a little excessive...?

[dannyday5821]

ive been reading alot recently about civillians, or indeed criminals, killed by law enforcement. almost every single article details how the person in question was shot. they all say something along the lines of, suspect shot 9 times pointblank, 40 shots fired, suspect hit 9 times.

i mean, Jean Charles De Mendez was shot at something like eleven times, then point blank in the head.

why, oh why, do they over do it? 5 times? isnt once enough!? to say something like, "oh its the andrenaline", i can understand that, but surley the point of being trained should counter act any sudden actions without thinking. although i can see how easy it would be to just keep pulling the trigger.

why are people like this always over killed as it were?

[Theland]

I am guessing here of course, I need a military man to correct me.
However, from what I have read, the S.A.S. who are trained to kill, use what they call a, "double tap." Two shots in quick succession, per victim.
If two is what the professionals use, then I too am perplexed by the numbers of shots fired at the likes of John Charles de Menenzes.
I await a more informed comment from somebody with military training.

[4GS]

No it's correct procedure.
when I was in Northern Ireland, we were taught that if we are close enough to the target to get a head shot we were to draw an inaginary crosshair in the middle of the forehead, shoot ther, then do the same at each side and back of the head, this will destroy the centre of the brain and eliminate any chanse of the terrorist surviving and using a weapon against us. I imagine this is what the police did to De Mendez to make sure he couldn't detonate any explosive he had on him (I know he didn't, but the police involved didn't know that until after they killed him). This was also the procedure carried out in Gibralter when the SAS killed a couple of IRA terrorists and there was an outcry about 'excessive force' like planting a bomb and killing dozens of innocent people isn't excessive.

[Theland]

4GS - Despite that being the protocol, isn't it, as in the question, a bit excessive?
Surely NOBODY could "go for a button," with even ONE in the head? Two to be certain, but after that?

[4GS]

Believe me Theland, you wouldn't want to risk not totaly destroying the brain of a determined terrorist, even one in a trillion chance that they could harm you is still one chance, that's all they need.
I was never in that situation, apart from the gulf war, all the firefights I was involved in were long range, 100 metres plus, however, because of the work I was doing in N.I, I was trained in this proccedure by Special Branch and the SAS, so, had the situation arose, I would definatly attempt to remove the threat by destying the brain

[Loosehead]

Top answer 4GS, it's too easy for airmchair "experts" spurting their liberal clap trap from the safety of never having been in that situation to try and take some sort of moral high ground! Menezes was a victim of terrorism the same as those who died directly on 7/7, end of.

[dannyday5821]

thanks for these answers, especially by 4G's - it cleared things up a little. i see your point, and like you said, if i were in any situation in front of a terrorist, i wouldnt want to take the chance either! after all, ive heard stories of it been possible to survive gunshot head wonds, so of course, destroying the brain itself makes absolute sure! but then so would a direct hit by a bazooka or something as crazy as that! i still think its excessive, but i see the reason why much more clearly.