FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > UK police and collatoral damage
UK police and collatoral damage
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *otMe66Man 31 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
Firearms officers don’t recklessly discharge their weapons. In Manchester they faced an awful situation, believing the terrorist had a bomb, and by the time they arrived he had already killed. The tragic outcome was not their doing. Responsibility lies entirely with the terrorist who instigated it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
What would you have done in that within OP?
It seems to me that whatever those police officers did would have been wrong. If they hadn’t opened fire or delayed to get a “better” position and the man had either blown up a bomb or directly killed more people then they would be criticised. Opening fire near a door is also likely to lead to death and injury. Which unfortunately occurred here.
It seems to me they only had lose lose choices but open to what the “best” choice would be. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Only a matter of time before some expert with hindsight crops up..
Had they not taken the shot and he had detonated a viable device the death toll would likely have been higher and included the officers who went into a dangerous rapidly moving situation who had literally seconds to make their decisions.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"What would you have done in that within OP?"
Not closed distance to someone who may have aa bomb. Not panicked and opened fire at a man pushing against a door with people behind it. You don't need to be an expert to know basic firearm safety. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 31 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"What would you have done in that within OP?
Not closed distance to someone who may have aa bomb. Not panicked and opened fire at a man pushing against a door with people behind it. You don't need to be an expert to know basic firearm safety."
The question was, what "would" you have done not "wouldn't".
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *coptoCouple 31 weeks ago
Côte d'Azur & Great Yarmouth |
Well, f Cressida Dick's meteoric rise is anything to go by, Constable X (or whichever nom de guerre the "investigation" will give him) is set for promotion to CHIEF Constable |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"What would you have done in that within OP?
Not closed distance to someone who may have aa bomb. Not panicked and opened fire at a man pushing against a door with people behind it. You don't need to be an expert to know basic firearm safety."
As you observe he very likely has a bomb. That bomb will very likely go off if he can’t open that door. If it does go off then anything in the immediate vicinity - him, you, the door and whatever is behind that door - very likely gets blown to smithereens. In that situation you wouldn’t open fire. What _would_ _you_ do? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 31 weeks ago
|
It's easy to sit on the sofa watching replays and be critical of the police. The fact is, they have a split second to make a decision in an already chaotic situation. Their aim is to protect the public and remove the threat as soon as possible. Collateral damage is an unfortunate risk. In this case it looks like a ricochet had tragic consequences. But blame the perpetrators of this incident not the hapless police. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
No doubt the police will be pilloried by the usual suspects.
Shoot to kill policy, should have tried to arrest him, no regard for public safety Etc Etc ad nauseum.
They will sit on their couches with a cold beer and a packet of crisps. They will analyse the footage from every angle available.
Why didn't the marksman get a better position? Why didn't he get a clean shot? Why did they shoot him again when he was on the ground?
Not once will they put themselves in the police officers position and think what would I have decided to do in that split second?
How would I have reacted faced with an armed terrorist, who had already killed, wearing what looked like an explosive device, trying to break through a door?
How would I have reacted when the wounded terrorist tried to get up? (still wearing his "bomb vest")
Of course we all know now that the device wasn't viable.
In that split second the copper didn't.
Tragically an innocent member of the public paid the ultimate price but had it gone the other way and the device detonated and killed many more, what then? Oh, the copper should have shot him sooner. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Jihad from Syria dead, stop importing these murdering Islamists.
Police officer's need to be given full police, public and parliamentary support.
This is not an isolated incident, 7/7, Manchester arena, London Bridge, Lee Rigby rip - none of these killed because they were Jews. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 31 weeks ago
|
All I have learned from this incident, is that I knew that this was coming, and what I have learned today is that if I was to be unfortunate to be close to a terrorist attack, that the public would see my accidental shooting that took my life my innocent life. that it would be ok because the policemen had seconds to judge me.
And that I should blame the attacker which I do, but the free for all shooting of victims they were there to protect is questionable.
The police did not have a sitrep of the situation they did not try to contain the situation instead they panicked and shot those they were there to protect.
Shit show.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 31 weeks ago
|
"Jihad from Syria dead, stop importing these murdering Islamists.
Police officer's need to be given full police, public and parliamentary support.
This is not an isolated incident, 7/7, Manchester arena, London Bridge, Lee Rigby rip - none of these killed because they were Jews. "
You dear sir are a sh1t stirrer I have no idea what side you are on because your posts seem to contradict themselves.
Your comments are a two side of your opinions.
In short you try to throw a bomb in the conversation and see where it goes. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 31 weeks ago
|
"All I have learned from this incident, is that I knew that this was coming, and what I have learned today is that if I was to be unfortunate to be close to a terrorist attack, that the public would see my accidental shooting that took my life my innocent life. that it would be ok because the policemen had seconds to judge me.
And that I should blame the attacker which I do, but the free for all shooting of victims they were there to protect is questionable.
The police did not have a sitrep of the situation they did not try to contain the situation instead they panicked and shot those they were there to protect.
Shit show.
"
That's not the case at all. There's no evidence of panic - although clearly there needs to be haste in these situations. The bullet was a ricochet that penetrated a door - a fluke occurrence that in no way is attributable to a police 'shit show'. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 31 weeks ago
|
"All I have learned from this incident, is that I knew that this was coming, and what I have learned today is that if I was to be unfortunate to be close to a terrorist attack, that the public would see my accidental shooting that took my life my innocent life. that it would be ok because the policemen had seconds to judge me.
And that I should blame the attacker which I do, but the free for all shooting of victims they were there to protect is questionable.
The police did not have a sitrep of the situation they did not try to contain the situation instead they panicked and shot those they were there to protect.
Shit show.
That's not the case at all. There's no evidence of panic - although clearly there needs to be haste in these situations. The bullet was a ricochet that penetrated a door - a fluke occurrence that in no way is attributable to a police 'shit show'. "
As I say sh1t show.
If I vow to protect the public, by shooting them I have failed in my duty, contain, understand, who is he threat and if I must shoot them.
If I shoot people I am there to protect it tells me I have no idea of the situation, I did not take into account of the innocent people or I saw them as this is how it goes.
Sh1t show the public was not protected but shot by those we consent to protect us.
Theres more coming I am not pleased to say.
As another poster says we have reaped what we sow and what you all know what you really voted for at the last election, killing people for profit but alas the profit was not shared with you all who speaks for murder mass killing and war.
It is coming to you now and me because you wanted and supported the killing of another.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"All I have learned from this incident, is that I knew that this was coming, and what I have learned today is that if I was to be unfortunate to be close to a terrorist attack, that the public would see my accidental shooting that took my life my innocent life. that it would be ok because the policemen had seconds to judge me.
And that I should blame the attacker which I do, but the free for all shooting of victims they were there to protect is questionable.
The police did not have a sitrep of the situation they did not try to contain the situation instead they panicked and shot those they were there to protect.
Shit show.
"
I didn’t say your innocent life was worth taking. I didn’t say to blame the attacker. I simply asked what OP would do in the situation.
Same question to you. You are holding the gun and I am behind the door with a guy who has just killed someone, is potentially holding a bomb and is trying to break the door down. What would you _really_ do in that situation?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 31 weeks ago
|
"All I have learned from this incident, is that I knew that this was coming, and what I have learned today is that if I was to be unfortunate to be close to a terrorist attack, that the public would see my accidental shooting that took my life my innocent life. that it would be ok because the policemen had seconds to judge me.
And that I should blame the attacker which I do, but the free for all shooting of victims they were there to protect is questionable.
The police did not have a sitrep of the situation they did not try to contain the situation instead they panicked and shot those they were there to protect.
Shit show.
I didn’t say your innocent life was worth taking. I didn’t say to blame the attacker. I simply asked what OP would do in the situation.
Same question to you. You are holding the gun and I am behind the door with a guy who has just killed someone, is potentially holding a bomb and is trying to break the door down. What would you _really_ do in that situation?
"
If you are asking me what I would do.
I have already told you and everyone else on this thread what I would do.
Again just for those who have a issue not with reading but understanding what they have read.
Contain,
Understand,
Control.
If theses fail shoot, but when I shoot I know who I am shooting at why because,
I have
Contained,
Understood,
Controled,
and identified,
if all else fails shoot.
What I wouldn't do is to go into a high public area not knowing who is who and lay down fire.
Would you? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"All I have learned from this incident, is that I knew that this was coming, and what I have learned today is that if I was to be unfortunate to be close to a terrorist attack, that the public would see my accidental shooting that took my life my innocent life. that it would be ok because the policemen had seconds to judge me.
And that I should blame the attacker which I do, but the free for all shooting of victims they were there to protect is questionable.
The police did not have a sitrep of the situation they did not try to contain the situation instead they panicked and shot those they were there to protect.
Shit show.
I didn’t say your innocent life was worth taking. I didn’t say to blame the attacker. I simply asked what OP would do in the situation.
Same question to you. You are holding the gun and I am behind the door with a guy who has just killed someone, is potentially holding a bomb and is trying to break the door down. What would you _really_ do in that situation?
If you are asking me what I would do.
I have already told you and everyone else on this thread what I would do.
Again just for those who have a issue not with reading but understanding what they have read.
Contain,
Understand,
Control.
If theses fail shoot, but when I shoot I know who I am shooting at why because,
I have
Contained,
Understood,
Controled,
and identified,
if all else fails shoot.
What I wouldn't do is to go into a high public area not knowing who is who and lay down fire.
Would you?"
I would pull the trigger. You are directly facing someone who has already killed and is threatening to blow up a bomb. That could kill multiple people.
If that bomb had been real and had gone off how would you justify your containment strategy?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I would have pulled the trigger. I'm glad I wasn't in that position, faced with a possible suicide bomber and I'm very glad I didn't have to make the decision that officer did. He's a human being who is going to have to live with the knowledge that his actions indirectly killed an innocent person. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 31 weeks ago
|
"All I have learned from this incident, is that I knew that this was coming, and what I have learned today is that if I was to be unfortunate to be close to a terrorist attack, that the public would see my accidental shooting that took my life my innocent life. that it would be ok because the policemen had seconds to judge me.
And that I should blame the attacker which I do, but the free for all shooting of victims they were there to protect is questionable.
The police did not have a sitrep of the situation they did not try to contain the situation instead they panicked and shot those they were there to protect.
Shit show.
I didn’t say your innocent life was worth taking. I didn’t say to blame the attacker. I simply asked what OP would do in the situation.
Same question to you. You are holding the gun and I am behind the door with a guy who has just killed someone, is potentially holding a bomb and is trying to break the door down. What would you _really_ do in that situation?
If you are asking me what I would do.
I have already told you and everyone else on this thread what I would do.
Again just for those who have a issue not with reading but understanding what they have read.
Contain,
Understand,
Control.
If theses fail shoot, but when I shoot I know who I am shooting at why because,
I have
Contained,
Understood,
Controled,
and identified,
if all else fails shoot.
What I wouldn't do is to go into a high public area not knowing who is who and lay down fire.
Would you?
I would pull the trigger. You are directly facing someone who has already killed and is threatening to blow up a bomb. That could kill multiple people.
If that bomb had been real and had gone off how would you justify your containment strategy?
"
Questions, questions, those who ask have no idea.
As I said shit show.
The bomb was not real, yes I would not have known.
so what do I do.
I have vowed my life to protect the public, so I contain, my colleagues rid the area of innocent life, if I die I die a martyr or a hero.
when the public have been cleared I would know who I am facing and give clear instructions, if they fail my instructions, I would not just shoot them I would empty my clip at close range into their cerebellum.
If we continue just to shoot these's terrorists, instead of hearing why they would kill us and take their own life, there will be no understanding of our differences.
No peace. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 31 weeks ago
|
"I would have pulled the trigger. I'm glad I wasn't in that position, faced with a possible suicide bomber and I'm very glad I didn't have to make the decision that officer did. He's a human being who is going to have to live with the knowledge that his actions indirectly killed an innocent person. "
I wouldn't have and I would have been right to do so in hindsight.
And for the reasons you have stated, I have failed I shot a person I was there to protect, yeh I would feel sh1t right now. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I would have pulled the trigger. I'm glad I wasn't in that position, faced with a possible suicide bomber and I'm very glad I didn't have to make the decision that officer did. He's a human being who is going to have to live with the knowledge that his actions indirectly killed an innocent person.
I wouldn't have and I would have been right to do so in hindsight.
And for the reasons you have stated, I have failed I shot a person I was there to protect, yeh I would feel sh1t right now."
Since neither of us were there this discussion can only ever be academic.
I sincerely hope the officer who fired the shots is being supported. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 31 weeks ago
|
I would also say there are policemen who rap3, who are corrupt, who would shoot rap1st and let them bleed out, shoot them in the head or deport, our police service is rotten like our politics and needs an overhaul.
I just cannot figure why we consent to theses types policing us. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I would have pulled the trigger. I'm glad I wasn't in that position, faced with a possible suicide bomber and I'm very glad I didn't have to make the decision that officer did. He's a human being who is going to have to live with the knowledge that his actions indirectly killed an innocent person.
I wouldn't have and I would have been right to do so in hindsight.
And for the reasons you have stated, I have failed I shot a person I was there to protect, yeh I would feel sh1t right now."
Out of interest do you think given the chance, that the guy would have explained why he was doing it to the officer with the gun while his colleagues cleared the area? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I would also say there are policemen who rap3, who are corrupt, who would shoot rap1st and let them bleed out, shoot them in the head or deport, our police service is rotten like our politics and needs an overhaul.
I just cannot figure why we consent to theses types policing us."
That's a different discussion though. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 31 weeks ago
|
"I would have pulled the trigger. I'm glad I wasn't in that position, faced with a possible suicide bomber and I'm very glad I didn't have to make the decision that officer did. He's a human being who is going to have to live with the knowledge that his actions indirectly killed an innocent person.
I wouldn't have and I would have been right to do so in hindsight.
And for the reasons you have stated, I have failed I shot a person I was there to protect, yeh I would feel sh1t right now.
Since neither of us were there this discussion can only ever be academic.
I sincerely hope the officer who fired the shots is being supported. "
In short I have answered you and you have no reply.
Yes the officers will be supported, they cannot be prosecuted.
If the threat of prosecution came up, firearms officers would threat to give up their guns (which I was all for) when they made such a threat the politicians shat themselves as their protection would not be guaranteed.
So shot with no responsibility, you do not live in an area where terrorist activity is high. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 31 weeks ago
|
"I would also say there are policemen who rap3, who are corrupt, who would shoot rap1st and let them bleed out, shoot them in the head or deport, our police service is rotten like our politics and needs an overhaul.
I just cannot figure why we consent to theses types policing us."
“We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.”
What's your alternative? The Boy Scouts? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 31 weeks ago
|
"I would have pulled the trigger. I'm glad I wasn't in that position, faced with a possible suicide bomber and I'm very glad I didn't have to make the decision that officer did. He's a human being who is going to have to live with the knowledge that his actions indirectly killed an innocent person.
I wouldn't have and I would have been right to do so in hindsight.
And for the reasons you have stated, I have failed I shot a person I was there to protect, yeh I would feel sh1t right now.
Out of interest do you think given the chance, that the guy would have explained why he was doing it to the officer with the gun while his colleagues cleared the area? "
You are taking the mick out of a serious incident where firstly we were lead to believe the police made the right decisions.
Then we learned they did not.
Now we are making excuses.
Tell those excuses to the families who lost loved ones to police actions, actions of the state actually which makes this scary.
To answer you, understand means not to ask questions but to understand who is your target, your target is where to point your sight, seems to me the policeman had multiple targets and shot at both. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 31 weeks ago
|
"I would also say there are policemen who rap3, who are corrupt, who would shoot rap1st and let them bleed out, shoot them in the head or deport, our police service is rotten like our politics and needs an overhaul.
I just cannot figure why we consent to theses types policing us.
“We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.”
What's your alternative? The Boy Scouts? "
An alternative mmmmmm!
Stop interfering with other countries for profit,
Clean up our politics,
Have a foreign policy that actually helps all not the rich few.
Foreign policy is now seeping back into our society, or the consequences of foreign policy is showing its face the reasons are clear.
So as everyone is asking questions I ask you, did you vote for war, did you vote for more control, did you vote to be a target in a terrorist war.
I didn't. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"All I have learned from this incident, is that I knew that this was coming, and what I have learned today is that if I was to be unfortunate to be close to a terrorist attack, that the public would see my accidental shooting that took my life my innocent life. that it would be ok because the policemen had seconds to judge me.
And that I should blame the attacker which I do, but the free for all shooting of victims they were there to protect is questionable.
The police did not have a sitrep of the situation they did not try to contain the situation instead they panicked and shot those they were there to protect.
Shit show.
I didn’t say your innocent life was worth taking. I didn’t say to blame the attacker. I simply asked what OP would do in the situation.
Same question to you. You are holding the gun and I am behind the door with a guy who has just killed someone, is potentially holding a bomb and is trying to break the door down. What would you _really_ do in that situation?
If you are asking me what I would do.
I have already told you and everyone else on this thread what I would do.
Again just for those who have a issue not with reading but understanding what they have read.
Contain,
Understand,
Control.
If theses fail shoot, but when I shoot I know who I am shooting at why because,
I have
Contained,
Understood,
Controled,
and identified,
if all else fails shoot.
What I wouldn't do is to go into a high public area not knowing who is who and lay down fire.
Would you?"
So while you are
Containing.
Understanding.
Controlling.
Identifying.
The terrorist makes HIS split second decision and blows himself, the door and whoever is behind the door to kingdom come.
Good call.   |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 31 weeks ago
|
"I would also say there are policemen who rap3, who are corrupt, who would shoot rap1st and let them bleed out, shoot them in the head or deport, our police service is rotten like our politics and needs an overhaul.
I just cannot figure why we consent to theses types policing us.
“We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.”
What's your alternative? The Boy Scouts?
An alternative mmmmmm!
Stop interfering with other countries for profit,
Clean up our politics,
Have a foreign policy that actually helps all not the rich few.
Foreign policy is now seeping back into our society, or the consequences of foreign policy is showing its face the reasons are clear.
So as everyone is asking questions I ask you, did you vote for war, did you vote for more control, did you vote to be a target in a terrorist war.
I didn't."
Well yes, fair comment on those, but you can't blame the plod on the street for them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I would have pulled the trigger. I'm glad I wasn't in that position, faced with a possible suicide bomber and I'm very glad I didn't have to make the decision that officer did. He's a human being who is going to have to live with the knowledge that his actions indirectly killed an innocent person.
I wouldn't have and I would have been right to do so in hindsight.
And for the reasons you have stated, I have failed I shot a person I was there to protect, yeh I would feel sh1t right now."
Hindsight always helps. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I would have pulled the trigger. I'm glad I wasn't in that position, faced with a possible suicide bomber and I'm very glad I didn't have to make the decision that officer did. He's a human being who is going to have to live with the knowledge that his actions indirectly killed an innocent person.
I wouldn't have and I would have been right to do so in hindsight.
And for the reasons you have stated, I have failed I shot a person I was there to protect, yeh I would feel sh1t right now.
Out of interest do you think given the chance, that the guy would have explained why he was doing it to the officer with the gun while his colleagues cleared the area?
You are taking the mick out of a serious incident where firstly we were lead to believe the police made the right decisions.
Then we learned they did not.
Now we are making excuses.
Tell those excuses to the families who lost loved ones to police actions, actions of the state actually which makes this scary.
To answer you, understand means not to ask questions but to understand who is your target, your target is where to point your sight, seems to me the policeman had multiple targets and shot at both."
The very last thing I am doing is taking the mick.
I'm trying to understand why your comments. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 31 weeks ago
|
"All I have learned from this incident, is that I knew that this was coming, and what I have learned today is that if I was to be unfortunate to be close to a terrorist attack, that the public would see my accidental shooting that took my life my innocent life. that it would be ok because the policemen had seconds to judge me.
And that I should blame the attacker which I do, but the free for all shooting of victims they were there to protect is questionable.
The police did not have a sitrep of the situation they did not try to contain the situation instead they panicked and shot those they were there to protect.
Shit show.
I didn’t say your innocent life was worth taking. I didn’t say to blame the attacker. I simply asked what OP would do in the situation.
Same question to you. You are holding the gun and I am behind the door with a guy who has just killed someone, is potentially holding a bomb and is trying to break the door down. What would you _really_ do in that situation?
If you are asking me what I would do.
I have already told you and everyone else on this thread what I would do.
Again just for those who have a issue not with reading but understanding what they have read.
Contain,
Understand,
Control.
If theses fail shoot, but when I shoot I know who I am shooting at why because,
I have
Contained,
Understood,
Controled,
and identified,
if all else fails shoot.
What I wouldn't do is to go into a high public area not knowing who is who and lay down fire.
Would you?
So while you are
Containing.
Understanding.
Controlling.
Identifying.
The terrorist makes HIS split second decision and blows himself, the door and whoever is behind the door to kingdom come.
Good call. "
The facts are, he could not have and time would have told me that.
And if I did die I would have been true to my vow to protect the public not random shot who I think is a terrorist. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 31 weeks ago
|
"I would also say there are policemen who rap3, who are corrupt, who would shoot rap1st and let them bleed out, shoot them in the head or deport, our police service is rotten like our politics and needs an overhaul.
I just cannot figure why we consent to theses types policing us.
“We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.”
What's your alternative? The Boy Scouts?
An alternative mmmmmm!
Stop interfering with other countries for profit,
Clean up our politics,
Have a foreign policy that actually helps all not the rich few.
Foreign policy is now seeping back into our society, or the consequences of foreign policy is showing its face the reasons are clear.
So as everyone is asking questions I ask you, did you vote for war, did you vote for more control, did you vote to be a target in a terrorist war.
I didn't.
Well yes, fair comment on those, but you can't blame the plod on the street for them."
Rule number one, do not shoot innocents we consent to protect, live in an high terrorist area under threat from persons in your own community who would do you harm.
Now I understand that if I am in an area where there is a terrorist threat, I am a threat and can be shot because there is confusion, no understanding, no control which is key in a firearms incident.
So yes I blame the plod who did not keep to their training, why the shot was caught on film, hence no control of the area, in case a free for all Wild West stuff. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"To answer you, understand means not to ask questions but to understand who is your target, your target is where to point your sight, seems to me the policeman had multiple targets and shot at both."
Are you under the impression that the police officer could see the innocent person, took aim at him, and shot him in the mistaken belief that he was a bad guy? If not, I'm rather confused by your statements. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"All I have learned from this incident, is that I knew that this was coming, and what I have learned today is that if I was to be unfortunate to be close to a terrorist attack, that the public would see my accidental shooting that took my life my innocent life. that it would be ok because the policemen had seconds to judge me.
And that I should blame the attacker which I do, but the free for all shooting of victims they were there to protect is questionable.
The police did not have a sitrep of the situation they did not try to contain the situation instead they panicked and shot those they were there to protect.
Shit show.
I didn’t say your innocent life was worth taking. I didn’t say to blame the attacker. I simply asked what OP would do in the situation.
Same question to you. You are holding the gun and I am behind the door with a guy who has just killed someone, is potentially holding a bomb and is trying to break the door down. What would you _really_ do in that situation?
If you are asking me what I would do.
I have already told you and everyone else on this thread what I would do.
Again just for those who have a issue not with reading but understanding what they have read.
Contain,
Understand,
Control.
If theses fail shoot, but when I shoot I know who I am shooting at why because,
I have
Contained,
Understood,
Controled,
and identified,
if all else fails shoot.
What I wouldn't do is to go into a high public area not knowing who is who and lay down fire.
Would you?
So while you are
Containing.
Understanding.
Controlling.
Identifying.
The terrorist makes HIS split second decision and blows himself, the door and whoever is behind the door to kingdom come.
Good call.
The facts are, he could not have and time would have told me that.
And if I did die I would have been true to my vow to protect the public not random shot who I think is a terrorist."
"He could not have" and "time would have told you that". What nonsense.
It took the bomb squad over an hour and a controlled explosion to determine that the device wasn't viable.
Up to that point it was potentially a live device and up to the point of the terrorist being taken out it had to be deemed as a danger to life and a split second from possible detonation. Time? You haven't got any time, you make your decision there and then.
"And if I did die I would have been true to my vow to protect the public not random shot who I think is a terrorist."
I've read some bloody claptrap on here over the years but that is up with the best.
So a dead copper among other casualties blown to bits because he didn't act is being true to his vow to protect the public? Jeez give me strength.
Oh and "think" is a terrorist? A bloody big clue would have been the dead body lying crushed by a car and then stabbed.
It ain't rocket science.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 31 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"I would also say there are policemen who rap3, who are corrupt, who would shoot rap1st and let them bleed out, shoot them in the head or deport, our police service is rotten like our politics and needs an overhaul.
I just cannot figure why we consent to theses types policing us.
“We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.”
What's your alternative? The Boy Scouts?
An alternative mmmmmm!
Stop interfering with other countries for profit,
Clean up our politics,
Have a foreign policy that actually helps all not the rich few.
Foreign policy is now seeping back into our society, or the consequences of foreign policy is showing its face the reasons are clear.
So as everyone is asking questions I ask you, did you vote for war, did you vote for more control, did you vote to be a target in a terrorist war.
I didn't.
Well yes, fair comment on those, but you can't blame the plod on the street for them.
Rule number one, do not shoot innocents we consent to protect, live in an high terrorist area under threat from persons in your own community who would do you harm.
Now I understand that if I am in an area where there is a terrorist threat, I am a threat and can be shot because there is confusion, no understanding, no control which is key in a firearms incident.
So yes I blame the plod who did not keep to their training, why the shot was caught on film, hence no control of the area, in case a free for all Wild West stuff."
I’m sure they followed their training. I would expect that training doesn’t allow a terrorist who has already killed and appears to be wearing a bomb more time to continue their attack. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Surely the real question GMP needs to answer is why was a bloke called Jihad, who was out on bail for r-a-p-e with a history of violence (and whose father publicly celebrated 7/10), not tagged, or on a terror watchlist or, more pertinently, not remanded in custody? GMP is an institutionally failed constabulary. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Surely the real question GMP needs to answer is why was a bloke called Jihad, who was out on bail for r-a-p-e with a history of violence (and whose father publicly celebrated 7/10), not tagged, or on a terror watchlist or, more pertinently, not remanded in custody? GMP is an institutionally failed constabulary."
Fair question.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Rule number one, do not shoot innocents we consent to protect, live in an high terrorist area under threat from persons in your own community who would do you harm.
Now I understand that if I am in an area where there is a terrorist threat, I am a threat and can be shot because there is confusion, no understanding, no control which is key in a firearms incident.
So yes I blame the plod who did not keep to their training, why the shot was caught on film, hence no control of the area, in case a free for all Wild West stuff."
You are correct when you say that rule number one is Contain. However there is an important addendum: Contain unless there is imminent threat to life.
That addendum is why you get the blue lights and police cars speeding to reach domestic incidents when someone is in trouble. Those blue lights do sometimes kill bystanders. That is a tragedy but society understands it’s a rarity and is willing to make that trade off.
I don’t think anyone can doubt that “threat to imminent life” applies to a situation when someone has already knifed someone and is threatening a bomb. Contain no longer applies. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Good to see so many giving their expert analysis, in the comfort of their armchair, with all the time to analyse every movement that was made, replaying the footage over and over to glean evermore knowledge with which to make their retrospective appraisals. 👍
I bet the armed response units are kicking themselves that they didn’t have you running the operation, I expect they’ll be in touch soon though, they’ll defo want you onboard for any future operations. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 31 weeks ago
|
So from what I read it is ok to shoot innocent people when there is a threat to life.
Do you live in a high threat terrorist area?
Do you live under threat everyday as we see bombs fall with our countries assistance.
Do you ever think when you see those scenes of bombing that it is coming for you.
Well peeps it came to me not once but twice.
Only the next time for me I will have to factor in a policeman may shoot me friendly fire so to speak and that's ok because it was a split second decision so its more important to shoot the innocent.
Believe it or not police persons should and do put their lives before us to protect us, not to shoot us.
You can insult all you like, because that is a sign of you have nothing to say so resort to name calling and belittling. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 31 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"So from what I read it is ok to shoot innocent people when there is a threat to life.
Do you live in a high threat terrorist area?
Do you live under threat everyday as we see bombs fall with our countries assistance.
Do you ever think when you see those scenes of bombing that it is coming for you.
Well peeps it came to me not once but twice.
Only the next time for me I will have to factor in a policeman may shoot me friendly fire so to speak and that's ok because it was a split second decision so its more important to shoot the innocent.
Believe it or not police persons should and do put their lives before us to protect us, not to shoot us.
You can insult all you like, because that is a sign of you have nothing to say so resort to name calling and belittling. "
You are confusing a ricochet for purposefully taking aim. I'm not sure why you are leaning towards this way of thinking? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan 31 weeks ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"What would you have done in that within OP?
Not closed distance to someone who may have aa bomb. Not panicked and opened fire at a man pushing against a door with people behind it. You don't need to be an expert to know basic firearm safety."
Okay… you don’t fire a gun …. Has detonated the bomb… the door ain’t going to protect the people right behind it then |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We suppose 'lessons will be learned' and all that'. Seriously though, UK Police are nowhere near fit for their role anymore. You don't discharge firearms so recklessly.
"
Have you ever been in a position where you have discharged a firearm?
If not, think best to keep quiet.
Its easy to open your mouth, not so easy to engage your brain.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Firearms officers don’t recklessly discharge their weapons. In Manchester they faced an awful situation, believing the terrorist had a bomb, and by the time they arrived he had already killed. The tragic outcome was not their doing. Responsibility lies entirely with the terrorist who instigated it."
BullShit...
First Thing anyone learns when using Firearms; whether it be stalking, target shooting, practical Shotgun, armed forces or Police is....
A Safe Backstop.
You make sure you have a safe background and no one can be in danger behind the target
It is the first thing you learn and it is constantly in your mind.
SAFE BACKSTOP |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Firearms officers don’t recklessly discharge their weapons. In Manchester they faced an awful situation, believing the terrorist had a bomb, and by the time they arrived he had already killed. The tragic outcome was not their doing. Responsibility lies entirely with the terrorist who instigated it.
BullShit...
First Thing anyone learns when using Firearms; whether it be stalking, target shooting, practical Shotgun, armed forces or Police is....
A Safe Backstop.
You make sure you have a safe background and no one can be in danger behind the target
It is the first thing you learn and it is constantly in your mind.
SAFE BACKSTOP "
The rules change when you're faced with a potential suicide bomber. You cannot reason with one (the risk is immense as is the cost of failure) and time is very much of the essence. Sometimes a bad outcome is better than a worse one. The person behind the trigger cannot afford to second-guess. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Firearms officers don’t recklessly discharge their weapons. In Manchester they faced an awful situation, believing the terrorist had a bomb, and by the time they arrived he had already killed. The tragic outcome was not their doing. Responsibility lies entirely with the terrorist who instigated it.
BullShit...
First Thing anyone learns when using Firearms; whether it be stalking, target shooting, practical Shotgun, armed forces or Police is....
A Safe Backstop.
You make sure you have a safe background and no one can be in danger behind the target
It is the first thing you learn and it is constantly in your mind.
SAFE BACKSTOP "
Not disagreeing with you but the fact that suicide bombers have become common changes the whole dynamics of any such situation..
Treat 'dummy' as live was another common rule and applied still today, until it's confirmed there's not a viable device around someone's waist any delay in taking a shot can possibly lead to further loss of life and with the future being so close to the door that might have been several..
Hindsight etc is great, the officer made his decision on what was in front of him, what he saw and knew plus what if..
So yes in another situation, the guy stood with his back to a wall or no one had been already hurt then a different outcome possibly but I can't criticise the guy in all honesty.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Forgot to add, when we made this thread there didn't appear to be aa single other thread on the subject of the attack from any context. Then again this is politics section on aa sex site.
Turns out the imported terrorist's family supported Hammas. One of those under arrest is aa 60 year old woman. And the terrorist himself was out on bail for r4pe. Sounds like a perfect test case for people here legally who should be deported if his family was supporting him. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Turns out the imported terrorist's family supported Hammas. One of those under arrest is aa 60 year old woman. And the terrorist himself was out on bail for r4pe. Sounds like a perfect test case for people here legally who should be deported if his family was supporting him."
His father publicly celebrated Jew-killing r@pists after October 7th. He named his child "Jihad" (go on, someone, give a benign definition, we dare you). It's no surprise that the kid grew up to be a Jew-killing r@pist.
The problem with having people like this in our society is that it makes an argument for an AI to to trawl through all social media posts, categorise with sentiment, ethnic and familial background, cross reference with any threatening correspondence and place a large number of people in various risk and surveillance categories. In hindsight, these dots are really easy to join. We still can't take 250ml of water through airport security thanks to British-based islamic terrorists; these barbarians will ultimately be responsible for more of our liberties bring eroded.
How do we put a stop to the cancerous scourge of British-based Islamic terrorism? What possible solution is there, especially when they're clearly groomed by their own parents, communities and families? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Turns out the imported terrorist's family supported Hammas. One of those under arrest is aa 60 year old woman. And the terrorist himself was out on bail for r4pe. Sounds like a perfect test case for people here legally who should be deported if his family was supporting him."
This is an example of the veil of Islam |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Forgot to add, when we made this thread there didn't appear to be aa single other thread on the subject of the attack from any context. Then again this is politics section on aa sex site.
"
There was a thread put up on Thursday mid morning titled Operation Plato - Manchester synagogue attack. It had eight comments.
The thread was removed. None of the comments appeared finger pointing towards any religion, the police or anyone else, and had nothing but sympathy for those affected by the incident. Respect to fab mods decisions to take things down that could put the site at risk |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Was a taser not an option in this situation then?"
I would assume that if someone potentially has a bomb strapped to them and they are therefore holding a detonator than you probably don’t want them writhing around the floor in shock as you have no idea what that detonator would do. You would want to get them not moving as quickly as possible wouldn’t you? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 30 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"Firearms officers don’t recklessly discharge their weapons. In Manchester they faced an awful situation, believing the terrorist had a bomb, and by the time they arrived he had already killed. The tragic outcome was not their doing. Responsibility lies entirely with the terrorist who instigated it.
BullShit...
First Thing anyone learns when using Firearms; whether it be stalking, target shooting, practical Shotgun, armed forces or Police is....
A Safe Backstop.
You make sure you have a safe background and no one can be in danger behind the target
It is the first thing you learn and it is constantly in your mind.
SAFE BACKSTOP "
All of the examples you have provided come with time, the firearms officers didn't have that luxury.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 30 weeks ago
|
"The police acted in good faith. Perhaps their training and accuracy could be improved, but what they did is 100% correct."
Know what you are saying, but it is just a pity that innocent people the police were there to protect got shot dead. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 30 weeks ago
|
"To answer you, understand means not to ask questions but to understand who is your target, your target is where to point your sight, seems to me the policeman had multiple targets and shot at both.
Are you under the impression that the police officer could see the innocent person, took aim at him, and shot him in the mistaken belief that he was a bad guy? If not, I'm rather confused by your statements."
I am saying that when I look through my gunsight I see where the bullet will go. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 30 weeks ago
|
"The police acted in good faith. Perhaps their training and accuracy could be improved, but what they did is 100% correct.
Know what you are saying, but it is just a pity that innocent people the police were there to protect got shot dead."
Well yes, of course a pity, but what if the suspected bomb had detonated? An armed officer doesn't have 3 years to do a PhD on Risk vs Benefit trade-off. More like 3 seconds. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 30 weeks ago
|
"Firearms officers don’t recklessly discharge their weapons. In Manchester they faced an awful situation, believing the terrorist had a bomb, and by the time they arrived he had already killed. The tragic outcome was not their doing. Responsibility lies entirely with the terrorist who instigated it.
BullShit...
First Thing anyone learns when using Firearms; whether it be stalking, target shooting, practical Shotgun, armed forces or Police is....
A Safe Backstop.
You make sure you have a safe background and no one can be in danger behind the target
It is the first thing you learn and it is constantly in your mind.
SAFE BACKSTOP
The rules change when you're faced with a potential suicide bomber. You cannot reason with one (the risk is immense as is the cost of failure) and time is very much of the essence. Sometimes a bad outcome is better than a worse one. The person behind the trigger cannot afford to second-guess."
Yes I agree shoot first, ask questions later, a familiar police tactic. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Firearms officers don’t recklessly discharge their weapons. In Manchester they faced an awful situation, believing the terrorist had a bomb, and by the time they arrived he had already killed. The tragic outcome was not their doing. Responsibility lies entirely with the terrorist who instigated it.
BullShit...
First Thing anyone learns when using Firearms; whether it be stalking, target shooting, practical Shotgun, armed forces or Police is....
A Safe Backstop.
You make sure you have a safe background and no one can be in danger behind the target
It is the first thing you learn and it is constantly in your mind.
SAFE BACKSTOP
The rules change when you're faced with a potential suicide bomber. You cannot reason with one (the risk is immense as is the cost of failure) and time is very much of the essence. Sometimes a bad outcome is better than a worse one. The person behind the trigger cannot afford to second-guess.
Yes I agree shoot first, ask questions later, a familiar police tactic."
Or, as was the case here, take out the immediate threat.
Standard procedure of law enforcement the world over. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The police acted in good faith. Perhaps their training and accuracy could be improved, but what they did is 100% correct.
Know what you are saying, but it is just a pity that innocent people the police were there to protect got shot dead.
Well yes, of course a pity, but what if the suspected bomb had detonated? An armed officer doesn't have 3 years to do a PhD on Risk vs Benefit trade-off. More like 3 seconds."
This and highly likely the first shot that officer has fired in anger. These are police armed response not for example Israeli police and soldiers facing these risks everyday - ie the bus jihadi’s in tel aviv shot dead a couple of weeks ago. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 30 weeks ago
|
"Firearms officers don’t recklessly discharge their weapons. In Manchester they faced an awful situation, believing the terrorist had a bomb, and by the time they arrived he had already killed. The tragic outcome was not their doing. Responsibility lies entirely with the terrorist who instigated it.
BullShit...
First Thing anyone learns when using Firearms; whether it be stalking, target shooting, practical Shotgun, armed forces or Police is....
A Safe Backstop.
You make sure you have a safe background and no one can be in danger behind the target
It is the first thing you learn and it is constantly in your mind.
SAFE BACKSTOP
The rules change when you're faced with a potential suicide bomber. You cannot reason with one (the risk is immense as is the cost of failure) and time is very much of the essence. Sometimes a bad outcome is better than a worse one. The person behind the trigger cannot afford to second-guess.
Yes I agree shoot first, ask questions later, a familiar police tactic.
Or, as was the case here, take out the immediate threat.
Standard procedure of law enforcement the world over. "
The immediate threat seemed also to be members of the public, that they where there to protect. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Firearms officers don’t recklessly discharge their weapons. In Manchester they faced an awful situation, believing the terrorist had a bomb, and by the time they arrived he had already killed. The tragic outcome was not their doing. Responsibility lies entirely with the terrorist who instigated it.
BullShit...
First Thing anyone learns when using Firearms; whether it be stalking, target shooting, practical Shotgun, armed forces or Police is....
A Safe Backstop.
You make sure you have a safe background and no one can be in danger behind the target
It is the first thing you learn and it is constantly in your mind.
SAFE BACKSTOP
The rules change when you're faced with a potential suicide bomber. You cannot reason with one (the risk is immense as is the cost of failure) and time is very much of the essence. Sometimes a bad outcome is better than a worse one. The person behind the trigger cannot afford to second-guess.
Yes I agree shoot first, ask questions later, a familiar police tactic.
Or, as was the case here, take out the immediate threat.
Standard procedure of law enforcement the world over. "
Agreed..
'Oh excuse me Sir I can see you've run people down with a car and stabbed others but is it possible that you might not initiate what looks like an ied that you are wearing which might kill the other innocent people hereby and my colleagues and I'..
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Firearms officers don’t recklessly discharge their weapons. In Manchester they faced an awful situation, believing the terrorist had a bomb, and by the time they arrived he had already killed. The tragic outcome was not their doing. Responsibility lies entirely with the terrorist who instigated it.
BullShit...
First Thing anyone learns when using Firearms; whether it be stalking, target shooting, practical Shotgun, armed forces or Police is....
A Safe Backstop.
You make sure you have a safe background and no one can be in danger behind the target
It is the first thing you learn and it is constantly in your mind.
SAFE BACKSTOP
The rules change when you're faced with a potential suicide bomber. You cannot reason with one (the risk is immense as is the cost of failure) and time is very much of the essence. Sometimes a bad outcome is better than a worse one. The person behind the trigger cannot afford to second-guess.
Yes I agree shoot first, ask questions later, a familiar police tactic.
Or, as was the case here, take out the immediate threat.
Standard procedure of law enforcement the world over.
Agreed..
'Oh excuse me Sir I can see you've run people down with a car and stabbed others but is it possible that you might not initiate what looks like an ied that you are wearing which might kill the other innocent people hereby and my colleagues and I'..
"
Yes
Or something like:
"Listen mate, just hold on until the bomb squad arrive and take a look. Then I'll decide whether to shoot you or arrest you. Shouldn't take long". |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 30 weeks ago
|
"Firearms officers don’t recklessly discharge their weapons. In Manchester they faced an awful situation, believing the terrorist had a bomb, and by the time they arrived he had already killed. The tragic outcome was not their doing. Responsibility lies entirely with the terrorist who instigated it.
BullShit...
First Thing anyone learns when using Firearms; whether it be stalking, target shooting, practical Shotgun, armed forces or Police is....
A Safe Backstop.
You make sure you have a safe background and no one can be in danger behind the target
It is the first thing you learn and it is constantly in your mind.
SAFE BACKSTOP
The rules change when you're faced with a potential suicide bomber. You cannot reason with one (the risk is immense as is the cost of failure) and time is very much of the essence. Sometimes a bad outcome is better than a worse one. The person behind the trigger cannot afford to second-guess.
Yes I agree shoot first, ask questions later, a familiar police tactic.
Or, as was the case here, take out the immediate threat.
Standard procedure of law enforcement the world over.
Agreed..
'Oh excuse me Sir I can see you've run people down with a car and stabbed others but is it possible that you might not initiate what looks like an ied that you are wearing which might kill the other innocent people hereby and my colleagues and I'..
Yes
Or something like:
"Listen mate, just hold on until the bomb squad arrive and take a look. Then I'll decide whether to shoot you or arrest you. Shouldn't take long". "
Or even "sh1t ive shot innocent people, my luck I won't have to answer for it, and some spin will cover the mistakes, if not we can always say we have learned". |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 30 weeks ago
|
"Firearms officers don’t recklessly discharge their weapons. In Manchester they faced an awful situation, believing the terrorist had a bomb, and by the time they arrived he had already killed. The tragic outcome was not their doing. Responsibility lies entirely with the terrorist who instigated it.
BullShit...
First Thing anyone learns when using Firearms; whether it be stalking, target shooting, practical Shotgun, armed forces or Police is....
A Safe Backstop.
You make sure you have a safe background and no one can be in danger behind the target
It is the first thing you learn and it is constantly in your mind.
SAFE BACKSTOP
The rules change when you're faced with a potential suicide bomber. You cannot reason with one (the risk is immense as is the cost of failure) and time is very much of the essence. Sometimes a bad outcome is better than a worse one. The person behind the trigger cannot afford to second-guess.
Yes I agree shoot first, ask questions later, a familiar police tactic.
Or, as was the case here, take out the immediate threat.
Standard procedure of law enforcement the world over.
Agreed..
'Oh excuse me Sir I can see you've run people down with a car and stabbed others but is it possible that you might not initiate what looks like an ied that you are wearing which might kill the other innocent people hereby and my colleagues and I'..
Yes
Or something like:
"Listen mate, just hold on until the bomb squad arrive and take a look. Then I'll decide whether to shoot you or arrest you. Shouldn't take long". "
Or even "I hope the innocents families understand it was us or them it just a shame they were in the path of my bullet"
"Thank the lords the public understand, even if they have no thought it could of been them or their family member".
But this can be defeated in the heat of the moment excuse which officers are trained for, they are also trained to not shoot innocent people. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Firearms officers don’t recklessly discharge their weapons. In Manchester they faced an awful situation, believing the terrorist had a bomb, and by the time they arrived he had already killed. The tragic outcome was not their doing. Responsibility lies entirely with the terrorist who instigated it.
BullShit...
First Thing anyone learns when using Firearms; whether it be stalking, target shooting, practical Shotgun, armed forces or Police is....
A Safe Backstop.
You make sure you have a safe background and no one can be in danger behind the target
It is the first thing you learn and it is constantly in your mind.
SAFE BACKSTOP
The rules change when you're faced with a potential suicide bomber. You cannot reason with one (the risk is immense as is the cost of failure) and time is very much of the essence. Sometimes a bad outcome is better than a worse one. The person behind the trigger cannot afford to second-guess.
Yes I agree shoot first, ask questions later, a familiar police tactic.
Or, as was the case here, take out the immediate threat.
Standard procedure of law enforcement the world over.
Agreed..
'Oh excuse me Sir I can see you've run people down with a car and stabbed others but is it possible that you might not initiate what looks like an ied that you are wearing which might kill the other innocent people hereby and my colleagues and I'..
Yes
Or something like:
"Listen mate, just hold on until the bomb squad arrive and take a look. Then I'll decide whether to shoot you or arrest you. Shouldn't take long".
Or even "I hope the innocents families understand it was us or them it just a shame they were in the path of my bullet"
"Thank the lords the public understand, even if they have no thought it could of been them or their family member".
But this can be defeated in the heat of the moment excuse which officers are trained for, they are also trained to not shoot innocent people."
Not sure what your agenda is here.
Maybe you just don't like the police or maybe to deflect blame away from the terrorist that instigated the whole episode.
You certainly don't want to give the police any benefit of the doubt and are unwilling to explore what would have happened if the police hadn't acted.
But you are in a very small minority on this thread so I will leave you to your own musings.
I'm out. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 30 weeks ago
|
"Firearms officers don’t recklessly discharge their weapons. In Manchester they faced an awful situation, believing the terrorist had a bomb, and by the time they arrived he had already killed. The tragic outcome was not their doing. Responsibility lies entirely with the terrorist who instigated it.
BullShit...
First Thing anyone learns when using Firearms; whether it be stalking, target shooting, practical Shotgun, armed forces or Police is....
A Safe Backstop.
You make sure you have a safe background and no one can be in danger behind the target
It is the first thing you learn and it is constantly in your mind.
SAFE BACKSTOP
The rules change when you're faced with a potential suicide bomber. You cannot reason with one (the risk is immense as is the cost of failure) and time is very much of the essence. Sometimes a bad outcome is better than a worse one. The person behind the trigger cannot afford to second-guess.
Yes I agree shoot first, ask questions later, a familiar police tactic.
Or, as was the case here, take out the immediate threat.
Standard procedure of law enforcement the world over.
Agreed..
'Oh excuse me Sir I can see you've run people down with a car and stabbed others but is it possible that you might not initiate what looks like an ied that you are wearing which might kill the other innocent people hereby and my colleagues and I'..
Yes
Or something like:
"Listen mate, just hold on until the bomb squad arrive and take a look. Then I'll decide whether to shoot you or arrest you. Shouldn't take long".
Or even "I hope the innocents families understand it was us or them it just a shame they were in the path of my bullet"
"Thank the lords the public understand, even if they have no thought it could of been them or their family member".
But this can be defeated in the heat of the moment excuse which officers are trained for, they are also trained to not shoot innocent people.
Not sure what your agenda is here.
Maybe you just don't like the police or maybe to deflect blame away from the terrorist that instigated the whole episode.
You certainly don't want to give the police any benefit of the doubt and are unwilling to explore what would have happened if the police hadn't acted.
But you are in a very small minority on this thread so I will leave you to your own musings.
I'm out."
My musing and agenda is not to get shot by those sworn to protect me. the chances are high for myself my community, as other hot spots for these kind of attack.
So quite simple the odds have increased as now I have to fear not only the terrorist, but the police who now have your consent to shoot me just in case.
Nuke them from above, its the only way to be sure.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Firearms officers don’t recklessly discharge their weapons. In Manchester they faced an awful situation, believing the terrorist had a bomb, and by the time they arrived he had already killed. The tragic outcome was not their doing. Responsibility lies entirely with the terrorist who instigated it.
BullShit...
First Thing anyone learns when using Firearms; whether it be stalking, target shooting, practical Shotgun, armed forces or Police is....
A Safe Backstop.
You make sure you have a safe background and no one can be in danger behind the target
It is the first thing you learn and it is constantly in your mind.
SAFE BACKSTOP
The rules change when you're faced with a potential suicide bomber. You cannot reason with one (the risk is immense as is the cost of failure) and time is very much of the essence. Sometimes a bad outcome is better than a worse one. The person behind the trigger cannot afford to second-guess.
Yes I agree shoot first, ask questions later, a familiar police tactic.
Or, as was the case here, take out the immediate threat.
Standard procedure of law enforcement the world over.
Agreed..
'Oh excuse me Sir I can see you've run people down with a car and stabbed others but is it possible that you might not initiate what looks like an ied that you are wearing which might kill the other innocent people hereby and my colleagues and I'..
Yes
Or something like:
"Listen mate, just hold on until the bomb squad arrive and take a look. Then I'll decide whether to shoot you or arrest you. Shouldn't take long".
Or even "I hope the innocents families understand it was us or them it just a shame they were in the path of my bullet"
"Thank the lords the public understand, even if they have no thought it could of been them or their family member".
But this can be defeated in the heat of the moment excuse which officers are trained for, they are also trained to not shoot innocent people.
Not sure what your agenda is here.
Maybe you just don't like the police or maybe to deflect blame away from the terrorist that instigated the whole episode.
You certainly don't want to give the police any benefit of the doubt and are unwilling to explore what would have happened if the police hadn't acted.
But you are in a very small minority on this thread so I will leave you to your own musings.
I'm out.
My musing and agenda is not to get shot by those sworn to protect me. the chances are high for myself my community, as other hot spots for these kind of attack.
So quite simple the odds have increased as now I have to fear not only the terrorist, but the police who now have your consent to shoot me just in case.
Nuke them from above, its the only way to be sure.
"
Your not alone
‘15 December 2023, three Israeli hostages were killed by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) during the Battle of Shuja'iyya in the Gaza Strip. The men had emerged from a building and were approaching a group of IDF soldiers when they were shot dead, in spite of the fact that they were shirtless and visibly unarmed while waving a makeshift white flag and calling out for help in Hebrew’ |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Well, f Cressida Dick's meteoric rise is anything to go by, Constable X (or whichever nom de guerre the "investigation" will give him) is set for promotion to CHIEF Constable"
Absolutely won’t be promoted! Officers that have discharged their weapons whether it was fatal or otherwise is immediately suspended! His/her actions will be investigated and reinvestigated! He/she could be suspended for months. Their return to front line duties would be very unlikely! Firearms officers have so many decisions to make in that split second. They deploy knowing their actions right or wrong could end their career! Yet they still run towards danger while others run away! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Your not alone
‘15 December 2023, three Israeli hostages were killed by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) during the Battle of Shuja'iyya in the Gaza Strip. The men had emerged from a building and were approaching a group of IDF soldiers when they were shot dead, in spite of the fact that they were shirtless and visibly unarmed while waving a makeshift white flag and calling out for help in Hebrew’"
That's IDF doctrine in Gaza. Basically provided the IDF verify the people are NOT other IDF or Israeli military they are free to open fire as they see fit. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Your not alone
‘15 December 2023, three Israeli hostages were killed by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) during the Battle of Shuja'iyya in the Gaza Strip. The men had emerged from a building and were approaching a group of IDF soldiers when they were shot dead, in spite of the fact that they were shirtless and visibly unarmed while waving a makeshift white flag and calling out for help in Hebrew’
That's IDF doctrine in Gaza. Basically provided the IDF verify the people are NOT other IDF or Israeli military they are free to open fire as they see fit."
And I suppose you believe the Hamas properganda shown on BBC and Skye! 🤷♂️ |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
A police officer carrying a firearm has been trained how and when to use it
He thought it was required so he used it full stop
Too many fucking snowflakes, if the guy is a terrorist he needs killed |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A police officer carrying a firearm has been trained how and when to use it
He thought it was required so he used it full stop
Too many fucking snowflakes, if the guy is a terrorist he needs killed "
👏👏👏👏 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A police officer carrying a firearm has been trained how and when to use it
He thought it was required so he used it full stop
Too many fucking snowflakes, if the guy is a terrorist he needs killed "
And Reform coming for the rest of them with 600,000 deportations. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
‘Neighbours of the Manchester synagogue attacker reported concerns to police about him and a family member being “radicalised” and attempting to “preach” the Qur’an to local children, the Guardian has been told.
Police have said Jihad al-Shamie, 35, did not appear to be known to counter-terrorism officials before he attacked a Heaton Park synagogue leading to the deaths of two worshippers on Yom Kippur.’ |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"That's IDF doctrine in Gaza. Basically provided the IDF verify the people are NOT other IDF or Israeli military they are free to open fire as they see fit.
And I suppose you believe the Hamas properganda shown on BBC and Skye! 🤷♂️"
You misunderstand, we NEVER said we disagree with that doctrine. It's horrible but it's one of those grey areas where you can't really condemn it. Hamam and Islamists would happily send children to armed patrols to blow themselves up. That's what the IDF are dealing with, in a close urban setting too. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"That's IDF doctrine in Gaza. Basically provided the IDF verify the people are NOT other IDF or Israeli military they are free to open fire as they see fit.
And I suppose you believe the Hamas properganda shown on BBC and Skye! 🤷♂️
You misunderstand, we NEVER said we disagree with that doctrine. It's horrible but it's one of those grey areas where you can't really condemn it. Hamam and Islamists would happily send children to armed patrols to blow themselves up. That's what the IDF are dealing with, in a close urban setting too."
Just to add, for the trolls and stupid people with their 'whataboutisms', WAR isn't fair! Hamas are at war with Israel and do dress as civilians. We expect the violence is very much akin to the USA in Vietnam, yet that was termed ethnic cleansing. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Surely the real question GMP needs to answer is why was a bloke called Jihad, who was out on bail for r-a-p-e with a history of violence (and whose father publicly celebrated 7/10), not tagged, or on a terror watchlist or, more pertinently, not remanded in custody? GMP is an institutionally failed constabulary."
Oh dear, you took the name that was given to him at birth (Jihad) to mean "Holy War", because we in the West have been brainwashed by our media to believe that "Holy War" is the sole interpretation of the term Jihad.
But it's NOT, Jihad is a multi purpose term that basically means "struggle" or more so the power to overcome personal struggle. It's actually a word that best describes strength, or to be strong, or to be resilient.
When used as a name it's done so in particular to give title to a male child that has been born out of adversity often meaning a male child that has been a long awaited birth after years of a mother or father being infertile or egg bound.
Islam is a vastly complicated religion where birth names based on words are often misunderstood by us in the West. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
His father publicly celebrated Jew-killing r@pists after October 7th. He named his child "Jihad" (go on, someone, give a benign definition, we dare you). It's no surprise that the kid grew up to be a Jew-killing r@pist.
"
There we go. Someone did it.
Well done. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
