Re: Brits new "shoot to kill" policy

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.

>
>>
>>> 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.

>>
>>
>>> 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.

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?

Hugh



--
Exercise is a dirty word. Whenever I hear it, I wash my mouth out with
chocolate. ("Ladi")
.