Shoot To Kill

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by Annie, Jul 29, 2005.

  1. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Personally I think this would be right in London or any major city that had these incidents within such a short period of time. I know that the equivalent of the police commissioner has said the use of tazers is wrong and they should be using head shots, since there could be a static shock tip off if there are explosives.

    In light of that, I found this interesting:

    http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2005/07/tectonic_plates.html

     
  2. HorhayAtAMD
    Offline

    HorhayAtAMD Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2004
    Messages:
    309
    Thanks Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Canada, eh!
    Ratings:
    +31
    First off, I think complicated moral dilemas like this can never have "templated" answers. The best we can do is strive towards an ideal with the understanding that certain scenarios may cause us to make exceptions. I think most people do think that the principal of treating all cultures equally is a good thing to strive for. However, I believe that the current scenario we find ourself in is exceptional. While dealing with muslim suspects, we still want to strive for equality but I am perfectly comfortable with the idea that equality may need to be sacrificed for safety.

    Even if you don't buy a single thing I said above, I will also ask why there is this belief that muslims are being treated differently? When a serial rapist is on the loose and has been described as a white male, 6'2 driving a blue van, you pull over every blue van you see that has a 6'2 white male driving it. Pulling over 5'8 Japanese females driving Civics, just to be "fair", would be stupid police work. I've said it before and I'll say it again: that isn't racial profiling, that is just smart police work.

    In the end, even if this was a moral dilema (which I don't think it is), why do we need to come up with a "one size fits all" answer? Truth is, we don't, we let the circumstances dictate the actions.
     
  3. USViking
    Offline

    USViking VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2005
    Messages:
    1,452
    Thanks Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Greensboro, NC USA
    Ratings:
    +69
    A Law enforcement Officer who I know
    from another board says when an Officer
    uses a gun he automatically shoots to kill-
    there is no other sane operating procedure
    because:

    1. Firearm use is required only when criminal
    deadly force is threatened, and

    2. No Officer is a good enough shot to shoot
    to wound without endangering bystanders,
    including those who might be in another room.

    He said US LEO marksmanship is notoriously
    bad, not nearly good enough to for a head
    shot, which is what would be needed against
    a suicide bomber wearing explosives on his torso.

    He added UK LEO marksamnship is undoubtedly
    worse, since UK Officers have traditionally
    and I think uniquely not carried firearms.

    I should add that I have drawn some inferences
    and elaborated on what the other board member posted.
     
  4. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770

    I agree. I work with a Pakistani muslim at my part time job. She is great and actually speaks out of the horrors of terrorism. What's funny, kinda like me saying 'my muslim friend', she says that she is a 'Shia' Muslim, it's the rest that are 'bonkers.'

    Seems there's profiling within that community.

    Now on profiling in general. It's become commonplace in Chicago papers to identify suspected criminals as white, male, etc. However, if there is no race given, all one knows is they aren't white. That is nuts.

    Same with the profiling of Middle Eastern, young, males. They should be 'profiled' but at the same time, there should be due diligence to make sure they are not detained/inconvienced for more than minutes, if nothing is apparently wrong with them.

    If this was done and some 'security guard' was acting out of line, I'd back up the profiled on a dime.
     
  5. Mr. P
    Offline

    Mr. P Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    11,329
    Thanks Received:
    618
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South of the Mason Dixon
    Ratings:
    +620
    Shoot to kill will work.. Just like home owners with guns that shoot to kill invaders..It'll work, along with other measures as well..IMO
     
  6. colehart
    Offline

    colehart Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2005
    Messages:
    70
    Thanks Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +9
    This shoot to kill thing is the best policy! You never draw your weapon unless you are prepared to use it. Also, there is no such thing as a one shot kill. That's why you fire off several rounds just to make sure you've made the kill.
     
  7. taff
    Offline

    taff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2005
    Messages:
    190
    Thanks Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Ratings:
    +21
    During the Iranian embassy seige in 1983 Mrs Thatcher sent the SAS in with a shoot to kill policy.They shot terrorists over 80 times each.Which meant changing magazines to carry on shooting up the body.There was reports that hostage takers were mingling in with former hostages in the back yard of the embassy to get out of the killing house but were then dragged by the SAS back into the embassy.Hostages were stating they had to physically intervene to stop the SAS killing them.This is supposedly the reason we never had ME terrorists operate on British soil again during Mrs Thatchers term in office.What a lady.
     

Share This Page