Guy killed by police after mask dispute

[Chris K]

my understanding is that the armed response polis “shoot to incapacitate” and this usually means the chest area, but that sometime they need to go for a headshot in the case of terrorists specifically as they may be wearing body armour. i read something about it a while back.

it’s interesting, seems it’s a bit of a grey area, covered by common law and subject to criminal law also. has to be self defence or public protection and only reasonable force.

Only time you'd take aim for the head is if the target is potentially wearing an explosive device that may be triggered by the impact of a round.

It's extremely difficult though and generally carried out at close quarter as a last resort.

Do you remember just after the July 7th Terrorist attack where Menezes was shot by Police after failing to comply and running onto a train? It was suspected he had an explosive attached so he was tackled to the ground by the officers and then shot in the head from less than 3 foot away. Sounds brutal and overkill but there are reasons for it.

Taking out the brain stem is instanteous death, the brain instantly can't communicate with any muscles so if he had decided to trigger a device, it wouldn't have mattered, the hand wouldn't have responded to the order. It also prevents any round potentially hitting the device that they suspected was on his torso, the impact could trigger any device.

Extremely brave of the officers involved given the information they had at the time.

 

[ObiWanVaponi]

Extremely brave of the officers involved given the information they had at the time.

Thats not a universal view

https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Brazil...ondon_Underground_was_not_acting_suspiciously

 

[Chris K]

Thats not a universal view

https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Brazil...ondon_Underground_was_not_acting_suspiciously

People are of course entitled to there own views.

However, for me, to chase and tackle to the floor someone you suspect may have an explosive device only 2 weeks after one of the worst terrorist attacks London had seen is bravery.

 

[ObiWanVaponi]

People are of course entitled to there own views.

However, for me, to chase and tackle to the floor someone you suspect may have an explosive device only 2 weeks after one of the worst terrorist attacks London had seen is bravery.

OK yes it is brave and I doubt very much I could do it. It does highlight the problem of inaccurate intelligence though. Shooting someone 7 times in the face from 12 inches away, while already restrained, when he wasn't acting suspiciously according to witnesses could be considered by some as a tad heavy handed.

I do agree with you, I just think Jean Charles de Menezes may not be the best example.

 

[Chris K]

OK yes it is brave and I doubt very much I could do it. It does highlight the problem of inaccurate intelligence though. Shooting someone 7 times in the face from 12 inches away, while already restrained, when he wasn't acting suspiciously according to witnesses could be considered by some as a tad heavy handed.

I do agree with you, I just think Jean Charles de Menezes may not be the best example.

I agree with you aswell, they acted on bad intelligence, no denying that given what we now know.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing though!

Can't blame the officers on the ground though, they had information and can guarantee that had orders from way above high to ensure the safety of themselves and the public by any means necessary.

Menezes been restrained though is abit of a Red Herring by the press, yes, he was restrained but the officers suspected he had an explosive device, only takes milliseconds and the movement of a finger to trigger it. They acted in a way that removed that risk.

 

[ObiWanVaponi]

OK I'm going out. either read the leaked docs or don't.