Shoot to kill.

[tetetay_]

 

I watched the program too. It really does bring up so many complex issues especially around how we expect officers to make split-second decisions in such tense situations, only to see them scrutinized after the fact.

[old man]

11 hours ago, shaun4860 said:

From the point of the officer who fired the first shot in the Mendez killing (what the documentary is about)

He had been told the person they were following was a suspect in the failed bombings.

Said person was on a bus, he then got off the bus, then got back on the bus and carried on.

He got off a few stops later and entered the tube station,

An order was issued not to let him on the train, it was the following firearm team sprang into action.

They jumped the barriers and ran down the escalator.

When they got to the platform he was on the train but a surveillance team member held the door open.

They ran onto the train, the surveillance officer pointed at Mendez and said that’s him.

At this point they identified themselves as armed police, Mendez ignored their instructions and started walking towards the officers.

At this point they opened fire believing they and others around them were about to die.

In those circumstances (man identified as target (rucksack bomber) by surveillance officer) and disobeying instructions I too would have shot him.

In a previous post where a guy was shot in a stairwell, I would have shot him also.

These officers have families to go home to and in a split second have to make a life or death decision.

I back them all the way 👍

I agree with you entirely. Sadly as we all know, generally people don't want to be reasonable or comply?

Just use the morning rush hour for confirmation?

[Rob85]

Maybe another topic entirely but coming from NI, I don't understand why the mainland still do not routinely arm all police officers. Even with the level of potential threat over here to officers it is extremely rare you hear of an officer having to discharge a firearm let alone take it from their holster (which by law still classes it as a use of a firearm) 

Most officers carry it like personal equipment and never look near it, even in instances where it would be justified in its use.

In the instances being talked about like the aftermath of 7/7 with de menzes, from the outside perspective this appears a targeted operations where the officers would have been following protocol. Seems most of the cock ups come from the higher ups and as fecal matter rolls downhill...the ones at the bottom get hit with it.

The recent Chris Kaba case mirrors one that happened in the early 2000s close to where I live where someone tried to get past a police roadblock by driving at an officer and towards a footpath where a load of people were exiting a church. Driver got a couple in the chest and the officer that fired was still getting dragged through court appeals by the scumbags family 10 years later.

[Westley]

21 hours ago, Gordon R said:

Thank goodness none of you are firearms police.

How true, I have never read anything so ridiculous as to "Wait until you are being shot at"  to return fire. So, are you suggesting, that IF it had been a suicide bomber, you should wait until he sets the bomb off, before taking action  ?

The shouting upon entry is done solely to disorientate the occupants of the premises, the same reason that the military use thunder flashes. 

 

[clangerman]

only person shouting disorientates is a 5yr old end of the day mendez was killed by police failure to do their job correctly and no amount of excuses will change it! 

[12gauge82]

28 minutes ago, clangerman said:

only person shouting disorientates is a 5yr old end of the day mendez was killed by police failure to do their job correctly and no amount of excuses will change it! 

I'm sure you would handle these incidents much better. 

I'm taking nothing from the tragic loss of life from an innocent man but hindsight is a wonderful thing. 

[clangerman]

21 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

I'm sure you would handle these incidents much better. 

I'm taking nothing from the tragic loss of life from an innocent man but hindsight is a wonderful thing. 

they wouldn’t accept me on grounds I would never shoot someone just on the say so of someone else don’t lie due to the effort involved and would refuse to leap about screaming while waving a firearm about like an accident waiting to happen and I’m not keen on joining an organisation that employs murderers rapists child sex offenders either! 

[amateur]

47 minutes ago, clangerman said:

.........I’m not keen on joining an organisation that employs murderers rapists child sex offenders either! 

The police are drawn from the general population and, as such, are bound to have a few wrong 'uns. 

In my experience the majority of coppers are straight, polite if you are, and don't go out of their way to be difficult, if you are behaving.

Certainly, my daughter and son-in-law fit that mould.

[Gordon R]

I'm surprised at some of the anti-Police posts on here. No solutions, but happy to snipe at police personnel who have to make life or death decisions in a split second.

[12gauge82]

1 hour ago, clangerman said:

 

Let's break down what you've said. 

"they wouldn’t accept me on grounds I would never shoot someone just on the say so of someone else" 

Well, thank god we have people that would, I imagine it must be one of the most difficult things you could ask of someone. The order must mean along the lines of you must shoot this person, we don't have time or can't share all the information, but if you don't shoot this person, people (probably many) will very likely die. What a terrible situation to be in! 

 

"don’t lie due to the effort involved"

Name a profession that has no one that lies? 

"and would refuse to leap about screaming while waving a firearm about"

Again, thank god we do, what do you propose, excuse me Mr terrorists, could I trouble you to put your guns and explosives down if its not too much trouble, don't worry, I have this gun but I won't really use it! 

"like an accident waiting to happen"

By the virtue of the danger of a situation to require an armed response, it will always carry high risks. What's your alternative solution, allow dangerous people to act with impunity? 

"and I’m not keen on joining an organisation that employs murderers rapists child sex offenders either! "

Another silly statement, I have no idea how many people are employed as police officers but all organisations will have bad apples, are you suggesting the police as an organisation tolerates it, because if you are, my opinion is you have a ridiculous opinion! 

[steve1066]

15 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

I'm surprised at some of the anti-Police posts on here. No solutions, but happy to snipe at police personnel who have to make life or death decisions in a split 

[B686]

I for one would not want to do their job , even a normal copper no thanks. The **** they have to put up with nowadays from all the A holes there seems to be about . People that criticise them I’m sure that if they were in a position where they needed them I’m pretty dam sure they would be calling them straight away!

[clangerman]

26 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

I'm surprised at some of the anti-Police posts on here. No solutions, but happy to snipe at police personnel who have to make life or death decisions in a split second.

if theres no cause for complaint let’s examine the recent figures 593 barred 125 cases of dishonesty 87 instances abuse of power or procedures 74 instances of SEXUAL offences or sexual misconduct and between 15-12-2017 and 31-3–2024 TWO THOUSAND and 98 officers added to the barred list and the above figs are from the police so pinch of salt required as that’s bad enough I will give the amount of officers serving with criminal convictions a pass! 

[Bobba]

1 hour ago, clangerman said:

if theres no cause for complaint let’s examine the recent figures 593 barred 125 cases of dishonesty 87 instances abuse of power or procedures 74 instances of SEXUAL offences or sexual misconduct and between 15-12-2017 and 31-3–2024 TWO THOUSAND and 98 officers added to the barred list and the above figs are from the police so pinch of salt required as that’s bad enough I will give the amount of officers serving with criminal convictions a pass! 

Interesting. Please provide a link to the source or sources of these statistics. Thank you.

[clangerman]

2 minutes ago, Bobba said:

Interesting. Please provide a link to the source or sources of these statistics. Thank you.

college of policing mate it’s all there 

[Westley]

3 hours ago, clangerman said:

they wouldn’t accept me on grounds I would never shoot someone just on the say so of someone else don’t lie due to the effort involved and would refuse to leap about screaming while waving a firearm about like an accident waiting to happen and I’m not keen on joining an organisation that employs murderers rapists child sex offenders either! 

You could ALWAYS plead insanity  !

[Bobba]

3 minutes ago, clangerman said:

college of policing mate it’s all there 

?? No idea what you’re on about. The question, politely put, asked you to provide the links to the statistics. I did not expect such a limp wriggle out response from someone so erudite as you.

[ordnance]

On 11/11/2024 at 23:45, shaun4860 said:

I have now watched both episodes.

The Met did themselves no favours with not putting out the whole story before a whistleblower got involved but it being just 2 weeks after the 7/7 bombings and a few days after 4 more bombs failing to detonate everyone was under a great deal of pressure.

The firearms officer who fired the first shots was damned it he did and damned if he didn’t.

Thankfully no charges were brought but Cressida **** did herself no favours either.

I doubt if he would be damned for not shooting an innocent man.

[Minky]

It is very obvious from the comments in this thread supporting the general police attitude and stance from perhaps serving officers or those that have served.  I am a person who has NEVER  offended in any form although I did have a parking ticket once ( failed to read  and understand the parking notice) I don't have any problem with police or laws in general.  What I do have a problem is institutionalised wrong doing and self promotion.  IF you watched that programme it is pretty obvious that the officers on the ground who actually were there were mis directed by their seniors WHO lied and covered it up.  Members of the public who were there stated that the police were blatantly getting their stories ALIGNED and getting all the ducks in a row.  The police stated the Brazilian vaulted over the turnstiles and ran..  TOTAL LIE.  ON THE STATION CCTV COVERAGE HE IS SHOWN GOING THROUGH THE TURNSTILE.... USING HIS OYSTER CARD.  THIS DIDN’T SEEM TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. The upper level of authority knew this bloke wasn't a terrorist but no one told the officers at the front.  They were told "CODE RED "  which they had been told was that they were in command of the situation.  Separately look back at the Hillsborough debacle.  The police lied through their teeth and destroyed evidence for many years to distort the truth.  AND EVEN WHEN THE POLICE do get caught out and pinned down they dont get chucked behind bars. No they get sent home on gardening leave on full salary and or a full pension.  For those who keep posting otherwise and deny this cannot be surprised by the fact that confidence and trust in the police is so low.  How is it that they are going to take a couple of years to sack dodgy officers with serious serious crime issues.  How can you defend stuff like this.?  It's all available to see if you search the Web under how many officers are sacked a year. Find the college of policing.  It's not from the looney left or the anarchist handbook or something.

 

Edit..  during interviews with the officers they said that they had been instructed to change ammunition from standard issue rounds to  hollow point.  To make sure of an instant kill.  The Brazilian bloke was shot 8 times in the head. And the officer was covered in.... DEBRIS.!!

Edited Wednesday at 19:54 by Minky

[Gordon R]

Minky - any chance of an answer? Are these matters swept under the carpet or not? It's not difficult.

[shaun4860]

4 hours ago, ordnance said:

I doubt if he would be damned for not shooting an innocent man.

As far as the officer was concerned he received an order not to let Mendez on the train as he was a suspected suicide bomber.

As the officer got there he was already on the train and a surveillance officer points to him and says that’s him.

After identifying himself as armed police the suspected suicide bomber fails to follow instructions and walks towards said police officer who now thinks he going to take the officers life and countless members of the public’s 

What would you have done in that SPLIT second?

And as for not being damned for not shooting an innocent man? What if he was a suicide bomber, set off his bomb, killed many, then the nay sayers would have been saying why didn’t the police shoot him.

There are some weird folk on this forum 🤷🏻‍♂️

[clangerman]

10 minutes ago, shaun4860 said:

 

There are some weird folk on this forum 🤷🏻‍♂️

the needless insults on here tell you that one! 

[12gauge82]

3 hours ago, shaun4860 said:

As far as the officer was concerned he received an order not to let Mendez on the train as he was a suspected suicide bomber.

As the officer got there he was already on the train and a surveillance officer points to him and says that’s him.

After identifying himself as armed police the suspected suicide bomber fails to follow instructions and walks towards said police officer who now thinks he going to take the officers life and countless members of the public’s 

What would you have done in that SPLIT second?

And as for not being damned for not shooting an innocent man? What if he was a suicide bomber, set off his bomb, killed many, then the nay sayers would have been saying why didn’t the police shoot him.

There are some weird folk on this forum 🤷🏻‍♂️

My thoughts exactly. I think some people can't get past the fact they already know the outcome and can't help using some of that in their version of 'logical' thinking, rather than thinking strictly from the position of the officer and only using the information he had at the time. 

[Newbie to this]

Whenever this comes up, I always wonder if he would still be alive, if he hadn't overstayed his visa.

Brazil is a dangerous place, after all...

I'm not saying he deserved to be shot for overstaying his visa, but the fact still remains that if he had left when his visa was up and didn't have a blatant disregard for our law, he would not have been in the UK for this to have happened.

Innocent of terrorism, but NOT Innocent....

[oldypigeonpopper]

20 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

Whenever this comes up, I always wonder if he would still be alive, if he hadn't overstayed his visa.

Brazil is a dangerous place, after all...

I'm not saying he deserved to be shot for overstaying his visa, but the fact still remains that if he had left when his visa was up and didn't have a blatant disregard for our law, he would not have been in the UK for this to have happened.

Innocent of terrorism, but NOT Innocent....

good post