Police used dum dum bullets to kill de Menezes

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Agent_Smith, Nov 18, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. I dont know why this hasn't been posted on here yet, but i thought it worthy of discussion between the members of arrse.

    [C]Telegraph.co.uk

    I know that converesly dum-dums are illegal in war, but still legal for armed police work; but do we think that the sections of the leftwing/anti-police brigade will let this prevent them from using this incident as an oppurtunity to further criticise the hard work that the police/security services are doing to combat the threat of terrorism?

    Do you think the police should use such controversial munitions? I guess this could be a continuation of the willie-pete thread debating the rights and wrongs of using a legal but controversial munition.
     
  2. From what I understand ( and if I'm wrong please correct me) he was shot at very close range. Surely the type of ammunition used shouldn't really cloud the issue. Perhaps Manchester cop or Vegetius could give us some info on this.
     
  3. Pikey, they use soft nose because it usually doesn't exit the body thus making it safer to use in a confined environment where there would be danger of further casualties if a round carried on the motion. Can you imagine the stink if the cops took out a bad guy and some little old granny took a hit from a through and through round. I
     
  4. At the end of the day, dum dum or not, these pacifist left wing tree hugging hippies have to understand that rounds are designed for only one purpose, putting a man down. He wasn't shot for sh@ts and giggles, it was for a reason, so why does it matter?
     
  5. Thanks H. Yeah I'd forgotten 3rd party casualties, doh. The sh*t storm of killing him is bad enough without shooting nana moon as well.
     
  6. I think the issue raised is the balance between ensuring that the target is neutralised as efficiently as possible with the smallest possible chance of collateral damage (ie no shoot throughs or ricochets), and ensuring that the method of neutralising the target is as humane as possible (ie not cutting off their head with a parang or burning them to death with a flame thrower :wink: )

    I assume that in most peoples view, the first point would be the most important. However, in our increasingly touchy feely world, concern for suspects human rights and the manner in which they are neutralised are having a bigger and bigger influence.

    Thoughts?
     
  7. Cutaway

    Cutaway LE Reviewer

    "Police used 'dum dum' bullets to kill de Menezes"

    Damn that's a shame, they're quite rare now and any nine milly ones would have been worth a fortune.
     
  8. surely, the whole point of a hollow point round is to deliver all it's kinetic energy into the target, the ideal choice for the situation. stopping a potential suicide bomber instantly whilst minimising the chance of the round exiting the target and hitting a by-stander. These people shouting about all this would like the police to be armed with bad breath and loud ties!!
     
  9. what the writer of that article fails to realise is that if police used FMJ bullets, there would be overpenetration and ricochets with the bullets fired. this means that not only will the target be dead, but anybody around the target would be in danger of catching a stray bullet.

    what's worse? an expanding bullet leaving a nasty crater in the target -- killing him instantly, or a full metal jacket bullet going through the target, ricocheting off the side of a tube train cabin and finding its way into some granddads hip or a baby's head?

    some jurnos don't think.
     
  10. I seem to remember reading that in UK it's illegal to shoot game with FMJ bullets as that would be "inhumane". The whole point of hollow point/ expanding bullets is to impart as much damage as possible to the target thereby ensuring death (hopefully) and reducing the chances of collateral damage from the bullet passing through the target and hitting someone else.

    The torygraph journo really seems to have his head up his hoop on this one. Frankly I expect more from the paraliterary wing of the Loamshires.
     
  11. What would this mis-informed hack's response likely to be if he gets hit with a FMJ round that passes through the body of a suicide bomber while on the tube to work. ?

    As I am now forced to use the tube to commute to work anything the police can do to ensure I arrive with all my appendages attached gets my seal of approval.