NationStates Jolt Archive

I really wonder if the Prime Minister has been watching James Bond too much, what with Bond's "license to kill," and all.

In my opinion, no, Britain should not have a shoot-to-kill policy. Because there are a lot of effective "less-lethal," weapons that are just as good at incapacitating suicide-bombers than guns.

Now, they used to be called, "non-lethal," (some still are) but now, most of them, including the ones they'd need, are called, "less-lethal," because they can still kill, but the odds of that happening are very, very slim.

Currently, critics are saying that tasers are too dangerous, because they could set off a bomb that the person may have strapped to their body. However, there are other things aside from tasers which would be just as good (after all, bullets might set off a bomb as well).

For anyone whose seen a documentary on advancements in police weaponry, there are a lot of things which are effective at knocking out criminals, without killing them. For example, they've designed a laser, which looks just like a rather large flashlight, and by shining it in a person's eyes, it's so bright that it overloads the persons' retinas and their brain... The visual receptors basically just get flooded with too much light, to the point that the person basically just has a short seizure. Within a several seconds, though (enough time to pin them and put them in handcuffs), they're back to normal.

There's also tranquilizer darts, which could literally knock a person out completely, after less than a second of being hit. They have guns which fire compressed air (no ammunition to load at all, just a heavy burst of air that flies like 40 feet, from an air tank), and it's strong enough to knock a person to the ground immediately. Then, there's also the typical pellets and bean-bag ammo that they've had for quite some time.

All of these would work, aside from tasers. The only problem, though, is that it would be rather expensive. Some of the best less-lethal weaponry is still being developed. And the ones that have been developed are still rather costly.

So, the issue now, is not whether it would work, but whether Britons would agree to pay for such technology to decrease the chance of another innocent person being killed.

I'm also curious to know why they haven't prosecuted Ian Blair or any of the officers involved, as it's rather clear they weren't being honest. Someone I know from Ireland said that the British police had done things like this for years and no one had ever been prosecuted. The Guardian went through a bit of history on several similar police incidents.

I read that the Brazilian government is demanding answers, but so far, only the family is demanding that Ian resign.

what ever happened to good old nightsticks :(

Yes Britan should have a shoot to kill policy.

It would make vacationing in Great Britain much more exciting.

As an American, I'll leave the shoot to kill policy in Brittian entirely up to the citizens of that country.

Surely it is essential to our country thaqt we have a shoot to kill policy.

It would make vacationing in Great Britain much more exciting.
Nice :p

The OP talks about tranquilizers and lasers. What cop uses these? When have you seen an officer strolling down the street with a tranquilizer gun in his holster? Plus, though it may knock someone out nearly immediately, it may not be quick enough to stop a suicide bomber from pressing a button. Your laser is pretty flawed too, unless you intend to blind their back with light as they run from you. Even if they turned for a moment and did catch it in the eyes, they might once again press that little red button leading to a really big explosion. With a shoot to kill policy, perhaps fools will think twice about running from police when ordered to halt, such as the Brazilian shot a little while ago.

I think the shoot to kill policy has unfortunatly been made necessary by recent events

Nice :p

The OP talks about tranquilizers and lasers. What cop uses these? When have you seen an officer strolling down the street with a tranquilizer gun in his holster? Plus, though it may knock someone out nearly immediately, it may not be quick enough to stop a suicide bomber from pressing a button. Your laser is pretty flawed too, unless you intend to blind their back with light as they run from you. Even if they turned for a moment and did catch it in the eyes, they might once again press that little red button leading to a really big explosion. With a shoot to kill policy, perhaps fools will think twice about running from police when ordered to halt, such as the Brazilian shot a little while ago.
The point the poster is making is that they should use them. And on that matter of the Brazilian man that isn't true more info has been released saying he only ran to get the train and was walking on the platform, also shoting someone isn't gaurented to stop them in time either you could miss or the gun could jam (not likely but it could happen! Considering they would have to miss with a whole cartrige, but still it could happen.) One second isn't very long especially when you don't know what's hit you.

If someone has a bomb strapped to their belly, fill the mother with lead.

For example, they've designed a laser, which looks just like a rather large flashlight, and by shining it in a person's eyes, it's so bright that it overloads the persons' retinas and their brain... The visual receptors basically just get flooded with too much light, to the point that the person basically just has a short seizure. Within a several seconds, though (enough time to pin them and put them in handcuffs), they're back to normal.
Back to normal, with permanent damage to the eyes. Those are called laser pointers ,they sell them at your local hobby store...

If someone has a bomb strapped to their belly, fill the mother with lead.
Are you advocating going back in time and killing Paully Shore's mother?
*rimshot*

For anyone whose seen a documentary on advancements in police weaponry, there are a lot of things which are effective at knocking out criminals, without killing them. For example, they've designed a laser, which looks just like a rather large flashlight, and by shining it in a person's eyes, it's so bright that it overloads the persons' retinas and their brain... The visual receptors basically just get flooded with too much light, to the point that the person basically just has a short seizure. Within a several seconds, though (enough time to pin them and put them in handcuffs), they're back to normal.





Wouldnt this require an amazing level of marksmanship to aim the lazer at a moving targets eyes assuming they are facing you

Wouldnt this require an amazing level of marksmanship to aim the lazer at a moving targets eyes assuming they are facing you
It would be even harder to hit with a bullet.

It would be even harder to hit with a bullet.

How so? Would it not be the same?

I'm interested in this having never fired a gun in my life

Wouldnt this require an amazing level of marksmanship to aim the lazer at a moving targets eyes assuming they are facing you

Yeah, I can see it now. Four pedestrians suffer permanent blindness from inaccurate cop, mirror reflects light and cop stunned, hit by truck, truck rams into gas station and explosion causes fiery death to all passerbys.

Yeah, I can see it now. Four pedestrians suffer permanent blindness from inaccurate cop, mirror reflects light and cop stunned, hit by truck, truck rams into gas station and explosion causes fiery death to all passerbys.

The director of Final Destination must be kicking himself for not thinking of that scenario

It would be even harder to hit with a bullet.
I disagree, you can shoot a guy most places on his body and make him drop, pointing a small laser beam into a running guy's eyes would be an awful lot harder.

I disagree, you can shoot a guy most places on his body and make him drop, pointing a small laser beam into a running guy's eyes would be an awful lot harder.
It's not small
laser, which looks just like a rather large flashlight
is what he said.

I would say a shoot-to-kill policy would work very well. I don't want some cop fumbling around with a tranquilizer gun while the terrorist detonates a large explosive. The very potential murderer doesn't really need to be forced into taking a nap, (s)he needs to be disposed of. :sniper:

I would say a shoot-to-kill policy would work very well. I don't want some cop fumbling around with a tranquilizer gun while the terrorist detonates a large explosive. The very potential murderer doesn't really need to be forced into taking a nap, (s)he needs to be disposed of. :sniper:
unless maybe they're innocent, but that could never happen! :rolleyes:
And fumbling around why would they be fumbling with a tranquilizer but not with a lethal gun!?

It's not small

I guess the beam might still be small even though it comes in a large package, he should clarify. Although I see where you are going, but anyway. Guns affect the person on any side and most sites on their body. The laser would have to be pointed at their eyes, a much more elusive task.

I guess the beam might still be small even though it comes in a large package, he should clarify. Although I see where you are going, but anyway. Guns affect the person on any side and most sites on their body. The laser would have to be pointed at their eyes, a much more elusive task.
that would look hilarious! Anyway I agree that one would only work in very particular situations.

unless maybe they're innocent, but that could never happen! :rolleyes:
And fumbling around why would they be fumbling with a tranquilizer but not with a lethal gun!?
Gah, Im posting way to much. Two replies. One is that im talking about the man running down the street with a bomb. You wouldn't even want to shoot the laser light thing at someone when you weren't pretty sure was about to blow something up. And with the fumbling, I was kind of making a reference to how all the cops would need to be trained with whatever new (to them) technology they were supposed to use.

that would look hilarious! Anyway I agree that one would only work in very particular situations.
We are talking about British cops, don't be surprised to see the Bazooka-look-alike laser pointer that has to be plugged in.

Anything less than shoot-to-kill and the bomb will go off.
If the terrorist is dead before he can detonate the bomb, no explosions in britain!

yay (i think)


:mp5: :sniper: :mp5:
The Armed Republic Of Cruel Tyrany

I'd rather the british government design and organize an elite police force equipped without guns but just with genetically enhanced strength, speed, endurance and intelligence, in addition to being very large, say about 7, 8 feet tall in some cases. Guns are terrible!

Where the police kill innocent people to protect innocent people
there is obviously a problem.

Britain's tradition of unarmed policemen led to neither higher
crime levels nor greater numbers of deaths than any other modern western
nation and probably a great deal fewer than some.

Shoot to kill policy definitely wrong
as the police should not be armed at all
other than with defensive items.

Most police men and women are decent honourable courageous people
who should never be put in the position of taking someones life.

Gah, Im posting way to much. Two replies. One is that im talking about the man running down the street with a bomb. You wouldn't even want to shoot the laser light thing at someone when you weren't pretty sure was about to blow something up. And with the fumbling, I was kind of making a reference to how all the cops would need to be trained with whatever new (to them) technology they were supposed to use.
well I assume that tranquilizer guns are deisigned the same as lethal guns, or at least could be deisigned like lethal guns, also an advantage with tranquilizer guns is that they could shoot first ask questions later so if they suspect someone they see on CCTV or see them acting suspiciously they can incapasitate them before the possible terrorist knows they are on to him/her whereas with a gun they would have to yell stop police which gives more then enough time to detonate a bomb.

I disagree, you can shoot a guy most places on his body and make him drop.

I think you forgot the bomb.

I think the incident with Menezes was initiated by a series of unfortunate background events - he ran from the Police because he was (so I've been informed) an illegal migrant fearing deportation, and the judgement that he had a bomb was one taken in haste (but still also wrong). Whilst Menezes was misjudged, the Met have a reputation even in Britain that's somewhat tainted. Stephen Lawrence, anyone? The problem is that the Police contains a faction of idiotic and racist yobs (as caught on camera in places such as Manchester as well) - until this unwanted faction of antisocialites are purged, they will be the embodiment of institutional racism, however undesired.

Anything less than shoot-to-kill and the bomb will go off.
If the terrorist is dead before he can detonate the bomb, no explosions in britain!


And how would that go about solving the situation of remote detonations/timed bombs/radio controlled explosions etc...?

Suicide bombs MAYBE; bombings? Not at all.

As an American, I'll leave the shoot to kill policy in Brittian entirely up to the citizens of that country.

Ta.

Me, I think that "shoot-to-kill" is incorrect teachings.

We need a "shoot-to-stop" policy.

And how would that go about solving the situation of remote detonations/timed bombs/radio controlled explosions etc...?

Suicide bombs MAYBE; bombings? Not at all.

More traditional forms of explasives are much easier to handly, most all US/UK SWAT(or the UK'sequlivent) have crack bombe squads that can handle such situations.

Now what about utalizing a EMP spike grenade (though expensive, they do exist today). Most all modern bomb designs utalize some form of tomer or detonation circutry, if the EMP was set off, circuts fuse, and the device is useless.

More traditional forms of explasives are much easier to handly, most all US/UK SWAT(or the UK'sequlivent) have crack bombe squads that can handle such situations.

Now what about utalizing a EMP spike grenade (though expensive, they do exist today). Most all modern bomb designs utalize some form of tomer or detonation circutry, if the EMP was set off, circuts fuse, and the device is useless.

Do they have a large radius of effect when used? i.e. would they fuse all the circuits in a tube station requiring large amounts of cash to repair

Do they have a large radius of effect when used? i.e. would they fuse all the circuits in a tube station requiring large amounts of cash to repair

whats worse, haven to replace a few circuts and a few lights, and mabye a few mobiles or an entire station?

More traditional forms of explasives are much easier to handly, most all US/UK SWAT(or the UK'sequlivent) have crack bombe squads that can handle such situations.

Now what about utalizing a EMP spike grenade (though expensive, they do exist today). Most all modern bomb designs utalize some form of tomer or detonation circutry, if the EMP was set off, circuts fuse, and the device is useless.

My point was 'shoot to kill' is a knee jerk reaction to a unique threat- suicide bombings. Intelligence is and always has been the best form of counter terrorist methods. 'Shoot to kill' does not resolve the non-suicide type of bomber.

It seems to me to be a very shortsighted solution- no one talked about suicide bombers 10yrs ago so they didn't have a ready contingency to combat it- the IRA etc were the only threat, remote controlled, radio denated etc. They didn't see suicide bombing coming very well, so why would they predict whats coming around the corner in the next 10 years?

A knee jerk reaction.

whats worse, haven to replace a few circuts and a few lights, and mabye a mobiles or an entire station?

I agree in situations where a bomb can be remote detonated (although if this is by mobile phone can the network be shut down so no signal can reach the device?) or there is too little time for other courses of action in the case of a timer. However if there is plenty of time traditional bomb disposal isnt such a bad idea

Bump

No, it should be the absolutely last resort.

Well being that the bomber is a suicide bomber...the only rational way to stop them with a high likelyhood of them not reaching the detonator to their explosives, is to kill or fully incapacitate them...so I suppose a "shoot-to-kill" policy would make sense...however its a very very tough situation. The Israelis have the most developed doctrine against homicide bombers, one would think it a good idea to take some pages out of that book.

I'm also curious as to how on several occasions, the Israelis have taken suicide bombers alive while they were attempting to detonate? They've managed to do it before, God knows how...

The point the poster is making is that they should use them. And on that matter of the Brazilian man that isn't true more info has been released saying he only ran to get the train and was walking on the platform, also shoting someone isn't gaurented to stop them in time either you could miss or the gun could jam (not likely but it could happen! Considering they would have to miss with a whole cartrige, but still it could happen.) One second isn't very long especially when you don't know what's hit you.
Police, with guns drawn, were screaming at him to halt. This is occuring shortly after terrorist bombings in the same city. Duh?

You would have to reload after each shot with a tranq gun, and a laser, come on. They aren't practical, or else every police officer would have them.

Everyone keeps saying that they should just be stopped. Uh, how? You need to remember, this person would have an armed bomb strapped to them, ready to be detonated. To stop them would require their death, as there are no other methods a normal police officer has to incapacitate a running target.

You know, I believe it is well within the mental capacity of potential bombers to instigate a 'dead-man's-handle' policy in response to any 'shoot-to-kill' policy.

Shoot to kill should be reserved for what the Brits see as lives being threatened imminently. Then again, I'm not British, and I don't pay British taxes (nor do I want to :p ).

I was going to say... They could also use flashbang grenades, which would ensure that the suicide bomber is incapacitated (be easier than the flashlight-shaped laser).

In case you aren't aware, a flashbang is a grenade that's pretty much harmless, but after detonating, releases an extremely bright light that serves the same purpose as the flashlight-shaped laser I mentioned.

The only problem, though, is that it would temporarily blind and disorient EVERYONE within the vicinity (except for the cops, because they'd know to look away, beforehand). That might cause people with epilepsy to have seizures, and might give old people heart-attacks. Or, if they tossed one near a train, a train operator would be incapacitated for a few seconds... Maybe crashing or something.

Oh, and... In regards to what someone said about the British police, hahaha. No, it DOESN'T need to be plugged in. The newest prototype is handheld. The first prototype was something like a foot long and a couple inches thick, and somewhat bulky. But the newest prototype is just a little bigger than 6 inches and fairly light.

But like I said, if they DON'T use guns, it'll be fairly expensive. But can you place a pricetag on innocent life? America certainly didn't do it, with the $200 billion dollar Iraq war.

I don't really like the idea of the flash grenade area. I don't care how much this guy can't see or has a headache, if he is still physically capable of hitting the little blinking red button, I say it isn't good enough.

Yes we should have a shoot to kill policy, a shoot to wound is joke.

The latest development in non-lethal firearms. (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/mech-tech/mg18725126.300)

The solution is simple. Shoot to kill/wound are stupid policies because either of them are simply a means to an end. The policy should be Shoot to Disable. Electrical-based shock guns, projectiles, cannons or darts would be a far better solution in both short and long term. Have you ever been able to successfully detonate a bomb with eighty thousand volts of electricity coursing through you? Furthermore, if the effect is non-lethal but renders the target unconscious, it's a simple manner of picking them up and escorting them out to a jail cell on some remote island. No mess, no medical bills, no possibility of accidental death. And, you don't need to explicitly aim anywhere on the target's body. A Shot to the leg is just as effective as one to the chest. You can't say that about bullets.

If people had put the research into stun-guns that they have done into nuclear weapons, the world would be a much safer place. Give the non-lethal arms to the police and sell them to the public so that lethal weaponry and any sort of trade or posession thereof can be completely illegalised Globally.

Police, with guns drawn, were screaming at him to halt. This is occuring shortly after terrorist bombings in the same city. Duh?

As I already told you that is wrong!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4159902.stm

One eyewitness widely quoted on the day, Christopher Wells, describes the suspect vaulting over ticket barriers, pursued by police.

But the leaked evidence suggests he picked up a free newspaper and slowly descended on an escalator.
Interviewed by a newspaper a week after the shooting, Mr Wells says the person he saw hurdling the barriers must have been a police officer.
Another witness, Mark Whitby, told BBC News on the day that he had seen the victim run onto the train pursued by three men, that he had half-tripped getting onto the carriage, been pushed to the floor and then shot.

But the leaked documents say Mr Menezes ran across the concourse to catch a train, boarded, looked left and right and then sat down on the first available seat.

Mr Whitby also suggested Mr Menezes was wearing a padded jacket, despite the warm weather, while the leaked papers suggest the Brazilian was wearing a light denim jacket.

A photo of Mr Menezes body was also among the leaked documents. It does not show a heavy jacket.

After Mr Menezes sat down, armed officers were "provided with positive identification", the leaked document says.

Following shouts including the word "police", Mr Menezes gets up and advances towards the CO19 officers, a surveillance officer is quoted to have said.

A member of the surveillance team describes grabbing him and holding him down.

According to the report, he said: "I grabbed the male in the denim jacket by wrapping both my arms around his torso, pinning his arms to his side.


ITV images show Mr de Menezes lying dead in a Tube train

"I then pushed him back on to the seat where he had been previously sitting... I then heard a gun shot very close to my left ear and was dragged away on to the floor of the carriage."

In the case of idiots who do not obey police instructions as they walk through the London Underground, with wires sticking out of their coat? Yes, there should be a shoot to kill policy.

Please. We have Shoot-To-Kill policies here in Texas. Hell, cops can shoot a guy in the back and get away with it. Sreaming that they lost there taser and they were scared becase the dude was to hiped up on POT.

The human race will kill itself. That simple. :headbang:

In the case of idiots who do not obey police instructions as they walk through the London Underground, with wires sticking out of their coat? Yes, there should be a shoot to kill policy.
see post above yours.

see post above yours.

I have done, and the CCTV and witness did not show him running or jumping barriers. However, he did disobey the police who are recorded as having told him to Stop. Second, as he was an electrician, he had wires sticking out of his coat and that is also documented fact.

I have done, and the CCTV and witness did not show him running or jumping barriers. However, he did disobey the police who are recorded as having told him to Stop. Second, as he was an electrician, he had wires sticking out of his coat and that is also documented fact.he didn't disobey police orders read the whole thing!
And he couldn't have detonated a bomb even if there was one on him!

he didn't disobey police orders read the whole thing!
And he couldn't have detonated a bomb even if there was one on him!

That is one witness. Many others and the CCTV contest that the police did issue an order.

That is one witness. Many others and the CCTV contest that the police did issue an order.
There was no CCTV! They took the discs out and didn't replace them!

Have you ever been able to successfully detonate a bomb with eighty thousand volts of electricity coursing through you?

Nope but that sort of voltage is enough to set off the bomb.

Hmmm, only when absolutly necessary. And one shot through the head (ok, it's difficult) is much better than jumping on top of someone and shoot him seven times throught the head.

the Brazilian's case was an example of the (necessary?) evils of the shoot to kill policy. The new evidence shows us that it was a major f*ckup by the police. They were probably under a lot of stress after the recent events.

<snip> Have you ever been able to successfully detonate a bomb with eighty thousand volts of electricity coursing through you? <snip>

The carrier of the bomb may not have to detonate a bomb if a 80kV current is passing through (certain types of) explosive or detonator or detonation circuit...

Similarly, is it not possible that an EMP device sparks the detonation in a sequence? Have such devices been used in leiu of 'controlled explosions' of suspect devices?


As a purely intelectual excercise, ages ago (and as a complete aside from the above... if a mod thinks I'm straying into dubious territory, feel free to censor/remove, but I currently consider the following to be fairly obvious to any 'professional' involved, given I was a kid when I thought all this up) I mentally designed the 'ultimate undefusable bomb'. It was a plant-and-leave (not carry) so involved tilt sensors and inertial sensors, for starters, but also air-pressure sensors (it was inside a hermetically-sealed box with air pumped in/out, so that attempts to access would set it off, I idealy also wanted to monitor its composition, but thought a gas-chromatograph would be a bit bulky... ;)) devices to detected attempts to X-ray or ulrasound (which wouldn't work anyway, but I was covering all bases) and various other ways of trying to find out what was in the container.

The coup-de-grace was extra detonators linked to coils that would pick up and use any extreme electro-magnetic pulses applied agaisnt it. Thick coils so that they could carry the charge.

Dealing with a controlled explosion (one that catastrophically disassembles the device without setting off the main explosive) was the hardest part (in my then-opinion) and so I resolved to add a bulk of secondary explosive that was of the right stability (i.e. low) to be detonated either by the original or the 'control' explosion, etc... Perhaps even make the (pressurised) atmosphere an inflamable mix, to at least surprise the disposal team...


Of course, I don't have the expertise, nor do I have the inclination to gain/use it, but anyone seriously designing bombs to combat certain 'suppresion' techniques will be able to come up with something appropriate. For human-bomb, that'd include the already mentioned dead-man's switch (pressure switch in shoe that must be trod on every second or two, being forced to lie down would trigger the detonation/countdown circuit?) and if they're anticipating dealing with EMP then there's solutions there.