Shoot to kill.

[ordnance]

14 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

Go on then ordnance, here's one for you. 

The UK has just had 52 people killed in bombings across London, your sent to stop an individual you and your colleagues believe is a bomber likely with a suicide vest on and he's just got on a train full of people. You've got an order that unless there's a very good reason not to, that you must shoot him on sight to prevent him carrying out his plan and you have caught up with him on the train, where the surveillance officer who's been following him identifies him as the bomber, you order him to stand still but he comes at you. 

What do you do? 

I don't know what I would do in that situation, but I would expect to be held accountable for my actions.

[12gauge82]

4 minutes ago, ordnance said:

I don't know what I would do in that situation, but I would expect to be held accountable for my actions.

That's convenient for you, you know that they were wrong but offer no alternative. Don't forget it goes both ways, you can be held accountable for inaction to. 

[ordnance]

20 hours ago, shaun4860 said:

As mentioned you have the advantage of hindsight.

The officers didn’t.

He wasn’t innocent he was an illegal overstayer working illegally, that doesn’t condone him being killed but ignoring 2 officers who have identified themselves as armed police and pointing guns at him and advancing on them does!

And also mentioned too many police have been killed, 1 is too many.

What about Duggan killing the 2 unarmed policewomen?

I have come to the conclusion that you are one of the weird people on this forum.

You come across as very anti police🤔

My reply was to comment about how dangerous an armed officers job was, my point it's much more dangerous to be an unarmed officer. Expecting police to be held accountable for their actions does not make someone anti police, it's common sense to me. As for the two female officers that were shot dead, my view is that all police officers should be armed so they would at least have a chance to protect themselves in a situation like that.

9 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

That's convenient for you, you know that they were wrong but offer no alternative. Don't forget it goes both ways, you can be held accountable for inaction to. 

They were obviously wrong they shot an innocent man 🤔

Edited November 15 by ordnance

[12gauge82]

50 minutes ago, ordnance said:

My reply was to comment about how dangerous an armed officers job was, my point it's much more dangerous to be an unarmed officer. Expecting police to be held accountable for their actions does not make someone anti police, it's common sense to me. As for the two female officers that were shot dead, my view is that all police officers should be armed so they would at least have a chance to protect themselves in a situation like that.

They were obviously wrong they shot an innocent man 🤔

The force as a collective was wrong yes, the officer pulling the trigger, in that moment without having the hindsight you and I have the luxury of, from what I've seen, I don't see what else they could have done and even with hindsight, you still haven't stated what you'd have done differently? 

[B686]

Let’s face it at the end of the day if he had done as he was told he would most probably still be alive. Same as the other innocent people killed. If you have armed police shouting at you and pointing guns at you , you do as they say unless you have a death wish or are just plain bloody stupid.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Blimey, some strange posts within this thread.

Hindsight will always win, but is never available to the person with their finger on the trigger.

Being armed and potentially having to make that judgement in seconds is something I would never have to do.

I'm amazed that anybody chooses to do it within the Police.

Those that do certainly deserve far better treatment from their seniors, the press and the public.

[den5008]

+1👍

[old man]

12 hours ago, B686 said:

Let’s face it at the end of the day if he had done as he was told he would most probably still be alive. Same as the other innocent people killed. If you have armed police shouting at you and pointing guns at you , you do as they say unless you have a death wish or are just plain bloody stupid.

Correct, but on a rough analysis of life, lots of the population will not do anything remotely sensible? Just look at something simple like driving standards?

Few indicate, some undertake, some drive without licences and insurance? The list is virtually unending as lots don't think anything applies to them? To expect anything relating to sense is to waste brain power?

This behavior comes from the top?

[mel b3]

At the end of the day , it was a terrible tragedy,  that nobody would have chosen . It was avoidable by both sides , but life just doesn't always work that way unfortunately. 

[JKD]

4 hours ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Blimey, some strange posts within this thread.

Hindsight will always win, but is never available to the person with their finger on the trigger.

Being armed and potentially having to make that judgement in seconds is something I would never have to do.

I'm amazed that anybody chooses to do it within the Police.

Those that do certainly deserve far better treatment from their seniors, the press and the public.

Agree, but would like to add more, but fear I would upset and annoy some people who seem to have NOT watched this 2 part programme properly, taking in the actual facts and spoken words of the people actually involved in the shooting !

[Gordon R]

If only everyone who seemed to have NOT watched this 2 part programme properly had watched it, it would have made everything simple. Anyone with any sympathy for the Police firearms officer, would immediately castigate him. Did the programme actually say why he didn't obey the Police? 

I used the words NOT and actually so that no-one could possibly disagree with me.

[JKD]

43 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

 Did the programme actually say why he didn't obey the Police?

The only person who knows that is Jean Charles de Menezes [to name him properly,,,, NOT Mendez ! ] and he obviously can't give us that information.

I'm assuming he was confused,,,,, maybe because of his visa issues ? 🤷‍♂️

Also, as stated by C12 in this programme, himself and C2 weren't wearing anything that identified them as police officers.

Edited Saturday at 11:36 by JKD
Incorrect number

[Gordon R]

So watching the programme would not be conclusive .

[JKD]

As usual, ALL the facts will never be public information 🤔 The same with all terrorist actions methinks.

[Scully]

6 hours ago, JKD said:

The only person who knows that is Jean Charles de Menezes [to name him properly,,,, NOT Mendez ! ] and he obviously can't give us that information.

I'm assuming he was confused,,,,, maybe because of his visa issues ? 🤷‍♂️

Also, as stated by C12 in this programme, himself and C2 weren't wearing anything that identified them as police officers.

Do we know if he understood English? 

[JKD]

2 minutes ago, Scully said:

Do we know if he understood English? 

I don't recall that being discussed during that programme, but can only assume that he did, as he was working here 🤔

[Newbie to this]

12 minutes ago, JKD said:

I don't recall that being discussed during that programme, but can only assume that he did, as he was working here 🤔

That doesn't mean a thing.

[JKD]

8 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

That doesn't mean a thing.

Please elaborate.

[Newbie to this]

There are many workers in the UK that do not speak English.

[JKD]

A quick Google search found that apparently he did,,,,,

"He had joined an estimated 60,000 to 100,000 Brazilians - including some relatives - in London and quickly learnt to speak English."

[Newbie to this]

5 minutes ago, JKD said:

A quick Google search found that apparently he did,,,,,

"He had joined an estimated 60,000 to 100,000 Brazilians - including some relatives - in London and quickly learnt to speak English."

Doesn't cahnge the fact that your assumption that because foreigners work here, means they speak English, is wrong. Many do not.

Although for him it seems correct. Just a lucky guess.

 

[JKD]

3 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

Doesn't cahnge the fact that your assumption that because foreigners work here, means they speak English, is wrong. Many do not.

Although for him it seems correct. Just a lucky guess.

 

I didn't assume foreigners who work here must mean they speak English. I assumed JCdeM did. Assuming isn't lucky guesswork 🫡

[McSpredder]

 ‘Today’s 2021 Census data shows 1,040,000 adults in England and Wales say they can’t speak English well or at all.’

https://learningandwork.org.uk/news-and-policy/response-to-census-2021-data-on-english-language-proficiency

There are also residents and visitors who can speak fairly good English, but might have difficultly understanding certain UK dialects.

 

 ‘An estimated 1.2 million adults in the UK have hearing loss severe enough that they would not be able to hear most conversational speech.’

https://rnid.org.uk/get-involved/research-and-policy/facts-and-figures/prevalence-of-deafness-and-hearing-loss/

 

Many people can understand normal conversation, but find it hard to distinguish consonants when instructions are shouted.   A shout of “Armed police”, can sound like a meaningless “aaaah eeece” to any middle-aged or older person, or to one who has been exposed to industrial noise.

‘The hallmark of presbycusis [age related hearing loss] is the impaired ability to understand high-frequency components of speech (voiceless consonants, such as p, k, f, s, and ch)’

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK559220/

 

Would standard training for police officers include all this sort of information?

[Newbie to this]

51 minutes ago, JKD said:

I didn't assume foreigners who work here must mean they speak English. I assumed JCdeM did. Assuming isn't lucky guesswork 🫡

[JKD]

2 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

You find that funny,,,, you should hear some of my jokes 🙋‍♂️