Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Nickbat on 11 May 2011, 17:32:38
-
Not sure that I agree with this: :o :o
The Metropolitan Police is to issue all its firearms officers with ammunition described as "unsurvivable".
Hollow point bullets flatten on impact, causing maximum damage to vital organs.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-13364365
What do you think?
-
Their use in war is prohibited by the Geneva Convention, so what is the rationale behind the met getting them :o
-
If you have somebody out of his scull on crack and waveing a Mac 10 at you, you want him to drop him instantly :y :y
With these people, the adrenaline is pumping that much that they just don't feel pain so it makes sence to make sure he goes down as quickly as possible ;)
The same if some bast*rd has his finger on a button ;)
If I remember correctly, some of the police are being trained up to a higher level and re armed because of the continuning threat from the curly slipper brigade :-/
-
deadly weapons/bullets will bring deadly/disastrous effects.. what happens if you shoot an innocent by mistake.. wrong..
-
deadly weapons/bullets will bring deadly/disastrous effects.. what happens if you shoot an innocent by mistake.. wrong..
What is wrong ?
-
people trust the police with guns nowadays?? :o :o :o
-
deadly weapons/bullets will bring deadly/disastrous effects.. what happens if you shoot an innocent by mistake.. wrong..
Understand your viewpoint Cem but, unfortunately, its the world we currently live in.
Whether the bullet used is a standard 9mm semi/fully jacketed round or a compressive round, they still kill people. Its a fact that the latter round is harder hitting, hence their banning by the Geneva Convention for general Monday to Friday wartime use. (sorry to sound frivolous but the subject requires perspective, I feel.)
Thinking of the use or exposure that Met Officers have as regards potential suicide bombers in public (UK) spaces where loss of civilian life is potentially very high compared to the number of rounds actually discharged.
Then take similar circumstances as in Afghan. Comparing NATO forces deployed militarily in a peacekeeping role and the local populace versus rebels.
Admittedly, I know not the comparative numbers between Afghan and the UK but I would hazard to guess that the shots expended ratio is a lot higher in Afghan.
Kinda witterring, reading back the above, but I think that the Met may well have to act in an instant to prevent a mass disaster whereas the military are more likely to get into a firefight with insurgents rather than a suicide bomber.
Or am I getting the completely wrong end of this?? :-[
-
Can I throw some light on this subject (with some first hand experience)?
"compressive trauma rounds" are designed to give a potentially fatal trauma shock to the individual, releasing any nerve activated grip the individual may have on an object, and causing such a severe exit wound (if indeed the projectile actually exits and doesn't hit the spine or a bone) that death is almost certain.
Yes, indeed they are banned for general issue useage by the Geneva Convention, but the SAS and other Security forces have had the availability for years, for Counter terrorism and similar uses, but its obviously NOT general knowledge.
Having shot some of these rounds at a "trauma model" on a range at 30 yds, I can confirm that the bodily damage is massive, and in all probability unsurvivable in a lot of cases.
In the instance of a terrorist with a bomb trigger, or a knife to the throat of a hostage, I can see the potential for an immediate removal of threat, but can see no other real use for these "special" munitions. :-?
-
lets increment the bet a "bit more" and give bazookas, so no miss is guaranteed ;D ;D
I hope I understand correct.. they plan to give for police use right.. probably they decide to use police in war :-? :-?
seriously I cant think of a scenario that police use those bullets in public :o
if you think a bit , all actions will have a reaction.. if you use those things, the terrorists will start to use more heavy guns and you will face 3rd world war in front of your door :(
-
deadly weapons/bullets will bring deadly/disastrous effects.. what happens if you shoot an innocent by mistake.. wrong..
It has happened :( :( :( :(
-
1. Specialised Firearms units will only attend a scene when absolutely necessary.
2. Specialised Firearms units will only fire their weapons after every other attempt to regain control has failed.
3. Specialist Firearms units are trained extensively, so whatever ammunition they use will probably be fatal if deemed necessary (a leg or arm shot is preferred).
Just a few things I thought of when reading initial post. :y
-
A further thought for consideration....
The "killing range" of a "normal" full/semi jacketed round is far higher than you might consider, even after hitting its target.
For example ... the SLR 7.62 round of the 70's could pass straight through 2 sheep at one mile, even if the sheep were 2 feet apart, such was the effect of the muzzle velocity and the jacketing.
The SA 80 5.56 round can do the same at a 1/2 mile range.
The Browning 9mm SLP can do the same at 30 yards
The met have to consider working in crowded environments. The "soft" round which deforms highly on impact will either not exit the body it hits, or if it does exit will do so at a very low velocity. It will also deform on hitting any solid object and not ricochet as much
This will reduce the possibility of secondary victims considerably.
-
1. Specialised Firearms units will only attend a scene when absolutely necessary.
2. Specialised Firearms units will only fire their weapons after every other attempt to regain control has failed.
3. Specialist Firearms units are trained extensively, so whatever ammunition they use will probably be fatal if deemed necessary (a leg or arm shot is preferred).
Just a few things I thought of when reading initial post. :y
if you use those bullets its not important where you hit, the person will die because of enormous blood loss wthin a short time ..
-
I would hope that firearms are are only used by the police as
a last resort in a "lethal" situation.
Even more so now that CS gas and tasers have supplemented the truncheon [1].
Personally I would hope that any firearms officer who discharges his firearm IS aiming to kill.
Otherwise he should be using the non-lethal alternatives.
If the officer *IS* aiming to kill, then anything which improves the lethality is a good thing, IMO, especially if the nature of the ammunition is such that bystanders are endangered less.
[1] yes I know its a "side handled baton"
-
It was inevitable that such a development was necessary.
For police purposes the choice of the ammunition to be used is as important as the weapon itself.
In city/urban environments, over penetration of a discharged bullet can be as undesirable as discharging the weapon in the first place. This is remains uppermost in my mind, and in the minds of those others who are required to carry weapons.
The purpose in bringing fire to targets is to render the threat null - by in large there is little chance in incapacitating the threat by wounding, so the most efficient projectile must be used in these environments (along with accurate placement of fire) to achieve the goal.
-
A further thought for consideration....
For example ... the SLR 7.62 round of the 70's could pass straight through 2 sheep at one mile, even if the sheep were 2 feet apart, such was the effect of the muzzle velocity and the jacketing.
This will reduce the possibility of secondary victims considerably.
Indeed so Nige, when that round (in its full NATO configuration) was first used in Northern Ireland it over penetrated the target in some cases and broke through the walls of dwelling houses in the immediate environment of the contact.
A ‘de-tuned round was soon issued to try to prevent this.
The L1A1 SLR (self loading rifle) was a splendid weapon, carried not only by military forces but also by the police in Northern Ireland, but was ultimately a weapon best suited to the battle field rather than the streets of an urban environment.
-
some other opinions
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.148580-Poll-Whats-your-opinion-on-Dum-Dum-Bullets
-
A further thought for consideration....
For example ... the SLR 7.62 round of the 70's could pass straight through 2 sheep at one mile, even if the sheep were 2 feet apart, such was the effect of the muzzle velocity and the jacketing.
This will reduce the possibility of secondary victims considerably.
Indeed so Nige, when that round (in its full NATO configuration) was first used in Northern Ireland it over penetrated the target in some cases and broke through the walls of dwelling houses in the immediate environment of the contact.
A ‘de-tuned round was soon issued to try to prevent this.
The L1A1 SLR (self loading rifle) was a splendid weapon, carried not only by military forces but also by the police in Northern Ireland, but was ultimately a weapon best suited to the battle field rather than the streets of an urban environment.
Den, when police start to use those what is your guess about terrorists ? do you think they will still use standard guns ?
imo its just like increasing the bets, there will be no end..
-
A further thought for consideration....
For example ... the SLR 7.62 round of the 70's could pass straight through 2 sheep at one mile, even if the sheep were 2 feet apart, such was the effect of the muzzle velocity and the jacketing.
This will reduce the possibility of secondary victims considerably.
Indeed so Nige, when that round (in its full NATO configuration) was first used in Northern Ireland it over penetrated the target in some cases and broke through the walls of dwelling houses in the immediate environment of the contact.
A ‘de-tuned round was soon issued to try to prevent this.
The L1A1 SLR (self loading rifle) was a splendid weapon, carried not only by military forces but also by the police in Northern Ireland, but was ultimately a weapon best suited to the battle field rather than the streets of an urban environment.
Den, when police start to use those what is your guess about terrorists ? do you think they will still use standard guns ?
imo its just like increasing the bets, there will be no end..
Yes, that can happen to a certain extent cem.
It has been obvious however in the current campaign by 'Muslim' fundamentalists that the choice of weapon to be used by such groups is one that afforded the maximum amount of damage.
This must be countered by the authorities, so it’s easy to see how an escalation in the type of weapons deployed by the authorities, to deal with an ever evolving threat, is sadly inevitable.
I fear that we are beyond consideration for the undesirable consequences of having heavily armed police on the streets as long as there are individuals or groups who will stop at nothing to inflict deadly harm upon our people.
-
A further thought for consideration....
For example ... the SLR 7.62 round of the 70's could pass straight through 2 sheep at one mile, even if the sheep were 2 feet apart, such was the effect of the muzzle velocity and the jacketing.
This will reduce the possibility of secondary victims considerably.
Indeed so Nige, when that round (in its full NATO configuration) was first used in Northern Ireland it over penetrated the target in some cases and broke through the walls of dwelling houses in the immediate environment of the contact.
A ‘de-tuned round was soon issued to try to prevent this.
The L1A1 SLR (self loading rifle) was a splendid weapon, carried not only by military forces but also by the police in Northern Ireland, but was ultimately a weapon best suited to the battle field rather than the streets of an urban environment.
Den, when police start to use those what is your guess about terrorists ? do you think they will still use standard guns ?
imo its just like increasing the bets, there will be no end..
Den's talking about the 1970s - those rounds were being used, then, in response to the fact that the IRA were already blowing people up ;)
He's also saying that they quickly abandoned those rounds because of the danger to those in the general vicinity - i.e. a round that stops inside the person you are shooting at is better than a round that exits them and gets the innocent bystander behind him in the head.
[edit] Beaten to it anyway..
-
Apart from the information given above by Den, in the 80's in NI the troops that WERE issued with these "compression Trauma rounds" (read Dum-Dums) were also instructed to use them in the body cavity and particularly heart and lung shots if possible, and when used in the "sniper" scenario a head shot would without fail remove the entire head above the jaw...............not nice for a bystander or hostage to see, but threat removed at one shot. It was NEVER used in a wound situation, only for an instant cessation of threat, and could only be issued by the artificier on special chit from the C.O.
-
A further thought for consideration....
For example ... the SLR 7.62 round of the 70's could pass straight through 2 sheep at one mile, even if the sheep were 2 feet apart, such was the effect of the muzzle velocity and the jacketing.
This will reduce the possibility of secondary victims considerably.
Indeed so Nige, when that round (in its full NATO configuration) was first used in Northern Ireland it over penetrated the target in some cases and broke through the walls of dwelling houses in the immediate environment of the contact.
A ‘de-tuned round was soon issued to try to prevent this.
The L1A1 SLR (self loading rifle) was a splendid weapon, carried not only by military forces but also by the police in Northern Ireland, but was ultimately a weapon best suited to the battle field rather than the streets of an urban environment.
Den, when police start to use those what is your guess about terrorists ? do you think they will still use standard guns ?
imo its just like increasing the bets, there will be no end..
Yes, that can happen to a certain extent cem.
It has been obvious however in the current campaign by 'Muslim' fundamentalists that the choice of weapon to be used by such groups is one that afforded the maximum amount of damage.
This must be countered by the authorities, so it’s easy to see how an escalation in the type of weapons deployed by the authorities, to deal with an ever evolving threat, is sadly inevitable.
I fear that we are beyond consideration for the undesirable consequences of having heavily armed police on the streets as long as there are individuals or groups who will stop at nothing to inflict deadly harm upon our people.
they generally tend to use explosives in which those guns are useless..
but its a fact that if you carry something with you , you will use it.. and I'm afraid the police can use those things even in ordinary cases after some time.. :(
-
Apart from the information given above by Den, in the 80's in NI the troops that WERE issued with these "compression Trauma rounds" (read Dum-Dums) were also instructed to use them in the body cavity and particularly heart and lung shots if possible, and when used in the "sniper" scenario a head shot would without fail remove the entire head above the jaw...............not nice for a bystander or hostage to see, but threat removed at one shot. It was NEVER used in a wound situation, only for an instant cessation of threat, and could only be issued by the artificier on special chit from the C.O.
I always remember the mantra - 'two in the body, one in the head then you're sure he's dead'.
The purpose in placing two shots into the central thoracic region is to let the BFT (blunt force trauma) developed as a result of this take the target down.
Even when using convention ammunition (fully or semi jacketed rounds) the take down is very effective in the vast majority of cases, although it will be difficult to follow with the head shot unless the target is sufficiently close to the shooter.
-
they generally tend to use explosives in which those guns are useless..
but its a fact that if you carry something with you , you will use it.. and I'm afraid the police can use those things even in ordinary cases after some time.. :(
Sadly, cem, this is a violent world we now inhabit - would that there was no need for weapons to be carried by anyone, but I think we must now recognise that humanity has embarked on a path to potential destruction
-
A question for Cem, are Turkish Police armed?
-
Unusually, I tend to lean towards Cems point of view on this one. I think we need more of the old fashioned bobbies on patrol in Britain, rather than a para militery style police force.
The terrorist threat is a bit of a red herring imo. Incidents are few and far between, and the only way to combat their operations imo, is to have inside intelligence and then nip them in the bud before they get out in public places to do their dirty deeds.
There have been too many incidents in recent years when firearms officers have shot and killed people when the evidence suggests that the situation could have been resolved in a more peaceful manner.
I still think the execution of the Brazilian chap on the train was an absolute disgrace, and that someone should have been held to account over it.
Who would ever have thought that the police in London would be armed with firearms with dumdum bullets loaded in them. It cant be a step forward, can it ? :-/ :(
-
I guess it's a case of the correct tool for the job, tazer, plastic bullets, conventional, hollow point. Non lethal to lethal according to severity.
Training and application in the correct situation. But would you want the job? Faced with an explosion in your face in a crowded area, or shoot an individual dead knowing he could possibly be innocent and all the shite that will follow, no pressure, just don't break it up.
Hands up, who wants the job?
-
I still think the execution of the Brazilian chap on the train was an absolute disgrace, and that someone should have been held to account over it.
Sorry Albs, but the chap was an illegal being chased by armed police. They told him to stop, he didn't... End of the day, he could have avoided the situation ;)
But would you want the job? Faced with an explosion in your face in a crowded area, or shoot an individual dead knowing he could possibly be innocent and all the shite that will follow, no pressure, just don't break it up.
Hands up, who wants the job?
Yep, certainly applies in this case... Shortly after a massive terrorist strike in London a man with a backpack refuses to stop for Armed Police ::) ::) Did the correct thing IMO. If they hadn't shot him and he had been another madman with a bomb they would have been slated for that too ::)
-
I still think the execution of the Brazilian chap on the train was an absolute disgrace, and that someone should have been held to account over it.
Sorry Albs, but the chap was an illegal being chased by armed police. They told him to stop, he didn't... End of the day, he could have avoided the situation ;)But would you want the job? Faced with an explosion in your face in a crowded area, or shoot an individual dead knowing he could possibly be innocent and all the shite that will follow, no pressure, just don't break it up.
Hands up, who wants the job?
Yep, certainly applies in this case... Shortly after a massive terrorist strike in London a man with a backpack refuses to stop for Armed Police ::) ::) Did the correct thing IMO. If they hadn't shot him and he had been another madman with a bomb they would have been slated for that too ::)
This was all lies spin put out by the Met immediately after the event. It later transpired that he got as far as walking onto the train and sat down unchallenged by anyone.He didnt run, he didnt vault a ticket barrier - he had no idea anyone was even following him It was when he saw a group of (ununiformed) men walking onto the train and looking/pointing at him, that he, approached them to ask if there was a problem.
At this point 5 of the men held him face down on the floor while the sixth pumped 7 bullets into his head at point blank range at interval of approx 3 seconds.This happened in full view of a carriage full of passengers. And he wasnt carrying a backpack or wearing padded clothing in warm summer weather either. That was also a lie put out by the Met press office. It was an unfortunate coincidence that apparently the cctv cameras in the station werent able to provide any "useful footage" of events. ::)
It was an execution,no other phrase to describe it imo.
If the officers were ordered to do this, whoever gave the order should have been charged with murder. If they werent ordered to do it, the bloke with his finger on the trigger should have been charged with murder.
And the Met apparently havent just been issued with dumdums, as from what I have read they used them on him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/aug/17/july7.menezes
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23657459-menezes-coroner-attacks-scotland-yard-flaws-over-shooting.do
http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/002048.html
A police force which can carry out an operation as farcical and tragic as this, and then try to cover it up with a blanket of lies, shouldnt be allowed the responsibilty of roaming our capital city with guns loaded with dumdums. Imo they lost the right to be allowed such responsibility in Stockwell tube station, and the events which occured after the event.
-
This was all lies spin put out by the Met immediately after the event. It later transpired that he got as far as walking onto the train and sat down unchallenged by anyone.He didnt run, he didnt vault a ticket barrier - he had no idea anyone was even following him It was when he saw a group of (ununiformed) men walking onto the train and looking/pointing at him, that he, approached them to ask if there was a problem.
At this point 5 of the men held him face down on the floor while the sixth pumped 7 bullets into his head at point blank range at interval of approx 3 seconds.This happened in full view of a carriage full of passengers. And he wasnt carrying a backpack or wearing padded clothing in warm summer weather either. That was also a lie put out by the Met press office. It was an unfortunate coincidence that apparently the cctv cameras in the station werent able to provide any "useful footage" of events. ::)
It was an execution,no other phrase to describe it imo.
If the officers were ordered to do this, whoever gave the order should have been charged with murder. If they werent ordered to do it, the bloke with his finger on the trigger should have been charged with murder.
And the Met apparently havent just been issued with dumdums, as from what I have read they used them on him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/aug/17/july7.menezes
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23657459-menezes-coroner-attacks-scotland-yard-flaws-over-shooting.do
http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/002048.html
A police force which can carry out an operation as farcical and tragic as this, and then try to cover it up with a blanket of lies, shouldnt be allowed the responsibilty of roaming our capital city with guns loaded with dumdums. Imo they lost the right to be allowed such responsibility in Stockwell tube station, and the events which occured after the event.
Yes I agree with the majority that.
There was a systemic failure in how this operation was mounted and executed - from the top down.
However, easier to judge with hindsight but less so when a dynamic situation is quickly unfolding in the aftermath of terrorist 'suicide' bombings in similar surroundings to where the culmination of this police action took place.
This is an example of the burden placed on those who are expected to carry out such duties, manage such operations and plan strategically for such eventualities - but I hold the view, and had always held it, that we should never do the terrorists work for them, either by adopting oppressive measures in our everyday activity when interacting with the public, or killing or injuring innocent people.
I personally found the activities of certain people, not only within the Met’s command structure but also in other agencies, to have been regrettable and of concern - but then it didn’t surprise me in the least, as it has been clear for some time that command within the Met has been open to undue political influence.
It would be irresponsible for the authorities not to place such resources on the streets to combat those who wish to do our people harm but we, as a lawful body, should not behave in such a way – by design or incompetence – to hurt those we are sworn to protect.
-
A few less trouble makers within the Met's juristiction is fine by me. The authorities shouldn't have to pussyfoot around people bent on bending or breaking the law for their own benefits. The laws are there for the benefits of all.
-
A few less trouble makers within the Met's juristiction is fine by me. The authorities shouldn't have to pussyfoot around people bent on bending or breaking the law for their own benefits. The laws are there for the benefits of all.
The police should never shy away from discharging their duties – lawfully and with determination – but, thinking about some of the people I've worked with over the years, I shudder to think of the consequences of the leash being removed. ;D ;D
-
A few less trouble makers within the Met's juristiction is fine by me. The authorities shouldn't have to pussyfoot around people bent on bending or breaking the law for their own benefits. The laws are there for the benefits of all.
The police should never shy away from discharging their duties – lawfully and with determination – but, thinking about some of the people I've worked with over the years, I shudder to think of the consequences of the leash being removed. ;D ;D
Would that in itself be a decent deterent?
We seem to have bred a generation of self-centered troublemakers who think they are untouchable....
-
A question for Cem, are Turkish Police armed?
to the teeth :(
and now they want the right to use very heavy weapons which the military object..
-
A few less trouble makers within the Met's juristiction is fine by me. The authorities shouldn't have to pussyfoot around people bent on bending or breaking the law for their own benefits. The laws are there for the benefits of all.
The police should never shy away from discharging their duties – lawfully and with determination – but, thinking about some of the people I've worked with over the years, I shudder to think of the consequences of the leash being removed. ;D ;D
Would that in itself be a decent deterent?
We seem to have bred a generation of self-centered troublemakers who think they are untouchable....
We seem to have bred a generation of self-centered troublemakers who think they are untouchable
I certainly agree but people will always try to do what they want irrespective of the immediate consequences at the hands of an armed constabulary or a constabulary where the gloves have been taken off.
We need to act within the law, with determination as I’ve said, but the last thing anyone wants is to come under the scrutiny of police officers who are acting with force beyond that which is reasonable, given the circumstances, as it’s often the case that the individual officer concerned may be far from capable of discharging their duties in a competent, lawful and unbiased way.
-
imo there is a more important point we mustnt forget..
police is also a human .. and works under stressing conditions..
personally I wouldnt prefer the situation where a police had fight in home with swmbo carries dum dum bullets in public.. here , in my country there are many cases where police shoots the wife, or public or friends in depression moments..
so my vote is definitely NO..
-
A few less trouble makers within the Met's juristiction is fine by me. The authorities shouldn't have to pussyfoot around people bent on bending or breaking the law for their own benefits. The laws are there for the benefits of all.
The police should never shy away from discharging their duties – lawfully and with determination – but, thinking about some of the people I've worked with over the years, I shudder to think of the consequences of the leash being removed. ;D ;D
Would that in itself be a decent deterent?
We seem to have bred a generation of self-centered troublemakers who think they are untouchable....
We seem to have bred a generation of self-centered troublemakers who think they are untouchable
I certainly agree but people will always try to do what they want irrespective of the immediate consequences at the hands of an armed constabulary or a constabulary where the gloves have been taken off.
We need to act within the law, with determination as I’ve said, but the last thing anyone wants is to come under the scrutiny of police officers who are acting with force beyond that which is reasonable, given the circumstances, as it’s often the case that the individual officer concerned may be far from capable of discharging their duties in a competent, lawful and unbiased way.
I hear what you're saying DD. And agree to an extent, but genuinely believe that things currently are biased too much in favour of the lawbreakers.
-
imo there is a more important point we mustnt forget..
police is also a human .. and works under stressing conditions..
personally I wouldnt prefer the situation where a police had fight in home with swmbo carries dum dum bullets in public.. here , in my country there are many cases where police shoots the wife, or public or friends in depression moments..
so my vote is definitely NO..
Indeed, so should they not have the same right of defence as it seems criminals do?
More guns is always a bad thing, but if those properly trained armed response units (who used to drive Omegas here ;D) are allowed to drop someone quickly when the need arises, surely thats a good thing?
-
I hear what you're saying DD. And agree to an extent, but genuinely believe that things currently are biased too much in favour of the lawbreakers.
I certainly agree with that - successive governments through trendy 'enlightened' legislation have made it more likely for people to believe that they can act without sanction.
There is a need to rebalance things and make people aware that if anyone blanks about with Roy Rogers (or his horse) there will be robust consequences.
-
imo there is a more important point we mustnt forget..
police is also a human .. and works under stressing conditions..
personally I wouldnt prefer the situation where a police had fight in home with swmbo carries dum dum bullets in public.. here , in my country there are many cases where police shoots the wife, or public or friends in depression moments..
so my vote is definitely NO..
Indeed, so should they not have the same right of defence as it seems criminals do?
More guns is always a bad thing, but if those properly trained armed response units (who used to drive Omegas here ;D) are allowed to drop someone quickly when the need arises, surely thats a good thing?
imo there must be a distinction between an army and a police force.. here in the east of country those things happen more frequently and in those cases there are special teams specially trained handle the situation..but they are not permitted to wander/patrol between us in big cities .. they use heavy weapons automatic guns and trust me they are very easy to ignite ;D
and the question remains why is not enough a normal weapon .. this means you cant hit the target properly also leading to the conclusion: not enough training.. :-/
-
imo there is a more important point we mustnt forget..
police is also a human .. and works under stressing conditions..
personally I wouldnt prefer the situation where a police had fight in home with swmbo carries dum dum bullets in public.. here , in my country there are many cases where police shoots the wife, or public or friends in depression moments..
so my vote is definitely NO..
Indeed, so should they not have the same right of defence as it seems criminals do?
More guns is always a bad thing, but if those properly trained armed response units (who used to drive Omegas here ;D) are allowed to drop someone quickly when the need arises, surely thats a good thing?
imo there must be a distinction between an army and a police force.. here in the east of country those things happen more frequently and in those cases there are special teams specially trained handle the situation..but they are not permitted to wander/patrol between us in big cities .. they use heavy weapons automatic guns and trust me they are very easy to ignite ;D
and the question remains why is not enough a normal weapon .. this means you cant hit the target properly also leading to the conclusion: not enough training.. :-/
I thought we'd covered that bit - hit someone with a ('normal') full jacketed slug and it'll probably go in one side and out the other if it hits a 'soft' area (i.e. most of you).. doesn't matter how good a shot you are if the bullet then ends up lodged in the innocent bystander standing directly behind the person you got a perfect shot on.
Also if I understand correctly we're only talking about the 'MET' here, not the regular police in the other 99.9% of the country, right? The MET have always been a bit of a special case I think..
-
This is very interesting reading, and I can see both points of view. Giving the tools to do the job is all well and good, the problem is the person using the tools.
Humans make mistakes, and all the training in the world is not going to remove this element of any given situation.
The terrorists, gangs, and criminals have no rules to obey, so we mustn't restrict the policing of these
people who ruin our society. If situations arise where an armed response is required then use the most effective tools available, to quickly resolve the situation. If soft nose rounds are the most effective then use them.
I do think that the number of highly publised errors, are far outweighed by the number of successful outcomes that we hardly hear about.
Perhaps if the courts sent people armed with a gun to prison for 10 years hard time, as a deterent then perhaps the escalation in armed police wouldn't happen.
-
Also if I understand correctly we're only talking about the 'MET' here, not the regular police in the other 99.9% of the country, right? The MET have always been a bit of a special case I think..
Insofar as the Met is concerned any enhancement of the tools available to them to combat violent/terrorist/politically motivated crime will eventually become available to other forces.
I would imagine that the entire concept of armed response units will be looked at on a national level as there has to be some cohesive basis on which to formulate standard operating procedures given the debacle of the Derrick Bird shootings in Cumbria.
** Or indeed the Moat affair.
-
imo there is a more important point we mustnt forget..
police is also a human .. and works under stressing conditions..
personally I wouldnt prefer the situation where a police had fight in home with swmbo carries dum dum bullets in public.. here , in my country there are many cases where police shoots the wife, or public or friends in depression moments..
so my vote is definitely NO..
if the Met can go 10 years without accidently killing someone then they can have a weapons upgrade :y
-
imo there is a more important point we mustnt forget..
police is also a human .. and works under stressing conditions..
personally I wouldnt prefer the situation where a police had fight in home with swmbo carries dum dum bullets in public.. here , in my country there are many cases where police shoots the wife, or public or friends in depression moments..
so my vote is definitely NO..
if the Met can go 10 years without accidently killing someone then they can have a weapons upgrade :y
what happens if they mistakenly shoot an innocent after.. can anyone guarantee for future.. imo human life is not an area for trial-error procedures.. if you shot someone with a normal bullet he/she may have a chance ..
-
Sorry Albs, but the chap was an illegal being chased by armed police. They told him to stop, he didn't... End of the day, he could have avoided the situation ;)
I agree fully.
Many years ago I was unfortunate enough to find myself staring down the barrel of more than one police marksman after they mistook me for our downstairs neighbour leaving home one morning (we lived in an upstairs maisonette at the time, and the front doors were right next to each other).
However in that particular case I was sensible enough to do what I was told, when I was told to do it.
The end result of that incident was that the only "injury" (if that's the right word) sustained was a few hours of me & my ringpiece recovering from the initial scare of staring down the barrel of several SA80's (or whatever they were at the time).
Yep, certainly applies in this case... Shortly after a massive terrorist strike in London a man with a backpack refuses to stop for Armed Police ::) ::) Did the correct thing IMO. If they hadn't shot him and he had been another madman with a bomb they would have been slated for that too ::)
I do believe that he was running to catch his train that was already on the platform (at least that was one excuse put forward).
However I believe that any normal person who was being shouted at would at least stop for a second to take a look behind them regardless of how much of a hurry they are in (especially the way the police shout orders).
Regardless of his immigration status, he didn't deserve to die but he brought that upon himself IMHO.
My only issue with police being armed is when you get nutters like that police officer at the G20 march who attacked that Tom guy from behind while he was walking (partially staggering) AWAY from the trouble's and obviously a threat to nobody.
There was absolutely no need for that at all, and the police made it worse for themselves afterwards by letting the officer get away with it.
At the end of the day, if you have someone presenting a serious threat to others then that individual has to be removed from the situation.
It's always nice when a situation ends peacefully, but unfortuantely it won't always go that way, especially if the perpetrator is cranked up on alcohol or drugs.
-
truly....a little green man from mars has spoken :o
so being executed under the streets of London is a just punishment for not stopping? if you were an innocent man and armed police were shouting, you wouldn't naturally assume they were shouting at you - i know i wouldn't - if this had happened to a British citizen on the streets of Rio, presumably that would be OK too then Martian? I'd worry about the obviously poor quality of the intelligence, putting 2 and 2 together...backpack.....tube.....running....OK put 10 bullets in him first, because a) he looks a bit "swarthy", b) he's got a backpack c) hes in a hurry. thats evidence enough for execution?
if that was the criteria the tube system would be half empty most days, of course you'd have to pick your way through the piles of dead backpackers...but hey - one of them could've been a terrorist ::)
If we become so frightened of our own shadow the terrorists have won - we need cooler heads in these situations, until the Met demonstrate that completely we should tread very carefully. I have no doubt the vast majority of armed police are cautious, intelligent, cool, calm and collected in most situations tho, but you just need one trigger happy panicker and you're in trouble :(
-
shooting on an unarmed people can have no excuses!
-
Sorry Albs, but the chap was an illegal being chased by armed police. They told him to stop, he didn't... End of the day, he could have avoided the situation ;)
I agree fully.
Many years ago I was unfortunate enough to find myself staring down the barrel of more than one police marksman after they mistook me for our downstairs neighbour leaving home one morning (we lived in an upstairs maisonette at the time, and the front doors were right next to each other).
However in that particular case I was sensible enough to do what I was told, when I was told to do it.
The end result of that incident was that the only "injury" (if that's the right word) sustained was a few hours of me & my ringpiece recovering from the initial scare of staring down the barrel of several SA80's (or whatever they were at the time).
Yep, certainly applies in this case... Shortly after a massive terrorist strike in London a man with a backpack refuses to stop for Armed Police ::) ::) Did the correct thing IMO. If they hadn't shot him and he had been another madman with a bomb they would have been slated for that too ::)
I do believe that he was running to catch his train that was already on the platform (at least that was one excuse put forward).
However I believe that any normal person who was being shouted at would at least stop for a second to take a look behind them regardless of how much of a hurry they are in (especially the way the police shout orders).
Regardless of his immigration status, he didn't deserve to die but he brought that upon himself IMHO.
My only issue with police being armed is when you get nutters like that police officer at the G20 march who attacked that Tom guy from behind while he was walking (partially staggering) AWAY from the trouble's and obviously a threat to nobody.
There was absolutely no need for that at all, and the police made it worse for themselves afterwards by letting the officer get away with it.
At the end of the day, if you have someone presenting a serious threat to others then that individual has to be removed from the situation.
It's always nice when a situation ends peacefully, but unfortuantely it won't always go that way, especially if the perpetrator is cranked up on alcohol or drugs.
Read the evidence from whichever source you choose. No-one shouted at him at any time. ::)
-
truly....a little green man from mars has spoken :o
so being executed under the streets of London is a just punishment for not stopping? if you were an innocent man and armed police were shouting, you wouldn't naturally assume they were shouting at you - i know i wouldn't - if this had happened to a British citizen on the streets of Rio, presumably that would be OK too then Martian? I'd worry about the obviously poor quality of the intelligence, putting 2 and 2 together...backpack.....tube.....running....OK put 10 bullets in him first, because a) he looks a bit "swarthy", b) he's got a backpack c) hes in a hurry. thats evidence enough for execution?
if that was the criteria the tube system would be half empty most days, of course you'd have to pick your way through the piles of dead backpackers...but hey - one of them could've been a terrorist ::)
If we become so frightened of our own shadow the terrorists have won - we need cooler heads in these situations, until the Met demonstrate that completely we should tread very carefully. I have no doubt the vast majority of armed police are cautious, intelligent, cool, calm and collected in most situations tho, but you just need one trigger happy panicker and you're in trouble :(
To be fair, the whole country was reeling from a massive terrorist strike on the London Transport system... There was bound to be some tension ::)
Read the evidence from whichever source you choose. No-one shouted at him at any time.
But that evidence is only based inside the train... How would anyone know what happened previously :-?
Yes, they made a mistake... But it was a chain of errors from the top down. :o The guy with his finger on the trigger did his job to the best of his ability with the intel he was supplied.
At the end of the day, there will always be the risk of human mistakes... But the same can be said for every person who drives ;) The Armed Police have saved many more lives but, as usual, the mistake is overly publicised ::)
-
Armed police can't afford to make mistakes. Period.
-
Armed police can't afford to make mistakes. Period.
They shouldn't, agreed, but they're still human ;)
Or should we be working towards the Robocop type of armed policeman? ::)
-
Armed police can't afford to make mistakes. Period.
They shouldn't, agreed, but they're still human ;)
Or should we be working towards the Robocop type of armed policeman? ::)
now you're talking ;D
you have 20seconds to comply citizen
-
Rock and hard place - mind you in the 70s and 80s armed Police were needed