Jump to content

Fishmongers hall Terrorist was shot at 20 times.


twenty
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just now, oscarsdad said:

Wow, this thread has the most utter nonsense and drivel I have seen on PW for a long time. Keyboard warriors who think they have the foggiest clue about taking a human life to protect others and claim to know better than trained firearms officers who are forced to make split second decisions in the full knowledge that idiots with plenty of time will pick apart their decisions. It’s like the school playground. 

Totally agree. This wasn’t a Hollywood movie. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 227
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

3 minutes ago, oscarsdad said:

Wow, this thread has the most utter nonsense and drivel I have seen on PW for a long time. Keyboard warriors who think they have the foggiest clue about taking a human life to protect others and claim to know better than trained firearms officers who are forced to make split second decisions in the full knowledge that idiots with plenty of time will pick apart their decisions. It’s like the school playground. 

Good post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, oscarsdad said:

Wow, this thread has the most utter nonsense and drivel I have seen on PW for a long time. Keyboard warriors who think they have the foggiest clue about taking a human life to protect others and claim to know better than trained firearms officers who are forced to make split second decisions in the full knowledge that idiots with plenty of time will pick apart their decisions. It’s like the school playground. 

So firearms officers should have no responsibility for their actions :hmm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, NorfolkAYA said:

A head and heart shot is not the correct way to put down a suicide bomber may I add

What if he is wearing a bomb vest, could a heart shot not set it of. 

1 minute ago, Pangolin said:

He didnt say that.

Not in so many words, but follow the logic forced to made a split second so don't question their actions or criticise them.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, ordnance said:

What if he is wearing a bomb vest, could a heart shot not set it of. 

Not in so many words, but follow the logic forced to made a split second so don't question their actions or criticise them.  

Qualified / experienced people can question their actions, the general public with no experience (or understanding or explosives according to this thread) should not be criticising them. Police officers get paid very little to put their lives on the line far too frequently and deserve a much greater level of respect than the public affords them. 

Edited by oscarsdad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

The armed Officers were given their target, the fact that he was wrongly identified by the intelligence side of things has no bearing after the evnt.

Once again too many rounds fired too few hit the intended target.

Did all 20 hit the target?

Dont know do you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Easy to explain why so many rounds.

How many officers discharged their weapons? Going back to interviews with the troopers on the embassy siege I remember someone saying something along the lines of "if one fires, everyone fires" the guy found in the embassy riddled with holes had pretty much a team of 4 blattering rounds into him, 5 rounds each at the same time. Doesn't sound so excessive. Also bear in mind these counter-terrorism firearms cops are probably trained in a similar fashion.

So to sum it up, he could have... and probably did have somewhere in the region of 4 to 5 firearms officers aiming at him, they all would have popped off a couple of rounds. And in my opinion a double tap in the head to make sure of the job at the end.

He got better than he deserved, a good burning at the stake in tyburn would have been more fitting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, oscarsdad said:

Qualified / experienced people can question their actions, the general public with no experience (or understanding or explosives according to this thread) should not be criticising them. Police officers get paid very little to put their lives on the line far too frequently and deserve a much greater level of respect than the public affords them. 

No anyone can question their actions, imagine the great unwashed general public asking questions about police actions, shouldn't be allowed :hmm: PS What do we not know about explosives, with that answer i assume you do. 

Edited by ordnance
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, ordnance said:

No anyone can question their actions, imagine the great unwashed general public asking questions about police actions, shouldn't be allowed 

yes perish the thought anyone should ask why a young man was shot to pieces on the tube for the hideous crime of wearing a ruck sack 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, clangerman said:

yes perish the thought anyone should ask why a young man was shot to pieces on the tube for the hideous crime of wearing a ruck sack 

It was a terrible accident and an absolute tragedy but equally if they hadn't shot and the guy had been a bomber then the cops would have been blamed for doing nothing while up a hundred people were blown to bits. I wouldn't fancy being in their shoes that day, but I'm sure you would have done better 🙄

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Rob85 said:

Easy to explain why so many rounds.

How many officers discharged their weapons? Going back to interviews with the troopers on the embassy siege I remember someone saying something along the lines of "if one fires, everyone fires" the guy found in the embassy riddled with holes had pretty much a team of 4 blattering rounds into him, 5 rounds each at the same time. Doesn't sound so excessive. Also bear in mind these counter-terrorism firearms cops are probably trained in a similar fashion.

So to sum it up, he could have... and probably did have somewhere in the region of 4 to 5 firearms officers aiming at him, they all would have popped off a couple of rounds. And in my opinion a double tap in the head to make sure of the job at the end.

He got better than he deserved, a good burning at the stake in tyburn would have been more fitting.

I was just about to say the same thing. 

Three cops could easily get off 7 rounds simultaneously in the few seconds that it took him to stop moving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In all the police shootings in the UK has the perp/victim depending on if they were sitting on the tube or carrying a chair leg or actually wearing a bomb vest, ever first given some return fire to the police officers involved? It seems there is now a culture of neutralizing first and ask questions later among those at the top. But ref this terrorist incident I am fully behind the officers involved. How they were appraised so quickly of the situation when driving there would interest me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Problem is too many play x-box and become experts.

Why did it take so many rounds to actually kill him? 

Some are questioning the shooting ability of the police but sometimes it takes a lot to stop a target with loads of adrenaline pumping around. In the Falklands on Tumbledown some Argentinians had 7.62 SLR rounds in them but kept coming and kept firing. Its amazing what it actually sometimes takes to stop a person. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, bavarianbrit said:

In all the police shootings in the UK has the perp/victim  wearing a bomb vest, ever first given some return fire to the police officers involved? It seems there is now a culture of neutralizing first and ask questions later among those at the top. 

You mean let them detonate on a crowded bus just to confirm it's a real bomb. 

 

Edited by toontastic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, toontastic said:

You mean let them detonate on a crowded bus just to confirm it's a real bomb. 

 

In the embassy siege the SAS shot 2 terrorists that had already threw down their weapons. The gov had intel that they could be carrying grenades so they shot them.

Coroners verdict was justifiable homocide as they couldnt take the risk that they could have grenades.

Either risk the their own lives and the lives of the hostages or takenout the bad guys that had made their decision. No other call to make, they did the right thing.

Edited by Pangolin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...