the opinion of retards, who dare I say it, don’t necessarily always have the most useful contributions to make to any discussion

People with learning difficulties can vote:

Voting

The shoot to kill policy debate is a classic illustration of asking and answering questions without defining terms. Should police officers who honesty believe the action is necessary and proportionate to prevent a terrorist killing be allowed to shoot to lethal effect ,answer yes seems obvious to me and that is what Corbyn clearly implied but did not clarify in his first answer.
But for many Shoot to Kill harks back to an alleged counter terrorist policy in Norther Ireland where suspects were to be shot on sight regardless of circumstances.
Or the modern tactics from the US in Iraq and Israel in Gaza where people are/were eliminated for such acts as talking on cell phones or carrying spades.
Clearly it would be wrong to allow our police to kill on mere suspicion and that is the slope we get ourselves to the top of if we suggest we should move from our current existing rules to some new shoot to kill policy and that is where David Cameron also failed to draw a line with his ” support all necessary police powers” slick sound bite that was so impressive yet facile.

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

Ah, that’s right, anyone who disagrees with Leftie policies is either defective or mad – good to see that you’re following the statesmanlike example of the party leadership…

I’m pretty sure, even with an actual “shoot to kill” policy, you ain’t gonna get shot if you aren’t a direct threat.

But, come running out of a house spraying bullets from an assault rifle and all bets are off…….

I’m no fan of Corbyn, but I’m increasingly worried by the medias presentation of his (and others) words, and the public blindly swallowing that interpretation.

Any sane person is against a general shoot to kill policy, but he didn’t say that the Police shouldn’t be able to shoot when necessary – in line with general laws on self defence as others have stated.

I disagree with a lot of his policies, but he seems to take a measured view on issues and doesn’t rush to knee jerk soundbites.

@crankboy – but the follow on questions, on the principle of whether he would ever, in theory, authorise military action against Islamic fundementalists, was fair, far less nuanced, and deserved a straight answer that he was utterley unable to give.

Ah, that’s right, anyone who disagrees with Leftie policies is either defective or mad

truth hurts son

Clearly it would be wrong to allow our police to kill on mere suspicion and that is the slope we get ourselves to the top of if we suggest we should move from our current existing rules to some new shoot to kill policy

AFAIK there’s no such proposal.

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

The ones with ceramic plate inserts are more resisant e.g.

Level III Rating: AR500 Armor® body armor is Stand-Alone and Multi-Hit capable. Designed to defeat rifle threats up to 7.62×51 M80 NATO Ball (.308 Winchester) at velocities up to 2,780 feet per second and all pistol calibers.

The last time we tried shoot to kill on a ‘terrorist’ in the UK, we ended up with a student being killed on the Underground, so I can’t see why everyone is so keen on it…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes

Nobody on any side of the debate Corbyn included says you don’t top the terrorist who comes out of a door spraying bullets we don’t need some new Shoot To Kill policy to authorise that in fact we don’t need any policy at all that is what the common and statute law allows and to an extent expects.

The last time we tried shoot to kill on a ‘terrorist’ in the UK, we ended up with a student being killed on the Underground, so I can’t see why everyone is so keen on it…

Given there was an open verdict at the inquest it seems doubtful if that killing was legal, so hardly a good example of the current rules being correctly followed.

we don’t need some new Shoot To Kill policy

What new policy? Where is this new policy?

we don’t need any policy at all that is what the common and statute law allows and to an extent expects.

We don’t, so what new policy are you talking about?

whether an airstrike could / would have been used on home soil if the terrorists were, for example, holed up in a farmhouse.

The French military undoubtedly would. Whether their political masters would allow them is not quite so clear. It wasn’t so long ago that the French secret service operated on home soil sweeping up enemies of the state.

Ninfan re bombing Syria did he not say he would not say he would and he would not say he wouldn’t but he does not support it at this stage. I can see why that does not give some a satisfying simplistic clarity but to set out preconditions to yes I would bomb Syria in the event of x y and z is to set up a hostage to fortune . I can see very good reasons for not bombing Syria now . But again define terms of bombing . I can see a powerful argument for close air support of those fighting Isis if we wish to defeat Isis in that region.

The question asked of Corbyn which created this debate ” if you were pm would you be happy to order the police to shoot to kill on Britain’s streets ” that was the new shoot to kill policy as it goes beyond the current self defence defence of another law which forms our current ROE and is the pm ordering Shoot to Kill.that’s the new bit outofbreath.

whether an airstrike could / would have been used on home soil if the terrorists were, for example, holed up in a farmhouse.

Doesn’t really make sense to just blow up the farmhouse, you’d get no intelligence from it. Much better to try and take them alive and potentially find out about other plots etc.

atlaz – Member

It wasn’t so long ago that the French secret service operated on home soil sweeping up enemies of the state.

And in New Zealand, murdering photographers on Greenpeace boats. These crazy terrorists eh…

Just heard report on R4 and the police chief said around 5000 rounds were fired at the seige today! Thats some fire fight in a built up area! Must have been terrifying for everyone.

The only time police don’t shoot to kill is in films. I know it probably isn’t ‘policy’ but shooting to wound or disable just isn’t feasible.

The question asked of Corbyn which created this debate ” if you were pm would you be happy to order the police to shoot to kill on Britain’s streets ” that was the new shoot to kill policy as it goes beyond the current self defence defence of another law which forms our current ROE and is the pm ordering Shoot to Kill.that’s the new bit outofbreath.

Just because a Journo phrases a question in a certain way doesn’t mean any new policy has been suggested.

They already do shoot to kill, they never shoot to wound for well published reasons.

AFAICT there is no new policy, the police can use reasonable force just like you and I. There’s no proposal to allow the police to use “unreasonable force”.

Terrorists need a bit more of this..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUrS2UxUb_E

The more that are eliminated in the 1st instance the better. Screw any ‘arrest them & bring them to justice’ bollix. It’s gone waay beyond that now. What’s ‘justice’ going to do? We can’t execute them after they’ve been arrested (well ok, we could) We aint going to re-educate them to address their offending behaviour either ( at a cost of well over 35k per head per annum in a Cat A prison & that’s before they try to radicalise any others!)

Corbyn’s as bad as Cameron (IMO) but on the opposite scale, ‘yap yap yap, lets discuss it over coffee. Soft shite.
I’m not a politician thankfully but theyr’e in charge. (apparently)

The police definatly do not shoot to wound, but I don’t think they shoot to kill either.
I think they shoot to neutralise the threat as quickly and effectively as possible. If you die you die and you live if you are lucky.
If there intent was to kill, after gunning down lee rigbys killers they would have walked over and put one in their heads.
But they didn’t they instead started first aid with the intent of saving them.

When visiting a friend in hospital last year there was someone on the ward who had two police officers with him the whole time. I asked him why, he said he had been shot eight times. I said is that what the police were here for, to protect him from who ever shot him. He said no it was the police who shot him. And when I asked why he just said gun crime.

esselgruntfuttock – Member

The more that are eliminated in the 1st instance the better. Screw any ‘arrest them & bring them to justice’ bollix. It’s gone waay beyond that now. What’s ‘justice’ going to do?

Serious? 1) Intelligence, helps us find more of them, learn their plans. And 2), Justice is for us, not for them. Once you decide some people aren’t worthy of justice, where does that end?

The trouble is, that

The more that are eliminated in the 1st instance the better. Screw any ‘arrest them & bring them to justice’ bollix.

often you eliminate Brazilian electricians and other innocent people. The Birmingham 6, the Guildford 4 ? Should those innocent guys have just been eliminated too?

Thanks Chip. Looks like policy is shoot for the torso which is the biggest target except where it’s a possible suicide bomber when they go for head or leg to prevent the bomb going off when the bullet strikes. No change to this policy in the last 15 years or so.

“Police firearms training actually teaches the use and discharge of firearms to “remove the threat” rather than to kill. Following the September 11, 2001 attacks new guidelines were developed for identifying, confronting, and dealing forcefully with terrorist suspects. These guidelines were given the code name “Operation Kratos”.

Based in part on advice from the security forces of Israel and Sri Lanka—two countries with experience of suicide bombings—Operation Kratos guidelines allegedly state that the head or lower limbs should be aimed at when a suspected suicide bomber appears to have no intention of surrendering. This is contrary to the usual practice of aiming at the torso, which presents the biggest target, as a hit to the torso may detonate an explosive belt.”

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

If they were wearing decent plated body armour a 5.56 to the chest would have enough kinetic energy to certainly annoy them and slow them enough for follow up shots. The cheaper stuff as mentioned is designed to stop lower energy rounds so 5.56 would shred it.

I certainly would not have wanted to be holding that shield when it was hit like that. They are bloody heavy bits of kit but I bet it moved some with the 7.62 hitting it.

They are bloody heavy bits of kit but I bet it moved some with the 7.62 hitting it.

Having fired assault rifles, the kick back isn’t massive and the kick back is the same force as the projectile striking the target in a vacuum (Newton’s 3rd law), so if the shield has someone bracing it, the feeling will be less than the kickback on the person firing the round as a) the shield weighs more than an assault rifle, so the overall mass is greater and b) the round will have lost some momentum by the time it strikes.

Argh. I despise all talk of ‘shoot to kill’ polices. It’s the worst turn of bloody phrase.

Nicked from aarse.. Translated account of the incident from the Boss of the team that stormed the flat

https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=fr&ie=UTF8&nv=1&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.be&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2015/11/18/01016-20151118ARTFIG00320-assaut-a-saint-denis-l-intervention-du-raid-heure-par-heure.php&usg=ALkJrhg1sch7p1OIrPvAl39U-_u-wNL3VA

Having fired assault rifles, the kick back isn’t massive and the kick back is the same force as the projectile striking the target in a vacuum (Newton’s 3rd law), so if the shield has someone bracing it, the feeling will be less than the kickback on the person firing the round as a) the shield weighs more than an assault rifle, so the overall mass is greater and b) the round will have lost some momentum by the time it strikes.

I was referring more to the person backing away from the fire more than the shield itself moving through kinetic energy.

The force of a round hitting someone is increased compared to the force felt when firing it, firstly the rifle design will generally reduce recoil to the firer but also the area that force is being applied is smaller in the head of the bullet compared to the surface area of the butt against the shoulder.

Have a read of this, especially misconceptions: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recoil

Ala this. Big gun shooting.

Designed to not pass any recoil to the firer. But the kinetic energy would make a big hole.

Details he gave of the operation in Saint Denis paint a picture of a ferocious battle
Police used 5,000 rounds of ammunition
The main building targeted was hit so hard it is now at risk of collapse
A body was found “riddled with impacts”, which made it impossible to identify for now

BBC report 😯

firstly the rifle design will generally reduce recoil to the firer but also the area that force is being applied is smaller in the head of the bullet compared to the surface area of the butt against the shoulder.

You can’t reduce the recoil energy, all you can do is spread the energy out over time, which reduces the force at any one instant in time.. The point about bullet surface area is irrelevant when hitting a shield as the shield will transfer the energy to the holder over a much wider area than the bullet’s profile, same principle as a bullet proof vest, spread the energy out over the whole chest and a you won’t even break a rib.

166 magazines of 5.56. I”d imagine that number would include pistol and sniper rounds. The shield man would have been carrying a pistol, I’d imagine a few shotgun rounds for possible breaches and then not forgetting the party piece; 40mm grenades. That’s my kind of party.

Thanks gwaelod.

Not completely true. An automatic / semi-automatic rifle uses part of the recoil energy to compress the spring that operates the cartridge eject and reload mechanism.

I’ve over the years shot both Lee Enfield .303 and 7.62 SLR rifles and the recoil from the SLR was significantly lower.

The trouble is, that

often you eliminate Brazilian electricians and other innocent people. The Birmingham 6, the Guildford 4 ? Should those innocent guys have just been eliminated too?

Or 129 innocent Parisian revellers? In one sitting.

An automatic / semi-automatic rifle uses part of the recoil energy to compress the spring that operates the cartridge eject and reload mechanism.

I doubt it’s more than a few % of the overall energy.

and the recoil from the SLR was significantly lower.

Probably from spreading the energy out over time (e.g. shock absorber in the but) which makes the recoil force lower, but the total energy is the same (bar a bit lost as heat in the shock absorber).

gwaelod – Member

Nicked from aarse.. Translated account of the incident from the Boss of the team that stormed the flat

https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=fr&ie=UTF8&nv=1&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.be&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2015/11/18/01016-20151118ARTFIG00320-assaut-a-saint-denis-l-intervention-du-raid-heure-par-heure.php&usg=ALkJrhg1sch7p1OIrPvAl39U-_u-wNL3VA

😯

I’ve over the years shot both Lee Enfield .303 and 7.62 SLR rifles and the recoil from the SLR was significantly lower.

The 303 is bolt action and they generally had brass butt plates, the SLR was gas operated and had a rubber butt plate so the two would be worlds apart in recoil.