher
wrote:


There is no such thing as a "shoot to injure or disable" policy, if you
(police or armed forces) shoot someone your intention is to kill them.

I have never understood this policy. Even in the armed forces a
wounded prisoner may be a source of information and certainly is to
the police. Firing at long range with inaccurate weapons there may be
no choice, but firing at short range with reasonably accurate weapons
there is.
Is it to do with fear that the wounded person still might be able to
fight back? Not a fear that you are allowed to consider when using
"reasonable force" to deter an intruder in your house - or your
isolated farm in a well known case.
Don't often stray too far from railways in my posts, so I apologise in
advance!

Guy Gorton

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 11:58:38 UTC, Guy Gorton
wrote:

: I have never understood this policy. Even in the armed forces a
: wounded prisoner may be a source of information and certainly is to
: the police. Firing at long range with inaccurate weapons there may be
: no choice, but firing at short range with reasonably accurate weapons
: there is.
: Is it to do with fear that the wounded person still might be able to
: fight back?

I think it's because the police in this country only rarely carry
weapons, and only use them when they believe there to be an immediate
risk to life (OK, that's the theory, and it doesn't always work like
that, but I still prefer it to having routinely armed police who think
"running away" is justification for shooting). In other words, police
guns are only supposed to be fired to stop someone else being killed,
and in that case it is logical to make as certain as possible.

Ian

Ian Johnston wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 11:58:38 UTC, Guy Gorton
wrote:

: I have never understood this policy. Even in the armed forces a
: wounded prisoner may be a source of information and certainly is to
: the police. Firing at long range with inaccurate weapons there may be
: no choice, but firing at short range with reasonably accurate weapons
: there is.
: Is it to do with fear that the wounded person still might be able to
: fight back?

I think it's because the police in this country only rarely carry
weapons, and only use them when they believe there to be an immediate
risk to life (OK, that's the theory, and it doesn't always work like
that, but I still prefer it to having routinely armed police who think
"running away" is justification for shooting). In other words, police
guns are only supposed to be fired to stop someone else being killed,
and in that case it is logical to make as certain as possible.

Ian

As someone who was an armed officer for 16 of my 22 years service and
served in various specialist branches in relation to this, let me
explain.
The "new powers" being spoken about on the TV and in some papers is
nothing new. The same procedures are being employed. The reason we were
trained to shoot at the largest part of the body, the torso, (and this
includes the back as well as the front) was to make sure the target was
hit and stopped, we were always taught to fire at least twice, rapidly,
one to stop, one to avoid a reactive return shot. However, if a suspect
had a way of triggering any sort of device either remotely or strapped
to the body then there is only one way to prevent loss of life, be it
the officers or other people, is a number of head shots to disrupt the
central nervous system and prevent the trigger being activated. By
necesity this has to be done at close range when a pistol or carbine is
used. Therefore those officers yesterday, if they believed this man had
the potential to set off a bomb, were extremely brave in my view. I
suspect the person involved had "sussed" that MI5 walkers/plain clothes
officers were following and before he could be contained ran into the
station. Whatever, the inquest will be extremely thorough and I still
expect that we may yet find some armed forces personnel were involved.
Media comment about "recent advice from Israel" is total ********.
These techniques were being trained, to my knowledge, in 1981 when
Close Protection officers were receiving training from the SAS, RMP and
in my case the Royal Marines. Many remember the furore surrounding the
Gibralter shootings of known IRA members, whether it turned out there
was a bomb or not, if I had been briefed that these people had a bomb
planted in Gib, and may have had a trigger on their person, then I too
would have kept firing until I was sure they were dead. Brutally
simple, the training was succinctly put to us in this fashion as
(contrary to assertions some make) officers were not as readily
adaptable as the armed forces personnel. My instructor was plain, "Keep
squeezing rapidly until the **** stops twitching". There are no
niceties, this isn't a game, many people died two weeks ago because men
as brave as those at Stockwell yesterday were not in the right place at
the right time.

On 23 Jul 2005 01:16:05 -0700 someone who may be
wrote this:-

There are no
niceties, this isn't a game, many people died two weeks ago because men
as brave as those at Stockwell yesterday were not in the right place at
the right time.

Discussion of the bravery, or otherwise, of those involved makes no
difference to the questions that are being asked.

So far I have an open mind, but as time goes on it looks more and
more like an operation which went horribly wrong. BTW I hope that is
not the case.

I will be interested to see what the brave new "independent"
complaints bunch make of this and whether they are any better than
their predecessors.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

David Hansen wrote:
On 23 Jul 2005 01:16:05 -0700 someone who may be
wrote this:-

There are no
niceties, this isn't a game, many people died two weeks ago because men
as brave as those at Stockwell yesterday were not in the right place at
the right time.

Discussion of the bravery, or otherwise, of those involved makes no
difference to the questions that are being asked.

So far I have an open mind, but as time goes on it looks more and
more like an operation which went horribly wrong. BTW I hope that is
not the case.

I will be interested to see what the brave new "independent"
complaints bunch make of this and whether they are any better than
their predecessors.

As we now know the police are saying the man shot was not connected
with the enquiry but was a Brazilian who had been working in the UK for
three years as an electrician. There seems to be a connection with an
address used by one of the suspects, and there is the question as to
why he ran into the station after officers instructed him to stop. He
was apparantly a good English speaker. In view of the background to
the incident and the attendant circumstances the officers at the scene
who trapped and shot him would have had very little choice of action.
All aspects will be examined, but it will be the operational
circumstances and decisions made that put those officers in the
position they were in that will be most closely examined. Even Liberty
are expressing sympathy for the police in this case. This operation has
gone horribly wrong and cost a life. If this man had been wired and the
officers a fraction of a second late the criticism would have been why
the police had not prevented many more deaths.
An awful tragedy, but if I was still operational and in the same
situation, believeing that in a fraction of a second I and many others
could be dead, then I would be firing those five rounds.I would also
add that on two occasions I almost did open fire on innocent people
(well in one case not quite so innocent)in both cases the trigger was
already being squeezed. Had I opened fire, I know that I had followed
all possible avenues of alternative actions, and the actions of the
people I was aiming at had given me justification for opening fire. If
in that fraction of a second the situation for me hadn't changed, a
petty burglar and six 17 year old Venture Scouts would most likely be
dead.

In message .com, at
16:18:32 on Sat, 23 Jul 2005, remarked:

As we now know the police are saying the man shot was not connected
with the enquiry but was a Brazilian who had been working in the UK for
three years as an electrician. There seems to be a connection with an
address used by one of the suspects,

Perhaps he shared the flat with a suspect, perhaps he was doing some
work there.

If this man had been wired

I'm surprised no-one has made the connection between him being an
electrician, and possibly having some wires in his pocket. (Bystanders
reported wires, didn't they).

--
Roland Perry

On 23 Jul 2005 16:18:32 -0700 someone who may be
wrote this:-

There seems to be a connection with an
address used by one of the suspects,

The police description of this address, as reported in the mass
media, has varied between a house to a block of flats. It would be
good if the police had put something on their web site about this,
but http://www.met.police.uk/ remains silent. I think the
distinction between a house and block of flats has a bearing on the
acceptability, or otherwise, of police activities.

and there is the question as to
why he ran into the station after officers instructed him to stop.

Assuming that they did so, there could be any number of reasons.
However, being chased and shouted at by several burly men, perhaps
waving guns around and perhaps claiming to be police officers, is
not the way to encourage people to stop and find out what is going
on. Remember that apparently these gunmen were not even wearing any
sort of police uniform.




--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 09:59:00 +0100, David Hansen
wrote:

However, being chased and shouted at by several burly men, perhaps
waving guns around and perhaps claiming to be police officers, is
not the way to encourage people to stop and find out what is going
on. Remember that apparently these gunmen were not even wearing any
sort of police uniform.

If in doubt, when you get to the tube station, seek help from the
uniforms there.

Don't jump over the barriers and leg it straight onto a train.

--
James Farrar

September's coming soon

On Sunday 24 July 2005 09:59 David Hansen wrote:

On 23 Jul 2005 16:18:32 -0700 someone who may be
wrote this:-
8-------------
and there is the question as to
why he ran into the station after officers instructed him to stop.

Assuming that they did so, there could be any number of reasons.
However, being chased and shouted at by several burly men, perhaps
waving guns around and perhaps claiming to be police officers, is
not the way to encourage people to stop and find out what is going
on. Remember that apparently these gunmen were not even wearing any
sort of police uniform.



I think there are two instinctive reactions an ordinary person might make to
that kind of shock:- run or freeze. In either case I don't think much
thought would be applied for a few seconds. If a clearly visable policeman
in uniform shouted to me in a commanding way then I'd probably be tipped
towards the freeze mode. But if I hadn't seen the uniforms I think I'd run
into the nearest crowd and then freeze.

Edgar

wrote:



Ian Johnston wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 11:58:38 UTC, Guy Gorton
wrote:

: I have never understood this policy. Even in the armed forces a
: wounded prisoner may be a source of information and certainly is to
: the police. Firing at long range with inaccurate weapons there may be
: no choice, but firing at short range with reasonably accurate weapons
: there is.
: Is it to do with fear that the wounded person still might be able to
: fight back?

I think it's because the police in this country only rarely carry
weapons, and only use them when they believe there to be an immediate
risk to life (OK, that's the theory, and it doesn't always work like
that, but I still prefer it to having routinely armed police who think
"running away" is justification for shooting). In other words, police
guns are only supposed to be fired to stop someone else being killed,
and in that case it is logical to make as certain as possible.

Ian

As someone who was an armed officer for 16 of my 22 years service and
served in various specialist branches in relation to this, let me
explain.
The "new powers" being spoken about on the TV and in some papers is
nothing new. The same procedures are being employed. The reason we were
trained to shoot at the largest part of the body, the torso, (and this
includes the back as well as the front) was to make sure the target was
hit and stopped, we were always taught to fire at least twice, rapidly,
one to stop, one to avoid a reactive return shot. However, if a suspect
had a way of triggering any sort of device either remotely or strapped
to the body then there is only one way to prevent loss of life, be it
the officers or other people, is a number of head shots to disrupt the
central nervous system and prevent the trigger being activated. By
necesity this has to be done at close range when a pistol or carbine is
used. Therefore those officers yesterday, if they believed this man had
the potential to set off a bomb, were extremely brave in my view. I
suspect the person involved had "sussed" that MI5 walkers/plain clothes
officers were following and before he could be contained ran into the
station. Whatever, the inquest will be extremely thorough and I still
expect that we may yet find some armed forces personnel were involved.
Media comment about "recent advice from Israel" is total ********.
These techniques were being trained, to my knowledge, in 1981 when
Close Protection officers were receiving training from the SAS, RMP and
in my case the Royal Marines. Many remember the furore surrounding the
Gibralter shootings of known IRA members, whether it turned out there
was a bomb or not, if I had been briefed that these people had a bomb
planted in Gib, and may have had a trigger on their person, then I too
would have kept firing until I was sure they were dead. Brutally
simple, the training was succinctly put to us in this fashion as
(contrary to assertions some make) officers were not as readily
adaptable as the armed forces personnel. My instructor was plain, "Keep
squeezing rapidly until the **** stops twitching". There are no
niceties, this isn't a game, many people died two weeks ago because men
as brave as those at Stockwell yesterday were not in the right place at
the right time.


Wise words. Thank you.