Quizzes & Puzzles43 mins ago
excessive force?
I was thinking about the shooting on the tube train recently. The man was shot 5 times by a undercover police officer. the peson used a handgun and shot the man 5 times in the head, surely FIVE bullets are excessive. i mean think about it BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG. this is a weapons specialist and the man would have been incapasitated (if not already dead) after the first bullet. this was close range and so why would this proffessional need to pull the trigger 5 times. i understand they thought he might have been a suicide bomber but 1 or 2 shots surely 5 is excessive.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by toby19. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
In a split-second situation like this, the officer has to think that the suspect is about to detonate a bomb. He shoots five times to ensure that the suspect is dead, and that his brain will not cause any reflex action, which can occur after death, which may still detonate the device. The only way to be sure it to destroy the suspect's brain as quickly and comprehensively as possible - hence they are trained to fire five shots, and the action would be purely instinctive. Sorry to be so graphic, but that's the situation the officer was in ... there but for the grace of God ....
I've heard the same thing as Delboy - the bullets aren't as effective as normal bullets, so more are needed to kill someone. The reason they are using these types of bulllets is so that civilians aren't going to get as injured should one be shot . Although in this instance it seems that 5 bullets were shot incorrectly and and a civilian was hurt.
stevey i have every respect for the security services i do really..i speak as an ex squadie who has served in northern ireland, but when a number of officers had already restrained the fella, don't you think someone firing 7 shots into a fella's head at point blank range a little excessive? you can still be supportive of the police while at the same time criticising an incident such as this, believe me, his superior officers would have been just as critical of this guy's actions in private, its not unusual for a policeman or a soldier to lose his discipline when confronted by a situation as this...i bet the fella in question is devastated and will have to live with this mistake all his life but a mistake it was that has tragically resulted in the death of a innocent man...
While I agree that with the exact art of hindsight shows that this may appear to be excessive, I also agree that the unfortuneate guy didnt help himself and the Police had a very difficult job to do.
I have a friend who is an armed officer and the guidelines they always work to is 'the use of force, deadly or otherwise, must be proportionate to the threat'. Now in this case I would agree that the perceived threat was huge so the officer, who had a split second to make that decision, probably made a good call.
Again I stress that hindsight is great, and I really do have great sympathy for the family and friends of the deceased but I also have great sympathy for the officer/s who will have to live with their decision for the rest of their lives.
Dont forget that this officer, who probably gets no more money than a normal bobby pushing a panda car round the area, will probably now be suspended pending the full investigation. If there is any doubt that this killing was within his rules of engagement then he/she will possibly face a murder charge.
He/ she was only doing a job, a very difficult job with terrible consequences when something goes wrong, but a job all the same. And he/she was doing it to protect innocent people.
On the matter of 5 shots being excessive, the officer must do all they can to prevent reflex actions which could have detonated a device.
If I was on that tube at Stockwell and the Brazilian was actually a terrorist with an explosive device, I would be grateful that the officer had the courage of his convictions to pull the trigger.
Lets not let this cloud the issue. YES, a mistake was made which left one man dead. YES. the man probably didnt help himself by running. YES, the officer perhaps could have done without shooting him 7 or 8 times. But lets just remember why the officers were there in the first place, to catch a group of individuals intent on murder and destruction. BLAME THEM
It took the police more than 24 hrs to confirm how many bombings took place. It took them more than 36 hrs to confirm that the bombings were simultaneous. They were watching an apartment. They saw a man come out of the building. What and who were they watching that they did not work out that the man was not the person they were watching. It is a high rise block. there are hundreds of people living there. the least you do is make sure that the person coming out of the building is the person you want. So they then take him out and the met chief congratulates his forces and the people say hurrah. It takes them 48 hrs to say that they got the wrong man (they would have known straight away that the man was not carrying explosives). I cannot blame the armed officers. They were fed stupid intelligence from probably teh same people who told us that there were WMDs in Iraq. Great police force...er...no
The issue of five shots is interesting because it might indicate that "someone got carried away".
It certainly indicates an intention to kill
The low velocity rounds and the idea of stopping any residual nerve impulses is interesting but I doubt that came from any official channels. I would imagine it's speculation from some unnamed source in a newspaper.
I'd suggest that right now there are a lot of news stories without sources that are appearing because the appetite for information is vastly outstripping what information is available.
I'd be very careful about believing what you read these days
In addition to what has already been said -
Life isnt like Hollywood - shootings do not happen like they depict. Criminals have been known to be shot 4 times through the heart and still keep fighting.
In the case of suicide bombers they must be incapacitated so that they cannot press any kind of trigger device, any kind of movment could trigger the device, hence the force used. there isnt the chance to check after the first round whether it has had the desired effect or not - time is not an issue.
Finally, anyone - police, military etc. when they shoot at someone must believe that they or innocent peoples lives are in danger, if so then they always shoot to kill. Shooting to wound is again just another Hollywood fantasy.
Hope no-one minds me butting in here, but as I understand it, the police thought he had a bomb under his Jacket, which he coould have set off at ANY time, then they followed him onto a bus, (two had already been targeted), when the got off the bus, they followed him to the station, he knew he was being followed, still no explosion. Sorry to say this, but I think in this instance, the police were incompetant,
5 or more shots is needed to make sure, at the end of the day they are trained to kil first before being killed and if trained up to special forces standard that would involve several shots quickly and effectivly to the head to totaly rule out any chance of the suspect bomber carrying out an action, also to firs 5 shots is usually less than 1.5 secs as they are trained in double taps which is 2 shots in quick succession so essentially to pump 6 shots in the suspect is the same as 3 double taps and would be over in 1 -2 seconds with the guns that terrorist officers use. Overkill in a lot of eyes but thats just the way that its trained!
The policeman was shooting to kill. Given that he was aiming at the head, the number of bullets he uses is inconsequencial- it has the same effect.
I do recognise that this shows an almost unnecessary aggresson on the part of the officer, but he believed that he was shooting a terrorist- someone who's sole intention is to kill innocent people- someone who may have been connected with the attrocities of 7 July.
I wonder if the Brazilian gentlemen had turned out to be a terrorist, would there be such an outcry over the number of bullets used to kill him?
