Jump to content

Fishmongers hall Terrorist was shot at 20 times.


twenty
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, udderlyoffroad said:

I shouldn't bite, but I will.

What about Cressida ****, who authorised the procedure?

What about Clangerman's intel guy who mis-identified him?

Murder all round?  Ever heard of guilty beyond all reasonable doubt?

The officers truly believed they were dealing with a postively id'd suicide bomber and followed the authorised procedure.  If that results in a murder charge in your universe, well good luck making that stick in the real world.

And following that, good luck getting serving police officer to volunteer for firearms duty.

The others made mistakes and should have being held to account, they were the ones pulled the triggers. As for volunteering i am sure they are made very aware during training they could be charged if they mess up, if they have a issue with that, that's the time to look for something else. Do you suggest firearms officers should be given immunity from prosecution, in case some have a issue with accountability for their actions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 227
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

18 minutes ago, ordnance said:

The others made mistakes and should have being held to account, they were the ones pulled the triggers.

You seem to be labouring under the delusion they weren't hauled before a public inquiry

 

19 minutes ago, ordnance said:

As for volunteering i am sure they are made very aware during training they could be charged if they mess up, if they have a issue with that, that's the time to look for something else

Yes.  Yes they are.  Same, incidentally, all PSNI officers are (who are 100% firearms trained).

You're really not getting this are you: how, exactly, did they 'mess up'?

They seriously believed they were dealing with a suicide bomber, they followed authorised procedure to disable him.

Procedure is not "put your hands up mr suicide bomber, please, and don't touch and/or release that trigger"

Procedure is to immobilise immediately, and hope that the resultant twitching of the body does not cause activation of a trigger device.  If you can come up with a better doctrine, we're all ears.

22 minutes ago, ordnance said:

Do you suggest firearms officers should be given immunity from prosecution, in case some have a issue with accountability for their actions. 

No, no I do not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

 

  Mis-identifying someone isn't a crime.

 

no it’s not but shooting them to pieces when they are innocent is so had half wit not misidentified him he would still be alive today if that’s not half wit being guilty of causing his death i don’t know what is 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ordnance said:

They made the decision to pull the trigger, they were not ordered to. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Kratos

 

Perhaps you should take a read of this, it's as close to an order to shot as can be. 

It basically means, once that tactic is authorised you have to shoot unless you have some very good information not in the hands of senior officers that means you shouldn't. 

2 hours ago, ordnance said:

 

And hope they haven't thought of that.  

 

And if they have and your within the blast radius your dead anyway so they may as well try anyway, I don't see your point? 

15 minutes ago, clangerman said:

no it’s not but shooting them to pieces when they are innocent is so had half wit not misidentified him he would still be alive today if that’s not half wit being guilty of causing his death i don’t know what is 

I'm sure you'd have had the situation dealt with and been home in time for tea and medals if you'd been there, maybe you should join the armed police and save the country with your immense power of hindsight 👍

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the armchair experts who think killing someone is just a matter of shooting them in the head.... 

Tomorrow is the 39th anniversary of the shooting of the Israeli ambassador to London . He was shot in the head with a 9mm, his attacker was shot in the head with a. 38 by his police protection officer. 

Both men survived. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Kratos

 

Perhaps you should take a read of this, it's as close to an order to shot as can be. 

It basically means, once that tactic is authorised you have to shoot unless you have some very good information not in the hands of senior officers that means you shouldn't. 

And if they have and your within the blast radius your dead anyway so they may as well try anyway, I don't see your point? 

I'm sure you'd have had the situation dealt with and been home in time for tea and medals if you'd been there, maybe you should join the armed police and save the country with your immense power of hindsight 👍

nobody needs hindsight to know the police didn’t pay the victims family almost a 100 grand for the loss of a ruck sack 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, clangerman said:

nobody needs hindsight to know the police didn’t pay the victims family almost a 100 grand for the loss of a ruck sack 

So if you were a cop who honestly believed someone stood on a train was about to blow it and the carriage full of people up, what would you do? 

Edited by 12gauge82
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

So if you were a cop who honestly believed someone stood on a train was about to blow it and the carriage full of people up, what would you do? 

put one right between his eyes prob followed by something i wont post for the half wit responsible for me killing someone innocent 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, clangerman said:

put one right between his eyes prob followed by something i wont post for the half wit responsible for me killing someone innocent 

And who was it responsible for getting the wrong person? 

Life isn't a movie, it was simply a very unfortunate event and there were certainly no winners. Hindsight is 20/20 as they say, but the reality for the people on the ground that day is they all did their best and they would have all been in the top of their expertise. Some of the comments on this thread are like the supporters of a loosing football team all discussing what they would have done to win the game, the reality is very likely that they would not only have done no better, they very likely would have done alot worse. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, chilly1981 said:

Two to the chest one to the head 

repeat until no longer a threat 

 

to the rest there’s some right armchair warriors here who have no idea about real life when it comes to stuff like this. 
seriously deluded people who’ve watched to much tv about how things work  

 

This.

As I said earlier, two to the engine room / vitals. And if there were 5-10 armed then there is the 20 shots. They wouldn't necessarily have time to take a "proper shot" so they did what they had to do .. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"

Khan, 28, from Stafford, shouted "Allahu Akbar" at him as he approached.

The officer added: "At that point I thought, 'That's it, I'm not going home to see my family or my friends either.'"

WS5 pulled bystander Darryn Frost off Khan before two colleagues fired a Taser and two shots, striking Khan as he tried to get up.

He added: "I remember in disbelief he kind of sat up, which threw me and us all - how he's still moving around and sitting up?

"I remember taking various shots. I looked through my sight, it went to his forehead.

"He (Khan) put his hand to his head in disbelief and so I went for central body mass."

 

They did right, I could not give a toss if they put 40 in him as long as all 40 were in the cretin, like he said he didn't think he was going to see his family again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question for the explosive experts on here...............

assuming the suicide vest would be iniciated using an electrical detonater....................the officer who fired his Taser..into the body of the suspect.......could he possibly set off the charge ??? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, chilly1981 said:

even 2 Blokes at 10 rounds each your literally talking couple seconds. 
people don’t realise how quick these things go down 

 

Would be seconds to discharge them. And why wouldn't they, he has strapped knives to his hands and has what looks like a bomb strapped to him. Threat that has to be taken down 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

 

Yes.  Yes they are.  Same, incidentally, all PSNI officers are (who are 100% firearms trained).

You're really not getting this are you: how, exactly, did they 'mess up'?

They seriously believed they were dealing with a suicide bomber, they followed authorised procedure to disable him.

 

In my book shooting dead a innocent man, is sort of messing up. 

Quote

Yes.  Yes they are.  Same, incidentally, all PSNI officers are (who are 100% firearms trained).

True and they have no issue recruiting officers, and i have never heard of any threatening to walk of the job if some were charged if they messed up and shot someone. 

Edited by ordnance
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the attacker was initially shot once in the head and once in the centre of mass. A few minutes later he regained consciousness and appeared to sit up holding the wound in his forehead. Multiple armed police officers then fired 18 shots (“mag dump”) to ensure he was fully incapacitated and no longer presented a risk via his body worn IED (suicide bomb). 

Edited by WalkedUp
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, WalkedUp said:

I believe the attacker was initially shot once in the head and once in the centre of mass. A few minutes later he regained consciousness and appeared to sit up holding the wound in his forehead. Multiple armed police officers then fired 18 shots (“mag dump”) to ensure he was fully incapacitated and no longer presented a risk via his body worn IED (suicide bomb). 

Yes once he put the vest on, there was only going to be one outcome. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote from Sky News I have just read:

“The officer, known during the hearing as WS5, said he tried to "neutralise him by shooting him in the head".

One shot hit Khan in the head and he appeared to wipe blood away. The officer fired more shots at his chest, some of which he believed hit him.

The inquest was told he fired 10 shots from his Heckler and Koch G36 assault rifle, half of the carbine's magazine.”

 

“The inquest heard that eight minutes elapsed between his colleagues' initial two shots and his own firing.

He said he opened fire because Khan was moving around and was still a viable threat.

"I believed he was still a threat and needed to be neutralised as soon as possible," he added.”

I have caught bits on the radio during the day so may not have the full picture. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, ordnance said:

In my book shooting dead a innocent man, is sort of messing up. 

You’ve clearly ignored my point again and just quote invective rather than engaging with the subject at hand.

What would you charge the officers with – (murder isn’t an option), and we’re all ears as to what your doctrine would be for dealing with suicide bombers.

Edited by udderlyoffroad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, udderlyoffroad said:

You’ve clearly ignored my point again and just quote invective rather than engaging with the subject at hand.

What would you charge the officers with – (murder isn’t an option), and we’re all ears as to what your doctrine would be for dealing with suicide bombers.

How is murder not a option, if not murder gross negligence, as we know from the past following orders is not always excepted as a defence. As for dealing with suicide bombers, i am OK with how they are dealing with them now. I just think shooting the right person would be a sort of important part of the doctrine. 

Edited by ordnance
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, ordnance said:

How is murder not a option, if not murder gross negligence, as we know from the past following orders is not always excepted as a defence. As for dealing with suicide bombers, i am OK with how they are dealing with them now. I just think shooting the right person would be a sort of important part of the doctrine. 

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? 

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...