Re: Brits new "shoot to kill" policy

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 04:00:38 GMT, Hugh Beyer <beyerxyzzy@xxxxxxx>
wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>John Hanson <jhanson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
>news:duade1pngel70du5blpnknt1utpl2bqdvp@xxxxxxx:
>
>> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 13:18:56 -0400, "Lee Michaels"
>> <leemichaels@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>>
>>>
>>>"John Hanson" <jhanson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
>>>>
>>>> It troubles me that I'm agreeing with Dally and Donovan.
>>>
>>>I noticed that too. Wimping out on us John? :)
>>
>> Not at all. I believe in liberty.
>
>Troubles me that *I'm* agreeing with Lee. But there you go. Guess I'll
>have to turn in my ACLU card.
>
>>
>>>
>>>> Having said
>>>> that, I'm confused about this "shoot to kill" policy. If you are
>>>> going to shoot, aren't you always shooting to kill...or to stop. Same
>>>> thing basically. My main problems with the shooting are:
>>>>
>>>> 1.) The cops may not have identified themselves properly.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Doubtful. I am sure they did.
>>
>> What you are sure of means nothing.
>
>I don't give a rat's ass how they identified themselves. The scenario I
>envision is that they trail this guy, who they're already suspicious of
>because they had the place staked out, till he gets close to or in the
>tube station at which point they decide it's too dicey and they need to
>call a halt. At this point they yell at least "HEY YOU! STOP!" They
>probably identified themselves; whether the guy could hear them clearly
>given the acoustics of a subway station I don't know; doesn't matter
>either way. At this point he starts running in the direction of maximum
>impact.

If you and your buddies were following me and you yelled for me to
stop, I doubt that I would. If you pulled guns, I would try to flee
and if you had me cornered, I'd blow your fucking head off.

>
>>
>>>
>>>> 2.) If the guy was such a threat, why did they allow him to get into
>>>> the tube?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Maybe they wanted to follow him to see where he went.
>>
>> That's just fucking stupid. You mean they wanted to see just what
>> population center he was going to blow up?
>>
>
>No, they wanted to see if he behaved like a bomber--if he was headed
>towards an actual target. Just trying to keep people like you and Dally
>happy, minimizing the number of stops.

And how do bombers behave? The should have stopped the guy right
away.

>
>>>
>>>
>>>> 3.) The account I read said they had him pinned to the ground when he
>>>> was shot. That is just not right if it's true.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>If he had a bomb, it would make sense. And he never got to prove
>>>otherwise. Because like a dumbass, he was running.
>>>
>> No, as the muzzle blast could have set off the charge. Doubtful but
>> possible. I think a rotten apple got his license to kill and decided
>> he was going to put it to use.
>
>That's why they shoot to the head.

After he was pinned down to the ground.

>
>Look at it from the results point of view. Perhaps the Home Office will
>say: "These cops did exactly what they should have done. It's too bad, but
>people acting like this man are going to get shot. People of London--don't
>act this way."
>
>Conversely, the Home Office might say: "This was a terrible tragedy. We're
>going to tell those cops never to shoot unless they get a really positive
>ID that the suspect is carrying explosives."
>
>I submit to you that in the first case, terrorist groups will say, "***.
>That game's up just like hijacking airlines is up. What'll we try next?"
>
>But in the second case they'll say, "Hot damn! Let's go get them! Those
>cops are never going to stop us now!"
>
>Which version of London would you rather live in?
>
I don't want to live in London. Having said that, they fucked up. He
should have never gotten to the tube if they believed he was wired
with explosives. So, if it was okay for them to shoot him in the head
after he was pinned down, it was okay to shot him in the back on the
street.
.