Be Excellent To Each Other

For FUCKS sake.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7760684.stm

"You can return any verdict you like so long as it's that everything is just fine and no-one did anything wrong."

The State does have a right to take life under Article 2 (2):

said Sir Michael Wright, coroner and went on to add,

Because the law, is the law, is the law. Emotion should not factor into the decisions of a jury.

From the title, I thought it was going to be related to this story

Seven to the head?

Is that any different to one shot to the head, though? Either way he's dead.

Operation Kratos or whatever it was (the "shoot to the head to kill if they're a bomber" thing) has not been held up as being an unreasonable response to the threat of a suicide bomber. The issue here was whether they were acting reasonably to assume that de Menenzes was a bomber in the first place, not whether, having made that decision, it would be reasonable to shoot him in the face.

So Mali's quote is, in this instance, irrelevant.

Is this still going on? I do hate it when it takes over 3 years for stories to get buried properly. Doesn't take a genius to know that they cocked up a bit and shot a non-terrorist, but poking the damn story from every angle for years isn't accomplishing much, I think.

, to be honest.

It isn't going to make him less dead, and given the vanishingly small number of deaths by police shootings we have (especially compared to, say, Brazil) there aren't that many lessons to be learned.

As with anything, cock ups will always happen, no matter how much money you spend on reviews and reports and new procedures and forms and little clipboards with boxes to be ticked.

if they suspect a man is strapped up with explosives, and they've been told to shoot-to-kill, is it still acceptable to aim for the head? I thought anything other than centre mass was a no-no

So, shooting at the bit with the explosives strapped to it is a good idea now, then?

Do NOT. Shoot. At the thermonuclear. Weapon.

[/Travolta]

If someone attacks me in the street, and I legitimately fear for my life and I defend myself strongly enough that my assailant is killed, that's fine under UK law (as far as I'm aware, but you're the lawyer )

However - if, after killing the guy, I then continue to attack a corpse, that's against the law as it takes it from being reasonable force to being unreasonable - I obviously didn't know when to stop so there's an element of doubt as to whether lethal force was justified in the first place.

I look at the Menezes case the same way, although I accept that the law might look at it differently They shot him multiple times in the head, even though for all intents and purposes just one would do. To restrain him down and then shoot him in the face point blank is surely "unreasonable force".

It's almost like each of the officers involved said "quick, we'd all better get a shot in so that none of us are more to blame than the other". Like the two knights allegedly did when they murdered Thomas a Becket.


Is it? The jury has been stopped from giving a verdict of "unlawful killing" which sounds to me like the issue is the fact that they shot him repeatedly in the face, not that they made the decision to.

They can't return a verdict of unlawful killing because that would imply they could prosecute the person(s) who did it, and that has already been ruled out because it was such a fuckup from start to finish that you'd never make anything stick.

I do see what you mean, actually. But, assuming that the officers genuninely believed him to be a terrorist, wouldn't it only be unreasonable force in this instance if we thought that it would be unreasonable for them to shoot an actual terrorist in the head 7 times?




I think it's because the coroner is saying that maybe they shouldn't have shot him in the face (open verdict) but that even if so, it wasn't a criminal action as they didn't act unlawfully. Alternatively they acted absolutely properly and no one fucked up in the slightest (lawful killing).

Presumably, wasn't he shot seven times because several officers all did double-tap shots in a very short space of time? It's not like anyone stopped, thought "yup he's dead", and then shot again anyway, is it? I don't seen why the number of shots is relevent. And given that the various reports etc have revealed some pretty systematic failures, it's simply not on to go after the individual officers. The last thing we need in the event of a genuine face-off with a bomber is for the copper with the gun to be second-guessing himself because a mate went to prison.

If, say, the police officers had been given a no-fire order then shot anyway, I'd feel different. But unless that happened I don't see why they should be held legally accountable for murder or manslaughter.

Possibly, although double-taps are normally reserved for centre-of-mass. Shooting someone in the head is hard enough as it is without having the recoil from your first shot to deal with too.

I'd certainly hope they didn't double-tap in the head, given that they had to deal with the possibility of innocent bystanders being behind Menezes and potentially getting caught in the crossfire.

From 6 feet away I'd hope they could hit a head sized target with an AK on full auto.

Personally (and I'm almost definitely in the minority here) I think it's unreasonable to shoot anybody (criminal or not) in the head more than twice (for the aforementioned double-tap, if they do that with headshots)

They're supposed to be better trained than that. Any shots that are fired unnecessarily are shots that could go astray and hit innocent bystanders.

Is that how close they were? Christ, that just makes the whole thing worse in my eyes. From six feet away they'd surely have been able to spot any explosives or detonators. And if he had been a terrorist and blown himself up, they'd have all died in the blast from that distance, probably.

FWIW, I don't think the individual officers should be charged with anything either. They were acting on orders, even if what they did stretches the definition of reasonable force to breaking point. I would hope they'd be capable of exercising more restraint but until I'm in that situation I can't really say what I'd do. But someone has to be culpable and must be punished, and the more I hear about the story the more it seems like everyone's going to get off scot-free except Menezes and his family.

He was an illegal immigrant dealing cocaine to Maddy though, so got no less than he deserved.

It's already been established (surely?) that the officers didn't just run in there thinking he was a civilian and shoot him for shits and giggles. That's the only way an 'unlawful killing' verdict could really stick, so the judge is right to point that out, IMO.

are we talking standing 6 feet away? Making an outstretched handgun about 3.5 feet away? Seven shots to the head at that range? Christ! It's a miracle they could count them. They MUST have been told to aim for the head, otherwise they just wouldn't have done it, surely? Maybe a stray shot, but SEVEN?

It's a shame, then, that those in law enforcement - and particularly in this case - acted on nothing but emotion, hearsay and feelings.

You also wouldn't have any need whatsoever to double-tap at that range.

I recall it being around that, yes. Which makes sense, actually - they came in the door of the Tube carriage, he was sat down between the two sets of doors, they shot him. If he was by one door and they were by the other that coudn't be more than what, 4 metres at the absolute maximum? And given that he got up and walked towards them when they shot him, it would be much closer than that.

If you are ordered to shoot to kill, and the double tap is the correct way of killing some one. As a single shot might not do it.

Does it matter if it is 1 double-tap or 3 double tap.

If teh bloke did have explosives on them, then the police would have been praised.

The UK is not a trigger happy police force, but they do have to account for each shot they fire. If they are ordred to shoot to kill they will, and it will be a head shot not a body shot.

If they're ordered to shoot to kill, they're only cleared for head shots in extreme circumstances where there is imminent danger to the police or the public.

Rest of the time, it's centre of mass.

and a potentail sucide bomber falls in to what area?
Where a body shot would not kill and could set of the bomb??

You always double tap to kill.. It is a standard way of killing some one, it is used from the special forces down to the police

Sorry, the wording of your post implied that the "head shots not body shots" policy applied to all "shoot to kill" orders, not just suicide bombers.

Given that Menezes wasn't vaulting over turnstiles like the police originally claimed, I'd question their judgment over the imminent danger to the public too.

Yes, but from <=6 feet away you could actually take some time to make sure your aim was true on the second shot.

Sorry guys, I seem to have derailed the thread a bit into talk about police tactics rather than the court case

Did the Police have orders to kill? I belive they did, if they had to kill then head shots correct.

Body shots are to subdue not use leathal force.

I talke it you shoot?

But with a semi automatic, it is just click click, two shots away..

If you speak to any special forces or watch any documentoary on the SF they explain why it is done.. Watch any of the Special Forces heroes programs.

My Dad was DPG for a while, and he told me that they were told always to aim for a kill. And to always double tap.

Lucky for him he only had to draw his gun once (Some American Soldier had been seen waving a gun about in his car on the Edgware road. He was the only armed office in the area. He approached the driver from behind and stuck his gun in the window. And told him to put his hands on the wheel and keep them there. There was a long delay, and then a second policeman turned up, opened the passenger door, and took the gun away. He was then arrested and sent back to the US.

My Dad then had a very large, very stiff whiskey! He told me he was bricking it when he did it, and if the guy had so more than twitched he would have fired. He was very grateful that he didn't!

Malc

Of course it's been declared to be totally irrelevant that he wasn't a potential terrorist any more than I am.

working in the airport just after the 7/7 attacks I got chatting to one of the armed coppers stationed in the terminal. It's very difficult to talk to a man about laptops when he has an MP5 strapped to his chest. He'd never had to draw on duty either, even though a man had been shot and killed in Liverpool not long before that. He was waiving a bloody sword and they shot to kill. Doesn't make sense really and I didn't fancy asking the large, armed man about it

But at the time the Police did not know that. hindsight is wonderful isn't it

No. No.. A double-tap to the torso will kill in the vast majority of cases and a torso presents a much easier target. In the few cases where a double-tap to the torso doesn't kill (usually then the target is hopped up on drugs or adrenaline) then a head shot becomes necessary to "finish the job". This is known as the Mozambique Drill and is executed rather marvellously by Tom Cruise in Collateral

Head shots have only really become necessary in recent years when dealing with suicide bombers where an instantaneous kill is desirable.

And yes, I shoot. Do you? A double-tap is not the same as two shots. A double-tap is two shots in quick succession, with a split second between each pull of the trigger. The idea being that the two shots should go in the same place. But from short range, you're able to take a bit more time before the second trigger-pull to ensure accurate shot placement.

Especially important from short range because, in a double-tap, by the time you pull the trigger the second time, the target may have moved significantly due to the impact of the first shot.

Let's go shooting everyone getting on the tube just in case then.

FTFY there, chap.

It MIGHT. MIGHT be slightly different if they'd suspect Jean-Charles. They did not at any stage suspect HIM of anything.

I see you deleted that first post I was replying to.


Only in retrospect. At the time they thought he was a terrorist. They didn't think "nah, he probably isn't, but let's shoot him anyway". They thought he was, and they thought they had good reason for thinking so.

No they thought someone completely different was.

And they thought he was that person...

Malc

And they thought he was that guy. They didn't think "nah, it's not him, but let's pick a random guy from the same building and shoot him anyway".

well, he looked a bit foreign didn't he?

And that's not remotely acceptable. The jury have now been ordered to rule that it's absolutely fine to shoot anyone who looks a bit like a suspect.

They've done nothing of the sort.

Sorry, I was basing that argument on a half remembered comment in a lecture about the issue to hand. And it was early. In my defence I've not followed the case that strongly, (as I don't have to know it for January) either. So, ho hum.

As an aside, I always thought that Pte CLegg shouldn't have been done for capping a joyrider running a checkpoint in NI, but that's another magazine of dum dums. (Speaking of which, that reminds me of something else I have to read.)