Yes it is the same in the UK. Armed police shoot with the intention of stopping the criminal in the knowledge that they will most likely die of their wounds.
Breaking News, London: Van Ploughs into Pedestrians
by Simon 71 Replies latest social current
-
-
Simon
I agree, no one can shoot like in a Clint Eastwood movie (that sheriff who shot a robber while on horseback was probably very skilled but there was a significant element of lucky). Even shooting at targets is a challenge, throw in an adrenaline situation and all bets are off - shoot the person, hope you hit and kill them, don't fell sorry if they do or if you accidentally hit someone else in spite of your best efforts ... any deaths from the situation are at the feel of those who instigated it.
By shoot-to-kill I mean that if you have a clear shot at the target you shoot them regardless of whether they are an immediate threat, armed, have hostages or whatever. Like the terrorists in the Iranian Embassy siege that the SAS executed - kill them all (one lived by accident).
If they live they will cause more deaths by recruiting others to their cause.
-
Bungi Bill
Simon,
OK - understood. Such situations are practically war in everything but name, and there are definitely precedents for using preemptive lethal force.
-
Finkelstein
Fink - Yes the vast majority of UK police do not carry guns or even tasers.
Sorry I don't agree with this particularly in this day and age.
Lets say a violent terrorist has gone out in public and starts shooting people or stabbing them with a knife but a unarmed police officer sees this but cant do anything to abruptly stop this killing or maybe even the potential killing of himself.
By the time the police calls in for armed police officers to arrive at the attack location, half dozen people could have been killed.
I can see the point of this 100 years ago but times have indeed changed.
-
cofty
I strongly disagree for all the reasons I explained above.
Specialist armed police are never far away.
-
DesirousOfChange
Just put out the word that if there is another terrorist attack, the closest Mosque will be bombed to ashes. If that doesn't do it, then time to play BINGO with Medina and Mecca (as in, B-1, B-2, B-52, etc).
-
cofty
DOC - Please explain how bombing Mecca would save lives on the streets of the UK?
-
Finkelstein
I strongly disagree for all the reasons I explained above.
Specialist armed police are never far away.
But you can see my point in a circumstance of a random gun firing attack, where it would or could be potentially life saving if a local armed police officer could take down a gun shooting attacker.
The location police have observed whats happening with the identity of the attacker and can respond quickly, where incoming police have to be informed with all the entailing information first.
That is potentially is the very reason why every police officer in North America is armed.
-
Simon
the closest Mosque will be bombed to ashes
Simply idiotic. There is enough anarchy in the world without creating more.
I advocate for treating people harshly for their crimes, but we have to target their right people - not just pick at random based on some group membership.
Judging people based on the groups that belong to is leftist ideology and is insidious.
-
just fine
I don't like the idea of the police not being armed, especially in light of the current conditions. The police in my area are required to "qualify" each month, and shoot hundreds of rounds to prove they are proficient with their weapons.