Will There Be An Enquiry Asking How The Woolwich Murder Suspects Came Under Fire From The Police Yet Lives To Be Arrested?

[sandyRoe]

I'd thought the police operated a shoot to kill policy.

[albaqwerty]

They do not operate a shoot to kill policy, they shoot at the torso to incapacitate the idiot(s)

[VHG]

I think totally the opposite, I am sure police marksmen are trained to shoot to maim (in the thigh for example) not kill.

This is unlike American policemen who shoot to kill then ask questions afterwards.

[murraymints]

Better they are alive to answer questions re motive and are there more attacks planned !!

[Bazile]

Shoot to kill policy ?

Oh , this is a tongue in cheek post - sorry it is Friday afternoon

[albaqwerty]

I think the US has this 'suicide by cop' shooting devilment going on.
Hopefully, the UK won't go down that route.

[Baldric]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-155546/Shoot-kill-police-told.html

[viv38]

Agree with murryamints, also they can face justice if they are still alive and not become 'martyrs'.

[Bazile]

I supoose there could be situations where it would be judged that fatally 'taking out' might be appropriate .

[anotheoldgit]

In this day of 'criminal's rights' it's a wonder why there isn't to be an inquiry into why the police even shot them.

[jake-the-peg]

I think that policy varies depending on the threat.

In the case of Jean Charle Menezes - the Brazillian electrician, the claim was that they feared that he might be harbouring a bomb that he might detonate and so the strategy was to shoot for the base of the brain, hopefully to prevent any muscle activity from triggering any device.

Obviously they were very close at that time.

I'm not sure that the Police fully publish their policies but it's fair to assume that

a) after this case they would have been reviewed
b) range is a factor


I would imagine that MI5 were less than impressed with the Police's decision to shoot them.

Eyewitness accounts say that the attackers approached the police without raising their hands and that the Police simply shot them without a warning or attempting to arrest them.

In the time immediately after the incident it would have been important to the security services to ascertain if there were any continuing threat from other groups and it's a bit hard to interrogate people that you've just shot!

As it turned out this appears to have been an isolated incident but had we seen a second one some hours later in a different part of London I think there would be have been some internal discussion between the agencies about the decision to fire

[Octavius]

In known terrorist cases I think shoot to kill is permitted, but in this case a "remove the threat" policy was probably (subconsciously) utilised. I'm sure some enquiry will be carried out either way though, just to determine/satisfy appropriate use of firearms.

[jake-the-peg]

That is they did not raise their hands in a threatening manner

[VHG]

>>>That is they did not raise their hands in a threatening manner

But still had knives and meat cleavers in their hands that they had just used to kill.

If they had refused to drop them then the only option was to shoot to maim.

[ummmm]

One of them had a gun and shot his own thumb off.

[DTCwordfan]

They will probably sue the police for missing them, as to killing that is. They face the embarrassment of not being able to get one of their 70 virgins......

[ToraToraTora]

Your creativity in finding ways to bash the police is indeed impressive, well done.

[FredPuli43]

If it was meant to be shoot to kill,then this is yet another piece of police incompetence :)

The IPCC is involved every time a police firearm is discharged in the course of duty, and it was in this case.

[jake-the-peg]

Well they weren't challenged to drop them from the witness statement.

I'm not bashing the police per se - I'm more surprised their action seems to have been neither one response no the other.

If they thought they were dealing with a potential bomb threat, a suicide vest something like that I would have expected them to have shot them both several times in the head - That's what they did with Menezes.

If they didn't - they appeared to make no attempt to arrest them.

Seems odd - But as I said we don't know the detail of their policy for obvious reasons and I'm sure the Police complaints authority will examine to see if they were in line with it.

[Svejk]

Is there no end to the drivel you come out with, jake?

[Peter Pedant]

anyone here remember Stephen Waldorf ?

the policeman was acquitted of attempted murder on the grounds that it was lawful to shoot if you thought your life was in danger.

or charles menezes ? same legal principle applied

or the fella with the chair leg in a plastic bag ?

or the blind guy with a white stick (he didnt get shot)

It is clearly quite correct to inquire into these things