Crooks can gas sleeping caravanners and celebrities in their bedrooms . What was to stop the cops discretely pumping the flat full of gas while the occupants were a bit drowsy?

false flag innit

That would have been better than shooting them (yet). After a bit of ‘boarding, they might have provided some valuable info about other scum like themselves.

Crooks can gas sleeping caravanners and celebrities in their bedrooms

http://www.rcoa.ac.uk/news-and-bulletin/rcoa-news-and-statements/statement-alleged-gassing-motor-vehicles

Crooks can gas sleeping caravanners and celebrities in their bedrooms

Has this ever been proven?

Do you remember the Moscow theatre – IIRC Russians killed over 100 people with the gas…

http://www.rcoa.ac.uk/news-and-bulletin/rcoa-news-and-statements/statement-alleged-gassing-motor-vehicles

That answers that question then!

Crooks can gas sleeping caravanners and celebrities in their bedrooms . What was to stop the cops discretely pumping the flat full of gas while the occupants were a bit drowsy?

It could possibly be effective way of ensuring people who you know are asleep stay asleep (and those people are in a small space, at ground level), it would be quite difficult to do something while people are awake and not have them realise something is happening.

Maybe the police should sneak into the flat downstairs, pump up the volume and pump the target flat full of canabis. The suspects would figure that it was just another party and would end up stoned. The police could then tempt them out by wafting take-away pizza in the corridor……

Either that or pump the flat full of nitrous 8)

Maybe they wanted to send a message.

I’m sure they considered that option for about a micro-second, however better options where available.

They should have sent Mr Corbyn to knock on the door and ask them if they wanted to pop-out for a coffee and a chat.

They should have sent Mr Corbyn to knock on the door and ask them if they wanted to pop-out for a coffee and a chat.

😀

Honestly saying not to shoot terrorists that killed (executed actually) 89 people in a concert hall. He’s massively away from popular opinion on this one

Did the Russians not try this at the theater a few years back? It did not end well. 😕

tonyg2003 – Member

Honestly saying not to shoot terrorists that killed (executed actually) 89 people in a concert hall.

Yeah, but honestly, you just made that up.

If the flat had actually been a building in Syria then they would have sent in a drone and flattened it. I’m not suggesting that they do that with a residential block in Paris but it does raise an interesting question about whether an airstrike could / would have been used on home soil if the terrorists were, for example, holed up in a farmhouse.

Yeah, but honestly, you just made that up.

I listened to the full Corbyn interview and he was saying that they shouldn’t shoot terrorists shooting people on the street. Listen to it. The man is deluded.

If the flat had actually been a building in Syria then they would have sent in a drone and flattened it. I’m not suggesting that they do that with a residential block in Paris but it does raise an interesting question about whether an airstrike could / would have been used on home soil if the terrorists were, for example, holed up in a farmhouse.

Unlikely as they would want any intel that could find in the farmhouse too. In Syria if they couldn’t lift the person to extract info due to the high risk then a drone attack makes more sense knowing you wouldn’t be able to get any info from the flat Syria due to the same risks. Also in Syria ISIS would most likely have the whole building to themselves so any collateral damage would most likely be other combatants so no loss.

Honestly saying not to shoot terrorists that killed (executed actually) 89 people in a concert hall. He’s massively away from popular opinion on this one

From outspoken popular opinion maybe. Plenty are prepared to at least think about rather than “eye for an eye” knee jerk playground stuff. And for that – as a reasoned counter – he should be congratulated. Otherwise where will it all end, really?

If the flat had actually been a building in Syria then they would have sent in a drone and flattened it. I’m not suggesting that they do that with a residential block in Paris but it does raise an interesting question about whether an airstrike could / would have been used on home soil if the terrorists were, for example, holed up in a farmhouse.

Not if it didn’t satisfy the rules of engagement and targeting policy they wouldn’t, these impose tight limits on things like collateral damage. Generally the aim of these raids is to arrest the individuals and extract any intelligence from them or their surroundings, which wouldn’t work with an air attack.

If the flat had actually been a building in Syria then they would have sent in a drone and flattened it. I’m not suggesting that they do that with a residential block in Paris but it does raise an interesting question about whether an airstrike could / would have been used on home soil if the terrorists were, for example, holed up in a farmhouse.

No need for an air-strike on home soil as they control the area around the target. They don’t control the land in Syria so have to do it remotely.

tonyg2003 – Member

I listened to the full Corbyn interview and he was saying that they shouldn’t shoot terrorists shooting people on the street.

Nope, you made that up too.

‘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 counter-productive.

I think you have to have security that prevents people firing off weapons where they can, there are various degrees of doing things as we know. But the idea you end up with a war on the streets is not a good thing.

Surely you have to work to try and prevent these things happening, that’s got to be the priority.’

My bold but this is what he actually said. You avoid shooting where you can. You work to prevent it from happening. You don’t go out with the intention of killing people except as a last resort (as some believe we did in NI)). He hasn’t said we shouldn’t shoot terrorists.

He said something which was open to intentional misinterpretation by people who want to twist his words- which to be fair, in his position is a mistake. And then he issued a clarification of what he said, which inevitably the same people who choose to twist it claim is a u-turn

Plenty are prepared to at least think about rather than “eye for an eye” knee jerk playground stuff. And for that – as a reasoned counter – he should be congratulated

I’m not saying that bombing Syria is anything to do with his comments about terrorists on the streets. Actually I don’t agree with bombing ISIS in Syria. It makes us as bad as the terrorists in some ways. What I’m saying is the having a “no shoot to kill” policy against suicide bombers armed with Kalashnikovs wandering a major city, is bizarre.

Anyhow, the lady wasn’t shot, she blew herself up.

Nope, you made that up too.

‘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 counter-productive.

I think you have to have security that prevents people firing off weapons where they can, there are various degrees of doing things as we know. But the idea you end up with a war on the streets is not a good thing.

Surely you have to work to try and prevent these things happening, that’s got to be the priority.’

I’m sorry that you see a different meaning to the same interview that we both saw. As I bolded he was against shoot to kill. In a situation like Paris you need clear guidelines and his certainly aren’t. He is saying that he does want shoot to kill. Look at what he has also said at some of the labour meetings, he’s against shoot to kill.

Being against shoot-to-kill isn’t the same as being against shooting terrorists. A shoot-to-kill policy means allowing police to open fire without issuing a warning first. It doesn’t prevent them from shooting.

I think that it’s a bit of a hot button topic because there’s been allegations that an unofficial shoot-to-kill policy effectively allowed the police to make extra-judicial executions during the Troubles.

As I posted in the other thread Corbyn has put Ken Livingston in charge of defence policy, except that hasn’t gone well so far either.

Being against shoot-to-kill isn’t the same as being against shooting terrorists. A shoot-to-kill policy means allowing police to open fire without issuing a warning first. It doesn’t prevent them from shooting.

I thought shoot-to-kill was just one journo’s way of describing the current ROE in a way that would put Politicians on the spot, although only Corbyn fell for it.

Surely there are no proposed changes to UK firearms officer’s ROE?

How many times have the police shot a unarmed person becuase they ‘thought’ they saw something or they targeted the wrong person to follow and end up shooting them (all foreigners look the same mentality)

The police have a hard enough job raiding the ‘right’ house 🙄

Get Cressida Dick in 🙄 she will weed out all the Brazilian electricians.

Surely there are no proposed changes to UK firearms officer’s ROE?

UK Firearms officers are trained to shoot to kill, especially if they feel it’s a suicide bomber. Single bullet to the base of the neck from behind with a plain clothes officer.

The ROE for normal firearms officers will remain the same and it is normally single shot and re-assess hence a lot of the rifles you see them carrying are actually semi automatic and not fully automatic as people think. They are trained to aim for centre mass as it’s a more reliable place to hit when someone is moving.

It’s also worth noting that one of th ebiggest issues the police face in a marauding terrorist situation is what rifle to use, the 9mm in the MP5 doesn’t have suitable range or stopping power so they have swapped to the 5.56mm G36 or Sig but this causes an issue with the bullets going straight through the bad guy and killing innocent bystanders.

They still have the issue that the bad guys are generally firing superior power rifles in the form of the 7.62 round. Part of the reason the army had to adopt heavier calibre weapons in the sharpshooter so as they can return fire at suitable distances.

On the original subject, it does appear going in with a deliberate entry was the wrong answer but may have been the only one they felt suitable based on the intel they had. Better that than the bad guys coming out shooting in the street.

The current RoE allow opening fire without a warning if there isn’t time or to do so would increase the danger, ISTR. They need to protect those who open fire, because they have to make difficult decisions quickly to protect the populace without the benefit of hindsight. There’s little evidence of trigger-happiness among British police, look at the response to Lee Rigby’s killers for restraint, or Pte Clegg or Sgt Blackmore’s cases for legal action against those who go out with the RoE.

This might be whatiffery but I don’t know what the ROE are. So in a hostage type situation where it is known or strongly expected that suicide vests are being worn. A firearms officer has a clear aim at a terrorist. Are they expected to shout a warning first? They might as well give them a countdown. I’d hope there’s enough discretion to be able to shoot to kill already without needing a policy change.

Edit – crossed with previous post

This might be whatiffery but I don’t know what the ROE are. So in a hostage type situation where it is known or strongly expected that suicide vests are being worn. A firearms officer has a clear aim at a terrorist. Are they expected to shout a warning first? They might as well give them a countdown. I’d hope there’s enough discretion to be able to shoot to kill already without needing a policy change.

I’m pretty certain there is exactly that discretion – shooting dead a hostage taker would be regarded by a jury as reasonable force.

AFAIK the police firearms people obey the same law as you and I in that regard and as yet nobody has indicated any change in policy.

AFAICT “Shoot-to-kill” is not a new policy, it’s just a term a journo used and Corbyn picked up an ran with for reasons best known to himself.

The ROE are perfectly reasonable and & unless anyone else has heard otherwise there seem to be no plans to change them.

AFAIK the police firearms people obey the same law as you and I in that regard and as yet nobody has indicated any change in policy

No change in policy as the common law situation has been the same for a long time, but they certianly did have to rethink policy with op Kratos (though they don’t call it that any more) where the individual officer might not be able to ascertain beyond doubt whether the suspect might be a suicide/remote control bomber.

French police say they came under the heaviest fire they have ever experienced. The lady bomber ran out of the flat towards them in an attempt to blow them up too.

The photos of the police shields covered in bullet holes are pretty shocking (from Bataclan). Chapeau to those officers

@somouk – “centre of mass” does that mean chest because that’s a bit flawed if they are wearing a modern flak jacket.

would the gas have been inflammable, otherwise there could have been even more of a mess when that lady detonated herself.

IIRC, modern flak jackets are designed to stop up to 9mm pistol rounds, they don’t work against modern assault rifle rounds.

takes some balls to go into a confined space knowing that kind of weaponry is likely to be pointed at you.

He’s massively away from popular opinion on this one

hmmmm… more like away from the opinion of retards, who dare I say it, don’t necessarily always have the most useful contributions to make to any discussion