Should the police shoot terror suspects?

Question

Do you think the police should shoot terror suspects if they run away? I refer to the Jean Charles de Menezes case in Stockwell tube in London.

My personal view is that in order to not let terrorists infiltrate our society, we must show them that we mean business and if you are trying to carry out an attack, you will be shot. Jean Charles de Menezes must have been acting very suspiciously, as the armed section of the police are extremely well trained.

Answer 1

I feel bad that so Meany people have so little Faith in the police, after all they are your first line of defense. Most of the time they will give their life for people that do not like them, it is a thankless job. Police do not go around shooting people for the hell of it.

Answer 2

I must agree with the first statement you made, but only to the point that the unofficial shoot to kill policy remains for the needed protection of both police officers and the public whenever undertaking proactive covert operations against highly identifiable selected targets.
However I strongly don't agree with your statement the poorly selected target Mr. C. de Menezes, was acting in a suspicious manner as described via the media. The terrible death of this innocent man although a terrible mistake also serves as a reminder to the police that there armed field officers are only partially to blame in this incident. The officers could use as a line of defence, "I was only follwing operational instructions". The headsheds who had control over this covert operation failed to follow policy regarding standard operational procedures even to a basic skill practice.
They alone, failed to ensure that the most vital part of this whole operation was monitored correctly, and that vital piece of information is the intelligence required in-depth in any major shoot operation undertaken by special operation teams.

Mr: Menezes died to the age old failure that has haunted so many professional policy makers, the factor of human nature and its distintive bad trait of error........If covert surveillence teams were doing the job correctly, then there would have been no mistake in the target being mis-identified by the goon follow team that are suposed to keep eyeball contact on the selected client.

It was a bad call by management to give the all go signal to take out the target who was now classed as an identified and positively nominated victim. The shooting party would then have gone into the high state of full tactical awareness of the situation and ever changing environment.......the man was dead even before the team had set foot into the carriage. Protocol would have been a prime instruction in this attack, warnigs were to be shouted to allow all members of the public to hear and later put into police statements, this now covers the shooting team but more importantly the policy makers and the good old draconian top brass.
So, it was a real belief by all decision makers in the operation that they were right in ther judgement in that the target was now to be treated as a person that was intent of detonating a device that would kill and maim perhaps dozens of people, so this factor was also in the back of the minds of all the members of the shooting party. They would have also been dealing with personal issues although never spoken about, things like the kids and wife....so for them to be able to see them again, they would have no problem in shooting and killing with extreme controlled violence.
All would have been fine if the operations govners had a good clean shoot, that would have rallied the British public around the war banner, and the Government would be credited with another sucessuful operation against those that try to bring terror to our very hitorically damaged shoreline.
But alas, that was not to be, it was a major F--- up by a majority of independently working department that led to this most tragic event.

Answer 3

I completely agree with those 'Answerers' who say that the police action at Stockwell was a 'c**k up'. The misinformation given to the public by senior policemen concerning Menezes acting suspicously, about his being here illegally, etc., together with the lie about his failing to stop when ordered by police, and his jumping the barrier (when in fact he used his oyster card in the normal way), were appalling.
Menezes came out of an 8 apartment building, hence any one of at least 8 people could have left the property at that moment, so why choose Menezes - after all he he did not look Middle Eastern? He was not wearing a bulky jacket, he did not run away from the police (but did, as we've all done on occasions, hurry to catch the train); he even paused to pick up a copy of the Metro newspaper then sat down in the train to read the paper - in other words, he was not acting in any way oddly.
Then a group of shouting, gun wielding men, who looked more like terrorists than Menezes ever did, stormed the train and shot the poor sod. It was a police operational disaster of the highest order.
It also gives rise to a very serious question, which is that if the police genuinely thought Menezes was a terrorist wearing a 'bomb jacket', why did they allow him to get on a bus to travel to Stockwell Tube station, bearing in mind what happened to a bus on 7/7?
Furthermore, it is very odd that _all _ the video cameras which would have shown that Menenez was acting perfectly normally (and hence that the police were being economical with the truth), were found to be inoperative at the relevant time. The whole thing leaves a bad taste in the mouth of the British public and makes one wonder how many more 'accidental' deaths will occur now that so many police officers are being armed.
And for all those who feel inclined to censure those who hold views like mine, ask yourself if you are happy to have any one of your family shot dead simply because they 'look like a terrorist', or happen to come out of a building in which suspected terrorists live, or are seen to have a rucksack on an underground train? This is still England, not some banana republic where people are shot by police simply for having a sun tan or looking 'suspicious' (what ever that might mean).

Answer 4

definately

In Israel, they have experience suicide bombers fo rmany years.

They have employed various shoot policies. They used to have a policy that police were to shoot terrorists to demobilise them, but this would still in many cases cause the bomber to press their button.

They no whave a very strict shoot to kill policy, ie shoot them in the head. They do not do this lightly, but if they believe that lives are at risk, thy are allowed to do this.

The problem we have here is all the sh!t after, i would imagine that in israel, the police are trained to recognise terrorists, in fact i have read a story about a shopping maul one day, and the public started shouting terrorist, because they just know what they are looking for.

The police in israel now shout once, if the suspect does not stop, they get shot, the public are well aware of this too, so i think it imust be made aware to the british public this policy.

Unfortunately, as in the menezes case, mistakes will happen, but what we must not do is punish the police, or even make a huge public enquiry about it as having to face this pressure of doubt afterwards may make a policeman think twice abot shooting a real terrorist.

may all terrorirts catch hiv and aids off the women they get rewarded with in the afterlife, scumbags

j

Answer 5

There is no justification in shooting someone you suspect of being a terrorist however,there is justification in shooting someone about to commit a terrorist crime.
There have been too many innocent people killed by the police here in the UK in the past ten years and they have always got away with it.
There was no evidence that Charles Menezes was suspected of being a Terrorist just that a Police Officer thought he looked like one and the same Policeman who shot him is now on suspension for shooting dead a "suspected" bank robber,its a coincidence that it is the same officer.
The last thing that this country (uk) needs is trigger happy cops.

Answer 6

You're talking a lot of B***ocks!!!!!!!! Jean Charles De Menendes was shot AFTER he entered the railway carriage at Stockwell Tube Station. He did NOT as Police told us, leap the barrier or run down the escalator - again as we were initially told, it was the Police who leapt the barriers after him it was the Police who ran into the carriage and shot him - all without the slightest challenge to him whatsoever. The Official report of the enquiry following his MURDER (For that is what it was) heavily criticised the head of the Anti- terror squad in charge on the section responsible for the murder has subsequently been promoted by the Metropolitan Police.

So if you want to go and live in a Fascist state then I suggest you emigrate to the United States and leave us with our Civil Liberties.

Answer 7

.this is a very tricky Q ,u cannot just shoot anyone because u suspect him being a terrorists. That person might be innocent u just don't know . the police has to be sure i mean %100 then maybe they might shoot the person if other people life is in danger. Kill the terrorists not the suspects please,u might be the next one so be carefull out there and watch the cops.

Answer 8

Police should be able to should be shot with non-lethal bullets. Officers should be given appropriate training to ensure tragets are not killed by these non-lethal bullets (eg, dont shoot them in the head or throat etc). A terror suspect needs to be stopped and questioned. The shoot 1st ask questions later approach is kinda flawed.

The order given to 'shoot to kill' should only be given in situations where the suspect is known to the police (ie, has been under surveillance) where an attack is imminent. Even then, shoot to apprehend should be in the officers mind.

Answer 9

It's a simple question, but there's no simple answer.

Police officers are already trained in what circumstances warrent lethal force and a suspected terrorist, if not engaged in a terrorist act at the time, should be afforded the same rights as any other suspect (assuming there are no obvious weapons involved). The term terrorist shouldnt even be used in evaluating to shoot or not.

Answer 10

I think that the only reason a policeman should ever shoot anyone is if his or another persons life is in immediate danger.

There is a big difference between a terror suspect and a terrorist...

Some people do funny things when confronted with policemen, say a young kid sees a policeman and runs away because he has a bag of weed in his pocket and panics. Would that also be acting suspiciously? Would that mean he should also be shot?

Answer 11

If they view there is good reason to do so such as a direct threat to the public I think then they should.

But a word of warning dont run away from the police if you are in the tube just pay the fine if youve been barrier jumping to avoid being shot.