Shoot To Kill: Not A Game

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Bombard, Jul 30, 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. Yes, The police know what theyre at

  2. Yes, But Id prefer to know what the policy is.

  3. I dont know, I dont watch the news. Someone get hurt?

  4. No, I want to see the details of the policy before I agree to it

  5. No, Shoot to kill is state sponsored murder.

  1. The death of Mr de Menezes was a tragedy, for his family, the police and witnesses. It could have been avoided. There are a number of issues that I’d like to hear the views of Arrseonians

    *1 The Shoot to kill policy risks the most important resource of any police force: The respect and co-operation of ordinary people:

    [align=center]“You can’t be afraid to act if life is at stake,” said a former Northern Ireland Special Branch officer. “But if you alienate people
    you can hand the terrorists a long-term support base from which to operate.” Times Online

    “The Garda Siochana will succeed not by force of arms or numbers, but on their moral authority as servants of the people”,
    Commissioner M. Staines, 1922[/align]

    I think that any aggressive policing policy, that a particular community feels is targeted at them- whether they’re right or wrong, creates an adversarial climate that makes successful crime prevention and solving difficult or impossible.

    The Israelis have found that the most effective way of dealing with a suicide bombing campaign is to find the bomb makers. The skills of a bomb maker are extremely hard to acquire, and accordingly rare. Finding the bomb makers quickly, requires the co-operation of the community, Painstaking analysis of data takes longer and risks missing the target.

    2* The consequences of an innocent is shot are huge: from the policeman’s point of view, his entire career is at stake, he is at risk of being sued if he has not complied completely with policy. If he has complied, then his employers are placed at risk. There are policing repercussions, where the professional image of the police force is badly tarnished by a incident (In Ireland, Abbeylara where a mentally unstable man was shot by the ‘Elite’ Garda Emergency Response Unit.) In Los Angeles, with Rodney King, etc.) And then wider diplomatic repercussions. Imagine the consequences if Mr de Menezes was a Portuguese, Spanish, Greek, French, American,

    3* The only advantage of shoot to kill is that it prevents a criminal or terrorist from taking any action or achieving any outcome. While a criminal may be deterred by it, a suicide bomber group has a number of features that make shoot to kill irrelevant to their operation.

    [align=center]*Remote detonator. Giving the suicide bombers mentor a detonator while he accompanies the bomber means that the Mentor can remotely detonate the bomb, if the bomber is intercepted. It has the added advantage of preventing the bomber from backing out.

    *Dead Man’s Trigger. Rather than requiring the bomber to take an action, the dead man trigger detonates the bomb when a trigger is released. If a bomber is killer, the trigger releases and detonates the bomb.

    *Heart beat monitor: A sophisticated dead mans trigger. It allows a number of options, like a movement sensor for detonation when the body is moved, a timer, or assorted nastiness. [/align]

    Each of these option makes the shoot to kill policy irrelevant: The bomb will go off even it the bomber is dead.

    4* However, there will inevitably be situations where a clean shot is required. The shoot to kill policy has to be effective enough to deter criminals and terrorists, while protecting the civilian population. Protection of the police and army personnel comes second:

    [align=center]*The policy must be public so that no particular community can feel its targeted at them.

    *It must be credible. Once the policy is in place, any officer that resorts to it must have the situation examined. If justifies, then he/she must be confident of the full support of the government. For it to be credible, it must also be limited to particular, trained personnel, and units. There are no untrained professionals, and shoot to kill is defiantly something best left to professionals.

    *A positive ID is required. If a officer does not know who he has to kill, can he be sure of making the right choice?

    *There must be some evidence of intent. Absolute proof is not required, but a reasonable balance of probabilities.

    *If a decision is made that the target is a risk, then he must be stopped, immediately. Allowing a suicide bomber to enter the #2 bus and proceed towards a subway station simply allows him to choose his time, and if he feels that he is being trailed then he can accomplish his objective at anytime. They’re not fussy about who they kill[/align]

    I personally am not comfortable with a police force having a unknown policy of killing
  2. What part of the "shoot to kill" policy don't you understand ?

    Prior to the mass murders carried out by muslim suicide terrorists the shoot policy was aim/shoot for the body (to kill) now if the bad guy is thought to be a suicide bomber it's aim/shoot for the head (to kill).

    I'm more than comfortable with the police killing suicide bombers or possible suicide bombers and the policy is to shoot to kill as it's always been it's not a secret.

    The only problem is allowing the terrorist scum and their supporters to win the media/propaganda war.

    I can't vote on your poll because the question is incorrect it's not a non policy.
  3. The "shoot to kill policy" is completley irrelevant as to the authorisation to use a firearm in any given situation - the training and instructions given are equally irrelevant. for example I give you one close to our hearts!

    Rv CLEGG
    House of Lords

    (Lords Lloyd, Keith, Browne-Wilkinson, Slynn and Nicholls) 1995 1 All ER 334

    From the above mentioned appeal to the Court of Appeal, the appellant Clegg appealed to the House of Lords on the certified point of law; where a soldier or policeman during his duty kills with intent to kill or cause GBH by shooting in self defence or defence or defence of another or in the prevention of crime or effecting a lawful arrest, but uses excessive or unreasonable force, is he guilty of murder or manslaughter?


    1. The question posed by the Court does not arise in Clegg's case as he was not acting in self defence at all when he fired the fourth shot.

    2. The law is well established that reasonable self defence is a complete defence to murder and that excessive or unreasonable force is no defence, so that manslaughter or any other offence is not open to the court of trial. Report of Royal Commission 36 HL Papers 157, considered. Palmer v R [1971] AC 814 (PC) approved. Decisions of the High Court of Australia to the contrary were found to be unworkable in practice and that Court over-ruled itself in Zecevic v DPP (1987) 162 CLR 645.

    3. It is impracticable to make any distinction between excessive force in self defence and excessive force on preventing crime or arresting offenders. In most cases they overlap.

    4. Unlike the ordinary citizen or policeman, a soldier on duty has a positive duty under military law to search for criminals if ordered by an officer and to risk his own life in preventing terrorist acts, and is provided with a lethal firearm. Thus the soldier has little opportunity to use varying degrees of force. Under existing law obedience to superior orders is no defence and does not enable a conviction for manslaughter. Attorney General for Northern Ireland's Reference (No. 1 of 1975) [1977] AC 105 considered.

    5. The Court of Appeal was entitled to find that no miscarriage of justice occurred in relation to the defence of force to prevent crime or effect arrest. On review of the evidence the Court of Appeal was entitled to say that a tribunal of fact would inevitably find that the force used was grossly disproportionate.

    Per Curiam: The defence of provocation which reduces murder to manslaughter, was not raised in the trial, the appeal or the certified question, presumable because it was no open on the evidence. No consideration need be given to it.

    The courts may develop the law or make new law if they can see their way clearly, even if social policy decisions are involved. But the law of murder and manslaughter is essentially a matter for the legislators, and is part of a wider issue, namely whether the mandatory life sentence for murder should be kept. In response to recommendations for change by the Criminal Law Revision Committee, the Law Commission and a House of Lords Select Committee, Parliament has failed to act, and the changes proposed would effect an area in which statute law has taken a hand, by s 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 and the similar NI Act.

    The Court of Appeal's observations about the Yellow Card require no comment. The card has no legal force.

    note the last sentence - the yellow card has no legal force! also note that obedience to superior orders is no defence (eg. if the chief of police tells them to kill anyone suspected of being a suicide bomber)- the only relevant factor is was the use of force reasonable given the police officers belief at the time of the incident, in which case it is an absolute defence to a charge of murder - if force was not reasonable then it is murder.

    "shoot to kill" is an irrelevant tabloid headline, if a police officer beleives the only way to protect life is to kill the suspect then that is what he has to do, and the law allows him to do so.
  4. Armourer, the policy prior to the suicide bomber threat (of any religious belief) was to shoot to immobilize, by aiming at the body, not the head.

    Bombard, Why would the police advertise the fact that they changed tactics to counter a threat? If they did that then some of the more fanciful ideas you put above may have been used. Police policies and tactics are based on intelligence gathered, they obviously had int that showed suicide bombers were not using the devices you mention. Not that I think many suicide bombers are - otherwise that 14 yr old in Israel would have been spread over a wide area now.
  5. Shoot to immobilise, whilst nice in theory, is not so hot practically as the tools of the immobilisation are firearms, and whilst you can immobilise someone with a gun, unless you're Audie Murphy (in the Hollywood yrs not in Italy) you're extremely likely to to kill your targetat the same time. "shoot to immobilise", IMHO is a legalistic sophistry to allow Polizei to use firearms when they need to. And I'm all for it. However, the present situation has made this sort of legalistic tapdance irrelevant, as the terrs are quite likely to want to go out in a blaze of glory and set off devices with their dying breath. Instead of wringing our hands about the likelihood of another innocent killing, a bit of steely determination is required to recognise that innocent people ALWAYS die, and to straight jacket the security forces with cumbersome ROE will only make the terr's job easier.
  6. its not a shoot to kill policy, its a shoot to stop. And unfortunatly the only way to minimise risk with a suicide bomber is to go for the head. Sad but true. Nothing has changed in terms of law, just a look at correct tactics for this situation.

    My giode to NOT getting shot:
    1 = don't be a bomber
    2 = Stop when challenged
    3 = FFS if you must run, don't run to the tube!
    4 = see number 1

    I got seriously pissed when some women on the radio said se thougth they should shoot for the hand..... \what a bunch of wasters
  7. If you dont like the term 'shoot to kill' suggest an alternative.

    Building bombs is not easy and building sophisticated bombs including elaborate triggers is beyond the reach of many support groups. If a more capable group built that bomb, then the 14 year old would have been killed. (it is the same 14 year old we're thinking about? Kid that had second thoughts? security made him remove the bomb and strip?)

    I'm not suggesting that tactical decisions be published. But allowing police to kill is a strategic decision, and the general public should know. If Mr de Menezes knew the policy existed, then he may not have run: As it stood, he believed British police were unarmed.

    On July 12, a baby was buried in Los Angeles- She was shot during a shoot out between police and her drunk father. After the fire fight, the baby's mother said "I told them that he needed help, he needs a psychologist, but please don't shoot. They didn't understand, and the police fired, like, 300 shots." CNN

    Allowing a shoot to kill policy as part of normal policing leads to mental patients and babies being killed.

    "Outside the church, a man shouted in Spanish that "the police are assassins" as the casket passed by." CNN

    I don’t think that the police are going to get support in that community for a while. Which is more important. Stopping one individual, or the policing of an entire community?

    Yes, The police should be able to use lethal force. But they should know who they target, the target should know that it is a policeman holding the gun and what the policy behind the gun is. The policeman should have enough evidence to balance the probabilities requiring the targets death.

    If any of these were present, the death of Mr de Menezes might have been avoided. The policemen did not know who he was. Plain clothes men wearing police caps are not quickly identifiable. Mr de Menezes did not know the policy behind the guns. And given what he went through to get to britain to achieve his dream, his own balance of probabilities- if I don’t run, I will be sent back to the slum- tilted the police balance to kill him.

    I've considered going illegal in America. I didn't, but would it have made me a legitimate target? Hope not.

    Shooting is the last resort in policing.
    When a policeman fires at someone, he has failed. That is true from Los Angeles to Abbeylara.
  8. Utter rubbish.

    1) You have no idea what he believed
    2) You want me to believe that in all the years he spent in England he never saw or heard about armed police, what was he ? blind and deaf.
  9. :roll:
  10. I'm taking it from a letter writen to his mother. In which he said "that police here don't even carry guns."

    At which he was delighted, since apparently Brazilian police will shoot at anything in the slums. Irony, eh?
    Hell, I thought only some members of the British police carried guns!

    Regardless: plainclothes men, by definition, do not stand out as policement.

    now, back to the point:

    Policing is not warfare, nor is it peacekeeping. Combat rules do not apply, policing rules do.
    It is bad policing to have unrestricted shoot-on-suspiscion- Unless you want to live in Los Angeles, that is.

    So what should be the rules for lethal force by police? One dead person innocent of violent crime is enough- isn't it?
  11. Seems like an awful lot of Iraqi's can do it...

    Heh, and it's not like the SWAT teams are trigger happy or anything is it? One Aimed round would probaly have ended it, but htebigger question is how did the mental patient get hold of a gun?
    I've said it before, when you Shoot someone you're not trying to give them a love tap, they must have done something realy, realy Dumb to get to the point where the Police are pointing guns at them, and to force the police to fire, then It's Darwin Award time.

    The police DID have evidence of him being a threat, they thought he was a Mad bomber type, and he ran from them towards lots of potential Victims.

  12. "Combat rules do not apply, policing rules do."

    As they have In NI for the past 30 years of military involvement - and there the yellow card is a good summary of the law as it stands (even though it carries no weight in law itself) It is perfectly clear, you are authorised to fire if, and only if, you believe there is an immediate threat to human life. you do not HAVE to shout a warning if to do so would carry a greater risk than not doing so.

    The police in London are working to pretty much the same rules, and have been for years in operations against gun crime.

    Derek bennet was shot four times by police after being seen carrying a gun which turned out to be a cigarette lighter, was this shoot to kill?
    Harry Stanley was shot in cimilar circumstances (the difference in that case being that an inquest jury believed the police could not establish an honest belief of "immediate threat" based on inaccuracies in their story) was this shoot to kill?

    if you do not lead the police to beleive you are an imminent threat - by, for example doing exactly as you are told when challenged by men with guns shouting ARMED POLICE, DONT MOVE - then you will not be shot.

    If they were operating a "kill on suspicion" policy then they would have dropped a frag into the flats yesterday, rather than CS gas - if the blokes had come out with bulky jackets or rucksacks on rather than in their underwear as ordered by the police then they would have been shot, they didnt, therefore there was no immediate threat and no reason to shoot them.

    Comments such as "It is bad policing to have unrestricted shoot-on-suspiscion" are pure inflammatory rhetoric picked up from places like U-75, they do not bear out as a true reflection on what happened in london, or what the law permits.
  13. The point is you are an idiot, unable to grasp simple facts.

  14. Bollox. Absolute sh ite. Shots the body are to kill - absolutely nothing else. Headshots are to avoid triggering a device and make sure of an immediate kill.
  15. Now you've gone and done it, you've upset Nige :D

    <Whisper> Nige thinks shots to the body don't kill...I think Nige is a Tiffy....nuff said. Don't let Nige know I've said this, he'll get a monk on.<Whisper>