Police return fire in shoot-out

[SMG]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

one shot one kill only works in the movies.
the ARU's role is to stop the person who is threatening their lives and the lives of the public.
You can't even say he was shot in the places which have been reported as damaged because once a bullet enters a body it can go anywhere.

There was a man with a shot gun shooting at the police and other houses, who didn't respond to the negotiators.
The only option the police have in that situation is to stop the person by shooting them.

Now, I don't know if you're saying they should have just left him to merrily carry on shooting out of his windows at whatever he liked, or maybe you just just think 5 shots was excessive, in which case, why do you think it's excessive?

The Police don't have the luxury of hindsight, they deal with the immediate. In this case it was a guy who either lost the plot or had a bad day. If he was ex forces, he should have realised a shotgun is not the best weapon for target practice. Either way, firing a loaded weapon in public is not the best way to announce your presence to the world.

Xaccers is quite correct. This one shot one kill rubbish is for the movies. You cannot "wound" someone in a case like this, it was necessary to take him down. A wounded animal is the most dangerous animal on earth.

Unfortunately, in the circumstances, I believe the Police acted correctly.

[Maggy J]

Originally Posted by greencreeper

I don't see that he got into a state where he had to be killed, or that anyone can ever get into such a state. The decision was taken to kill him - he was shot five times, hitting his brain, heart, liver, and a major blood vessel. Kind of puts Annie Oakley to shame. We'll now never know his state of mind or the events that led to his actions.

What worries me is that everyone finds it perfectly acceptable

In the first link.

Commander Ali Dizaei said earlier the gunman had made no demands,

.

In the second link.

However, police sources said the firearms team had no choice. One said: "He was firing directly at people and police officers and into houses. There were attempts to engage him by negotiators but these were not successful"

If you cannot talk to someone who is shooting at police officers and anyone else in the street what can anyone expect the police to do?They had to protect the rather larger grouping of Chelsea residents.

[greencreeper]

Plan A - negotiate. Plan B - hit the ******* with as many bullets as you can. I just think there are more options between A and B, especially when it is very likely that the person wants to die.

Like said - you all find it so acceptable. So clinical in your rationale. I find that scary Anyway - each to their own

[Derek S]

Originally Posted by greencreeper

Plan A - negotiate. Plan B - hit the ******* with as many bullets as you can. I just think there are more options between A and B, especially when it is very likely that the person wants to die.

Such as?
Using Taser/Baton rounds would mean getting a little closer to the gunman than you'd want to and there is still no guarantee they'd work first time.
CS/Pepper Spray don't always work, especially on people who are disturbed and as he was already firing randomly stopping him from seeing clearly wouldn't have had much effect.
Stun grenades were seemingly used but when they entered the flat if he still had his weapon in hand the Police would need to shoot him until he was no longer a risk.
As has been said shooting to wound isn't a realistic option and shoot to stop almost always ends up in the death of the target.
There is always a chance as well that one or more of the wounds were caused in the two previous exchanges of gunfire.

Still it's good to see that well respected and internationally known commentator on the use of Police tactic, Amanda Platell of the Daily Mail thinks shooting a shotgun out a window isn't that dangerous.

Originally Posted by greencreeper

Like said - you all find it so acceptable. So clinical in your rationale. I find that scary Anyway - each to their own

It's acceptable because thats the way it is. The Met don't go around shooting people right, left and centre. They aren't some bunch of trigger happy rambos. If they were shooting 4-5 people a week I'd be worried.

[Enuff]

They killed him because there was no room in prison. They would have had to turf out the apple core thrower in order to accomodate him.

[SMG]

Originally Posted by Enuff

They killed him because there was no room in prison. They would have had to turf out the apple core thrower in order to accomodate him.

LMAO.