Village Journals
Resonate your identity with Naseeb journals. Express your opinions, share your thoughts, post your writings and connect with like minded people through the power of expression.
Resonate your identity with Naseeb journals. Express your opinions, share your thoughts, post your writings and connect with like minded people through the power of expression.
SHOOT-TO-KILL: What do we think?
Is the Met's shoot-to-kill policy justified?
Jean Charles de Menezes was killed at Stockwell tube station because of a shoot-to-kill policy against suspect suicide bombers. This policy was only revealed after last week's shooting. Bear in mind that similar proposals for combatting IRA terrorism were rejected 20 years ago .
From yesterday's Guardian.
Aamer Anwar is a Glasgow-based human rights lawyer --- Shoot-to-kill is justified only if you get the right person. It is never justified in any situation where someone is unarmed. Real questions have to be asked... man was followed and chased. On what basis did they shoot to kill? ...In a democratic society you can't just implement shoot to kill without some form of accountability... It is not good enough to say "we apologise, it's a tragedy". a full-scale public inquiry into the whole issue, not just the shooting but why there are intelligence failures.
Crispin Black is a former government intelligence analyst and director of Janusian Security Risk Management --- I think it is justified in certain very dangerous circumstances but only ever when the procedures are very tightly controlled and are carried out by highly trained people ... I think it is particularly justified when you are dealing with potential suicide bombers. Clearly this has gone very badly wrong ... is as much a victim of the bombings that began on 7th July as everybody else who has been hurt. The question is, what can you do if there is a suicide bomber in a crowded place? What can you do other than try and grab his arms and kill him?
Is the current state of tension (where we are all suspects) purely a government creation? Or is it an adequate response by security forces to the continued threat of international terrorism? Do we feel safer knowing that this policy is in place? Or will ordinary and innocent people become targets? What do you think?
Jean Charles de Menezes was killed at Stockwell tube station because of a shoot-to-kill policy against suspect suicide bombers. This policy was only revealed after last week's shooting. Bear in mind that similar proposals for combatting IRA terrorism were rejected 20 years ago .
From yesterday's Guardian.
Aamer Anwar is a Glasgow-based human rights lawyer --- Shoot-to-kill is justified only if you get the right person. It is never justified in any situation where someone is unarmed. Real questions have to be asked... man was followed and chased. On what basis did they shoot to kill? ...In a democratic society you can't just implement shoot to kill without some form of accountability... It is not good enough to say "we apologise, it's a tragedy". a full-scale public inquiry into the whole issue, not just the shooting but why there are intelligence failures.
Crispin Black is a former government intelligence analyst and director of Janusian Security Risk Management --- I think it is justified in certain very dangerous circumstances but only ever when the procedures are very tightly controlled and are carried out by highly trained people ... I think it is particularly justified when you are dealing with potential suicide bombers. Clearly this has gone very badly wrong ... is as much a victim of the bombings that began on 7th July as everybody else who has been hurt. The question is, what can you do if there is a suicide bomber in a crowded place? What can you do other than try and grab his arms and kill him?
Is the current state of tension (where we are all suspects) purely a government creation? Or is it an adequate response by security forces to the continued threat of international terrorism? Do we feel safer knowing that this policy is in place? Or will ordinary and innocent people become targets? What do you think?
Comments on this journal
What I mean to say is that there is a lot of disinformation in the media. The simple mechanics of disarming a potential terrorist are far different from what we're told.
Cheers.
When the police find a suspect, it's often through servailiance and investigation. As such, you have the freedom to corner an unwtting target any way you please, when they least expect it and far away from innocent members of the public.
You forget that innocent people can also be killed by firearms being used in public places. I have seen a .50 cal round go clean through three people. One bullet. Three dead bodies.
The idea that we have to kill suspected terrorists is not grounded in fact or reality.
Shoot to kill is always wrong.
The police have many options at their disposal. They have pepper sprays, stun guns and small arms. I have been on the recieving end of the first two.
They work.
I take it that you have seen someone who has been shot, in real life. It is nothing like the movies. When done properly, there is a lot of blood and screaming and not much else. They are not likely to run around setting of bombs or shooting at other people when there is a hole in them the size of a small saucer.
The police can use both lethal and non-lethal weapons to disable someone without killing them. This is nothing. Police forces around the world have been doing so for many years.
The real problem with this policy is the same argument (that I make) against capital punishment - how can you be sure that you've got the right man? if you accept the possibility of innocent deaths (as our police force infomr us they have) than what you are saying is "innocent lives are worth the greater goal." And then both police and terrorist become one and the same.
Missy --- I wish I could delete that comment...
In certain situations, the Police need to disable someone they percieve as a threat. Despite all the propaganda we hear, this is normally quite easy to do. I have seen police snipers shoot a pistol out of a man's hand. No one has to die.
On one hand the police follow a man on a bus, chase him into a tube, pile on top of him and then shoot him multiple times on the head. The 'we had not choice' argument does not work. They had many opportunities to corner and disable him peacefully.
I qualified as a military marksman and it's not even my full-time profession. I can shoot at a person's arms, hands or legs from 100 yards. I'm sure most of the folks here can do it to, with the right training. For some reason, these police officers couldn't manage it at point blank range.
The government has no right to act as judge, jury and executioner all in one go. There are never circumstances that justify them executing someone in cold bold. Their job is only to bring those they suspect of being guilty to court. That is all.
Nothing more. Nothing less.