Corbyn

[tut]

I did not think the man could make me have a lower opinion of him than I do at present, but he succeeded.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34832023

tut

[PhilA]

so, Corbyn would rather other than shoot be we try rugby tackle them?
Sure, ideally dont kill them so we can interrogate, but if not possible surely its required practice to shoot to kill a terrorist who is shooting/ running at you with a bomb attached!

[robin]

I didn't read any of those things in that interview - perhaps the full text says otherwise elsewhere?

That article says he said:

"I'm not happy with the shoot-to-kill policy in general - I think that is quite dangerous and I think can often can be counterproductive.
"I think you have to have security that prevents people firing off weapons where you can, there are various degrees for doing things as we know.
"But the idea you end up with a war on the streets is not a good thing."

What's wrong with that? Mr Cameron (via his spokesperson), to the same question, said:

spokesman said such matters were ultimately "an operational decision for police on the ground".
He said there was a "clear legal framework" and that the police "have extensive training".

Hardly a ringing endorsement for a blanket shoot to kill policy ...

Remember the police (in the right circumstances) can already shoot and kill people, whether they be ordinary (armed and dangerous) criminals, terrorists, people that look/act like terrorists, etc. The question presumes a new policy might be introduced above and beyond the powers the police already have and asks the interviewee to comment on that supposed new policy. At least that's my take on it.

Cheers,
Robin

[thinfourth]

He also said that ramping up the bombing in syria will make no difference

he is almost completely correct

It won't improve things if anything it will make things worse


I think we should completely pull out of the middle east and let them live in peace

Well peacefully beheading each other


I hate agreeing with the extreme leftwing nutters like the the green party, CND, socialist workers party and the SNP but they are right we should leave the middle east alone

Just they believe it will suddenly turn into paradise where everyone skips around wearing flowers in their hair

I think it will turn into a sandy bloodbath

[thinfourth]

Also he is correct

We should and do not have a shoot to kill policy on our streets


We have a policy to stop terrorists

First stage is to tell them to stop

If that fails the police shoot to stop

If stopping them means a mild case of dead then that is a side effect not an requirement

[tut]

How can there be any other case than killing terrorists who are shooting people on the street if you are able to? I find it unbelievable that anybody could think differently, and I presume that anybody who was on the receiving end of the bullets would feel the same, even though they will spout off about being pacifists when they are safely sitting at home. I do not even know what he means by a "shoot to kill policy in general" and I don't think he does, it does not mean a thing. There are easily identifiable cases for using weapons and saving human life is one of them, nobody is advocating that we have trigger happy cops shooting hoodies or car thieves.

I know you like to take a rounded view Robin and see both sides of a situation, but you have lost me this time. One other point, when a policeman or soldier shoots at a target, they are always taught to shoot to kill, never to shoot to wound. One advantage the French police had over our own is that all 260,000 of them are armed and can react immediately to that sort of situation. It was not a hostage one whereby our Armed Response Team would be called out after getting permission, then be able to weigh it up for the best way to get the hostages out alive. In Paris immediate response was required, but it was still a no win situation as over 100 were killed in minutes and the gunmen would have carried on until they ran out of ammunition, or in this case blew themselves up when they saw that they were going to be captured or shot.

There are only FIVE police forces in the World that are not armed and we are one of them. There are good reasons for that and most of the time they seem to work, but this is one case where they would not.

tut

[thinfourth]

How can there be any other case than killing terrorists who are shooting people on the street if you are able to? I find it unbelievable that anybody could think differently, and I presume that anybody who was on the receiving end of the bullets would feel the same, even though they will spout off about being pacifists when they are safely sitting at home.

tut

Okay

Police turn up with very big guns and shouts at terrorist to stop or he will shoot

the terrorist stops and drops his gun to the floor


Should the police now shoot him?


Yes or No

Unrealistic?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Be ... or_attacks

"When an armed police SWAT unit from Oslo arrived on the island and confronted him, he surrendered without resistance"

[r10crw]

I dont think his response was unreasonable?

If at all possible they should not be killed. Of course each situation needs to be assessed at the time but I prefer they are taken alive for questioning, if not just for more info to prevent further attacks.

[j2 lot]

Police turn up with very big guns and shouts at terrorist to stop or he will shoot

the terrorist stops and drops his gun to the floor


Should the police now shoot him?


Yes or No

Still inclined to say yes unless you can be certain he isn't a walking bomb.
An unenviable position for any armed officer and I am pleased it's not a decision I will ever need to make.

[robin]

Even the Conservatives don't want a "shoot to kill policy" - nobody has endorsed it - it was a proposition put by a journo to try and trap somebody into saying something that they could then make a headline out of - I don't believe (though I could of course be wrong) that any current UK politician has called for a shoot-to-kill policy. Thus in some ways it is undefined what it really meant at the time the question was asked, but let me explain what I think it means in case we're talking at cross purposes. I think it means identify and kill any suspected terrorist - last used (allegedly, obvz and never officially) in connection with terrorists on either side of the Northern Ireland situation, though primarily against the Republicans.

The difference between a shoot-to-kill policy and vigorous protection of the public and officers at risk by terrorists is that one is like a deer hunt and the other is self defence. A shoot to kill policy would engage our forces in hunting down the (alleged) terrorists and arranging to assassinate them rather than capture and bring them to trial (or even establish that the intelligence is correct and that they are even terrorists, in fact).

I think it's likely we all think that any terrorist who is actively presenting a threat could and should be shot dead if there is any doubt about being able to stop them from carrying out their threats against our population and/or police/military. I certainly think that is the way to go - shoot them and make sure they're dead.

Clearly that leads to some wrongful killings (the poor guy on the tube, for example) and we must do what we can to avoid that, but we must balance that risk against the risk of failing to stop an attack that we could have stopped and I suspect we have that balance about right today.

So as usual we mostly agree, I think, and I don't believe that there is any need to change any law, any policy, etc. - everything we think should happen can (and does) happen.

Cheers,
Robin

[tut]

At least one of their hierachy can put it in understandable terms that most of us would agree with. Fortunately he is not the leader........yet.

Shadow foreign secretary Hilary Benn has said it is "perfectly reasonable" for police to shoot to kill terrorists that are a threat to life - after Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said he was "not happy" with such a policy.
Mr Benn said it was a "long-established precedent" that lethal force could be used to prevent "further loss of life".

I think Corbyn must lie in bed in the morning making out a list of " what can I say today that will dig my grave a foot deeper"

tut

[robin]

Tut, I suspect he gets out of bed every morning and thinks "what I can say to wind Tut up today" ... I would say he's quite good at it. Anyway, he's on the BBC news site today saying that of course he supports the indiscriminate murder of anyone a bit "foreign looking" so hopefully that's put that one to bed

Cheers,
Robin

[robin]

P.S. There is no shoot-to-kill policy to support or not support. Just sayin' ...