ordnance Posted June 4, 2021 Report Share Posted June 4, 2021 14 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said: So if your a copper on the ground and you got a call on the radio stating the person on the train is about to imminently detonate a device how would you deal with it? Were they told he was about to imminently detonate a device. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted June 4, 2021 Report Share Posted June 4, 2021 I can’t believe this is still running! Six pages? 😳 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aldivalloch Posted June 4, 2021 Report Share Posted June 4, 2021 3 minutes ago, Scully said: I can’t believe this is still running! Six pages? 😳 Don't knock it! Six enthralling pages of delusion, armchair expertness, Walt-itude and shockingly bad grammar and spelling. What more can you ask for?? On second thoughts, please, nobody answer that one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12gauge82 Posted June 4, 2021 Report Share Posted June 4, 2021 1 hour ago, ordnance said: Were they told he was about to imminently detonate a device. I believe operation kratos was authorised, which is the cops on the ground basically being told, you need to shoot this guy, there's not the time to pass all the Intel and if you don't there will be huge loss of life. Its almost an assassination order, the only thing that would change that is if the Intel on the ground significantly changed and meant the officers had more info than the commanders. For instance they identified the subject and he's stood their naked, therfore what possible threat could he pose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted June 4, 2021 Report Share Posted June 4, 2021 46 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said: I believe operation kratos was authorised, which is the cops on the ground basically being told, you need to shoot this guy, there's not the time to pass all the Intel and if you don't there will be huge loss of life. Its almost an assassination order, the only thing that would change that is if the Intel on the ground significantly changed and meant the officers had more info than the commanders. For instance they identified the subject and he's stood their naked, therfore what possible threat could he pose. I suppose it depends on who you believe. Quote THE police chief who headed the bungled operation that led to the death of Jean Charles de Menezes says that she never issued the special code word to kill him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12gauge82 Posted June 4, 2021 Report Share Posted June 4, 2021 6 minutes ago, ordnance said: I suppose it depends on who you believe. Regardless of the specific word, what exactly would you do given the info that they were given that day. It's not Holywood, your not going to go on that train and try talking them down from detonating their bomb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted June 4, 2021 Report Share Posted June 4, 2021 1 minute ago, 12gauge82 said: Regardless of the specific word, what exactly would you do given the info that they were given that day. It's not Holywood, your not going to go on that train and try talking them down from detonating their bomb. That's imposable to say unless you were there, i would expect to be charged if i messed up and shot a innocent man as i am sure they were made aware of during their training, It could have being any of us or family member. I bet some might think differently if it was a member of their family that was shot dead by mistake rather that some obscure Brazilian. The tactic was flawed it relied on 100% identification of someone as a suicide bomber to prevent this type of event from happening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clangerman Posted June 4, 2021 Report Share Posted June 4, 2021 18 minutes ago, ordnance said: . I bet some might think differently if it was a member of their family that was shot dead by mistake rather that some obscure Brazilian. The tactic was flawed it relied on 100% identification of someone as a suicide bomber to prevent this type of event from happening. your not wrong there i certainly wouldn’t wear sorry blew your sons brains out in case he deployed sandwiches here’s a 100 grand blood money Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JKD Posted June 5, 2021 Report Share Posted June 5, 2021 8 hours ago, aldivalloch said: Don't knock it! Six enthralling pages of delusion, armchair expertness, Walt-itude and shockingly bad grammar and spelling. What more can you ask for?? On second thoughts, please, nobody answer that one. Brilliant reply, couldn't have put it better myself 👍 Does seem to be a common theme on lots of topics in the last couple of years,,,, at least 😣🤣 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDog Posted June 5, 2021 Report Share Posted June 5, 2021 9 hours ago, aldivalloch said: Don't knock it! Six enthralling pages of delusion, armchair expertness, Walt-itude and shockingly bad grammar and spelling. What more can you ask for?? On second thoughts, please, nobody answer that one. Correct. 39 minutes ago, JKD said: Brilliant reply, couldn't have put it better myself 👍 Does seem to be a common theme on lots of topics in the last couple of years,,,, at least 😣🤣 Correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12gauge82 Posted June 5, 2021 Report Share Posted June 5, 2021 8 hours ago, ordnance said: That's imposable to say unless you were there, i would expect to be charged if i messed up and shot a innocent man as i am sure they were made aware of during their training, It could have being any of us or family member. I bet some might think differently if it was a member of their family that was shot dead by mistake rather that some obscure Brazilian. The tactic was flawed it relied on 100% identification of someone as a suicide bomber to prevent this type of event from happening. It's impossible to say yet your saying they should be charged with murder. Life isn't a movie, that's the information they had, stop and think about that. They honestly believed mendez was a suicide bomber about to blow the train up, they ran on there believing they would probably be blown up to and shot dead the person they believed was about to do it. There is no other way to deal with it, in real life there are no 100% certainties, especially when dealing with a fluid situation. There other option I suppose would have been to ignore orders and risk a train full of people being blown up, the police have a duty of care and can also be charged for failing to act, so with your logic they'd be dammed if they did and dammed if they didn't. The people at fault if anyone would be the commander for giving the order without clear Intel, not the poor officers on the ground trying to stop an attack and obviously certainly not the poor guy who was shot and his family. 1 hour ago, JKD said: Brilliant reply, couldn't have put it better myself 👍 😣🤣 Or me, although I'm guilty of bad grammar and spelling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted June 5, 2021 Report Share Posted June 5, 2021 (edited) 6 hours ago, JKD said: Brilliant reply, couldn't have put it better myself 👍 Does seem to be a common theme on lots of topics in the last couple of years,,,, at least 😣🤣 Great the grammar / spelling police, every forum has them Edited June 5, 2021 by ordnance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mice! Posted June 5, 2021 Report Share Posted June 5, 2021 35 minutes ago, ordnance said: ever I hope that was deliberate 😄😄 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted June 5, 2021 Report Share Posted June 5, 2021 36 minutes ago, Mice! said: I hope that was deliberate 😄😄 No, me not concentrating on what i am doing 😄 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveboy Posted June 5, 2021 Report Share Posted June 5, 2021 I've just been reading about the SAS going into the Iranian embassy ...the first two terrorists were "double tapped" the third one who was holding a hostage and a hand grenade was shot 27 times....maybe the SAS need more training. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JKD Posted June 5, 2021 Report Share Posted June 5, 2021 6 hours ago, ordnance said: Great the grammar / spelling police, every forum has them Yeah, pick on me, despite me replying to and agreeing to others who posted before me,,,, can you not even work that out 🤔🙄 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bavarianbrit Posted June 7, 2021 Report Share Posted June 7, 2021 Wot eye dont *** is every typin aror gets a spoolchecker popoop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
udderlyoffroad Posted June 7, 2021 Report Share Posted June 7, 2021 (edited) On 04/06/2021 at 21:47, aldivalloch said: What more can you ask for?? You forgot the leading of the horse to water but being unable to make it drink... I guess it's just rather egregious that on a shooting forum, people still seem to have Hollywood-based delusions about what police can and cannot do with their bang-sticks Still not one critic has come with a better doctrine on how to engage a suicide bomber. Edited June 7, 2021 by udderlyoffroad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted June 7, 2021 Report Share Posted June 7, 2021 There is no practical defence against a suicide bomber as far as I can think. There was much questioning of security measures at the stadium regarding the Manchester bomber, but I really can’t see what else could have been done. Once he was on the premises and amid crowds there was no way of stopping him from detonating his bomb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted June 7, 2021 Report Share Posted June 7, 2021 7 hours ago, Scully said: There is no practical defence against a suicide bomber as far as I can think. There was much questioning of security measures at the stadium regarding the Manchester bomber, but I really can’t see what else could have been done. Once he was on the premises and amid crowds there was no way of stopping him from detonating his bomb. That was the issue IMO, they they tried to come up with a defence to something there is no real defence. The shoot to kill relied on 100% identification of a bomber to prevent innocent people being shot, something rarely possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12gauge82 Posted June 7, 2021 Report Share Posted June 7, 2021 21 minutes ago, ordnance said: That was the issue IMO, they they tried to come up with a defence to something there is no real defence. The shoot to kill relied on 100% identification of a bomber to prevent innocent people being shot, something rarely possible. So what are you suggesting, your very good at criticising but you haven't said what other options there are if the police identify a suicide bomber about to blow up a load of members of the public? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted June 7, 2021 Report Share Posted June 7, 2021 (edited) 14 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said: So what are you suggesting, your very good at criticising but you haven't said what other options there are if the police identify a suicide bomber about to blow up a load of members of the public? If they 100% identify a suicide bomber, then as i have already posted do what they did on the bridge shoot to kill. Edited June 7, 2021 by ordnance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12gauge82 Posted June 7, 2021 Report Share Posted June 7, 2021 2 hours ago, ordnance said: If they 100% identify a suicide bomber, then as i have already posted do what they did on the bridge shoot to kill. You stated it in your post above, there is no 100% in that sort of situation, so what your really saying is you'd allow them to detonate the device you believed they possessed. All I can say is I'm glad your not a cop. 2 hours ago, ordnance said: That was the issue IMO, they they tried to come up with a defence to something there is no real defence. The shoot to kill relied on 100% identification of a bomber to prevent innocent people being shot, something rarely possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted June 7, 2021 Report Share Posted June 7, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, 12gauge82 said: You stated it in your post above, there is no 100% in that sort of situation, so what your really saying is you'd allow them to detonate the device you believed they possessed. All I can say is I'm glad your not a cop. Wearing a suicide vest openly real or not like on the bridge, is sort of a clue I am think i or a family member or innocent member of the public should not be shot going about their daily business, because the police believe / think / misidentify i could have a bomb. If you think that's OK all i can say is i am glad your are not a cop, and am worried if you are. Edited June 7, 2021 by ordnance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12gauge82 Posted June 7, 2021 Report Share Posted June 7, 2021 16 minutes ago, ordnance said: Wearing a suicide vest openly real or not like on the bridge, is sort of a clue I am think i or a family member or innocent member of the public should not be shot going about their daily business, because the police believe / think / misidentify i could have a bomb. If you think that's OK all i can say is i am glad your are not a cop, and am worried if you are. There's a huge difference between think and believe in legal terms, believe being a much stronger test. By your reasoning of 100% certainty you wouldn't of shot any of the terrorists who attacked London, it's not like the cops have a picture of them, but react to what they see in front of them and form a reasonable bleif that the man in front of them is the terrorist. That does leave a small chance of making a mistake or a breakdown in the chain of command as happened in the mendez case. And don't worry, I'm no cop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.