Shoot to kill: A policy that was DOA?

[Ghoulish Delight]

Alright, let's get everyone up to speed on the embarassment that is Britain's shoot to kill terror suspects policy:

After the first subway bombings in London, British police enacted a shoot to kill policy for anyone they credibly felt was a suicide bombing threat. Shortly after the second bombing attempt, that policy was put into use...with embarassing results.

A man was shot and killed in the London Underground by police. Tony Blair quickly came out and said that he was "directly linked" to the failed bombing attempt. Well, it turns out that he was Jean Charles de Menezes, an innocent electrician from Brazil. But wait, it's okay, because the police have a plausible explanation for why they shot. He was observed leaving a location that had been under surveilance because the address was on a paper in one of the backpacks recovered at the scene of the failed bombings. He was wearing a heavy jacket, despite rather warm weather. He hopped the turnstyle, was acting susiciously, and failed to respond to officers when they confronted him and told him to stop. Clearly a threat, right?

Well, surveilance footage from the underground tells a different story. The footage shows wearing a simple denim jacket not a large bulky one, buying a newspaper, walking through the turnstyle quite legally, and getting onto a train. And some eye witness accounts say he was sitting in his seat, not running away.

So hmm, even if only some of that is true, it differs quite a bit from the "official" story.

But wait, there's more. The question still remains why they thought HE was a suspect. Well, the address they had was for a location with several units, and they weren't sure which unit to be on the lookout for. So, wisely, they set up surveilance. The wa it was supposed to work was that an officer would be watching the place, and any time someone came out, he'd start recording them on video and determine if it was a suspect or not (I believe they had some idea of who they were expecting to see). Well, when mr. Menezes came out of his unit...the officer on duty was reportedly taking a piss! He came back in time to see that SOMEONE had left, and sent the message ahead that he thought it might be someone they were looking for.

And then de Menezes was shot dead. Because a guy was taking a leak. And then the police covered their asses with a series of lies. Ugly.

So, does anybody think now that the shoot to kill policy is a good idea?

[Scrooge McSam]

*crickets*

[Motorboat Cruiser]

The only way I could ever condone a "shoot to kill" policy is in a situation where people are in immediate danger. For example, if a guy pulls out a gun and is firing it towards people, then take him out swiftly before he hurts or kills anyone. Other than that, it's a stupid idea.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

*crickets*

So, it's ok to shoot Jimminy on site? Man, you liberals sicken me.

[scaeagles]

The only way I could ever condone a "shoot to kill" policy is in a situation where people are in immediate danger.

Still a tough call. While this is most certainly a tragic event, with a huge CYA, and officials that should be held liable (financially if not criminally), it is a tough call as to who presents a danger.

Let's say some kid had a backpack on, and in it is a baggie of marijuana. Dog catches a whiff of it, starts barking, kid runs. Does the cop shoot him, thjinking it is perhaps a backpack bomb? At that point in time, is he a danger, perceived if not real?

Granted, my example is probably not the best one as I doubt if there is crossover between drug dogs and bomb dogs, but my point is valid.

I wouldn't want to be the one trying to determine if someone was presented imminent danger. In the days of suicide bombings, it is possible that any heavily dressed person or or someone with a bag is a risk. Searching everyone is hardly a solution - impractical, and the bomber could simply detonate at the checkpoint.

Tough call on a tough situation. Someone having a gun and shooting it in a subway isn't hard to figure out. The current situation is.

[MickeyLumbo]

you can shoot me if you see me wearing a denim jacket

[Moonliner]

Clearly the brits F'ed up in this case. Clearly they then tried to cover it up.

Somwhere Mr. Bin Laden is sitting back in his easy chair having a good belly laugh.

[scaeagles]

you can shoot me if you see me wearing a denim jacket

I still have mine from my 80's HS days. Levis. Faded. Collar almost stuck in the flipped up position.

What can I say? I was a preppy.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

All good points, scaeagles. If you have a bomb sniffing dog that goes on alert along with a person who is unwilling to cooperate with police, there is no easy solution. But, shooting the person might also cause a detonation. I think it always has to be used as an absolute last resort. That doesn't appear to be what happened in London and an innocent person died.

[scaeagles]

But, shooting the person might also cause a detonation.

True dat. Many bombs are made with a trigger that only requires releasing. Bomber has his thumb pushing down a button, bomb explodes when he releases it. Shooting him certainly does not prevent it.

It is quite probably impossible to stop someone who is willing to kill himself in the process of exploding a device.

[Scrooge McSam]

So, it's ok to shoot Jimminy on site? Man, you liberals sicken me.

You haven't heard? All us liberals hate America and want the terrorists to win. FoxNews told me so.

[Prudence]

It highlights the difference between proactive and reactionary intelligence. It's not as big of a deal when you're reacting to ordinary crime to react, conduct surveillance, detain, chase, etc... But when you're dealing with terrorists, failure to detain isn't just letting one slip by -- it's potentially devastating. The stakes are higher and pressure to "shoot to kill" is greater. The risk of of a suicide bomber escaping is greater than the risk of a innocent person being killed.

Now stop and read that one more time: The risk of of a suicide bomber escaping is greater than the risk of a innocent person being killed.

*That* is what makes this "war" so challenging and what makes suicide bombing so effective. What happens when crimes are so enormous, cause so much destruction of human life and property, that reactive law enforcement is no longer acceptible?

[Ghoulish Delight]

*That* is what makes this "war" so challenging and what makes suicide bombing so effective. What happens when crimes are so enormous, cause so much destruction of human life and property, that reactive law enforcement is no longer acceptible?Such is the price of freedom.

[Alex]

Of course, it is possible for this use of a "shoot to kill" policy to have been misguided or misapplied without necessarily invalidating the concept as a whole.

Any situation in which authority is invested with the option of using fatal force is still going to involve some level of uncertainty. For example, I think most people would agree that police are justified in shooting and killing someone who is about to commit a murder. Say a person pulls a gun, points it at a stranger passing on the street and gives all appearances he is about to shoot this person.

The police have to make a decision to act before they know with 100% certainty that he will in shoot fire the gun or that the gun is even loaded. In this situation a shoot-to-kill policy would not, I don't think, be voided simply because one time the gun was not loaded.

So, I don't think it is so much a question of whether "shoot-to-kill" is an absolutely good or absolutely bad idea. It will always involve a tradeoff between safety and certainty. The problem with using this case to invalidate this specific shoot-to-kill policy is that it apparently did not meet the criteria for the policy in the first place. The police did not have a reasonably credible reason to believe this guy to be a bomber.

Not knowing exactly how "credible suicide bombing threat" is defined, I can't say as to whether I think the general policy is wrong. But I certainly think that this incident could not have met any reasonably scoped definition and the police deserve to be shamed, humiliated, and reprimanded institutionally and financially (perhaps not criminally since it is likely that each policeman thought they were doing their job as they did it).

I can still think of countless situations in which I would say a pre-emptive shoot-to-kill policy is warranted.

[scaeagles]

Good thoughts, Alex. Often if something fails horribly on an occassion, such as with the shooting in question, the entire policy or program is deemed a failure, and that is not always the case.

Perhaps in this world we are in now, probable cause will have to take on a broader definition. If you are a Middle Eastern man walking toward a subway with a backpack, is that probable cause to stop you and search you? If you run for any reason, does this mean you are deemed a threat to the safety of those around you? I can see no other solution, really, unless the solution is deemed worse than the problem. It could be, because even with an expanded application of probable cause, there is no way all suicide bombers could ever be stopped.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I find it unsurprising, and particularly damning, that the very first use of this dubious policy was disaterous. It's so vague, requires so many assumptions, and leaves the possibility of this kind of error wide open. I don't know British law well enough to know if they have the same concept, but if they tried to implement the same thing here, it seems to me it would come into conflict with the principle of "innocent until proven guilty". It gives officers the right to execute based on purely circumstantial evidence.

I am very hesitant to give officers power to pass judgement for the sake of "safety". This policy is more than a slipery slope, it's a huge leap, and unless it's ammended to be MUCH more restrictive and finite than it is, I expect this kind of innocent death to be the norm, not the exception. It's too susceptible to human error as-is.

[Alex]

That's one reason I'm not willing to pass judgement on the policy.

I don't know how they defined "credible reason." I doubt it was just the bosses saying "if you think they're a terrorist shoot them." If it was, then yes it is wrong. But only getting the executive summary of the policy isn't enough information, especially since the act that happened doesn't seem to live up to even that policy.

But no, on the surface I'm not impressed with this instance of shoot-to-kill authority being given. You expanded that to ask if all shoot-to-kill is indicted and I don't feel it is. Not by this.

[Name]

My only question, how long before this policy is accepted by the US govt? Or did I miss it and it is already US policy?

Just the next step to police statehood.

[Scrooge McSam]

My only question, how long before this policy is accepted by the US govt? Or did I miss it and it is already US policy?

Just the next step to police statehood.

The International Association of Chiefs of Police, which represents the heads of police departments in the United States and across the world, has issued new guidelines saying that officers who confront a suicide bomber should shoot the suspect in the head. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/03/AR2005080301867.html)

The police group's guidelines also say the threat to officers does not have to be "imminent," as police training traditionally teaches. Officers do not have to wait until a suspected bomber makes a move, another traditional requirement for police to use deadly force. An officer just needs to have a "reasonable basis" to believe that the suspect can detonate a bomb, the guidelines say.

[Name]

WTF does "the suspect can detonate a bomb" mean? has the ability to, the technical savy to, or the immediate means to push a button. Because seriously, I could figure out how to make a detonator for a bomb work, so based on the wording of the quote above, could be shot on sight. lame wording IMNSHO.

Damn, I left the military too soon, I coulda been a part of the police state.

But seriously, so it begins, the treading on the innocent until proven guilty ideals, right to a fair trial. The bill of rights have officially become toilet paper for the police forces of the nation, as they just have to suspect that you are a suicide bomber to shoot to kill you. I don't see this policy lasting too long in our litigious(sp?) society. But on the flip side, if a suicide bomber was in the sights of the police, the other side would litigate the police agency to death as well.

I wonder how many innocent people will be shot in the name of protecting us from these suspected suicide bombers, and how many of those shot will be people we know.

[wendybeth]

You haven't heard? All us liberals hate America and want the terrorists to win. FoxNews told me so.

Not true. We merely want to put them in therapy.;)

[Scrooge McSam]

You'll have to forgive me, Wendy. I was forced to watch O'Reilly the other night and it's taking me a while to wretch up the after effects. If I forced myself to listen to Limbaugh, I'd likely explode.

If I had a larger diameter sphincter, this wouldn't be taking so long. ;)

[scaeagles]

Well, stretching mine hasn't done squat, and if I told you guys I needed to get it stretched a couple times a week to do me any good, you'd all have a really good laugh.

Limbaugh is my healer.

[Scrooge McSam]

...if I told you guys I needed to get it stretched a couple times a week to do me any good, you'd all have a really good laugh.

Not from me

Those are words to live by, as far as I'm concerned.

[wendybeth]

Well, stretching mine hasn't done squat, and if I told you guys I needed to get it stretched a couple times a week to do me any good, you'd all have a really good laugh.

Limbaugh is my healer.

You do realise Limbaugh lost his hearing because of drug abuse, don't you? He claimed it was autoimmune disease, but profound hearing loss is a known side effect of Oxycontin abuse. He's lucky, though. All he has to do is turn off his CI and he doesn't have to listen to the venomous crap he spews.:rolleyes:

[Boss Angeles]

This whole thing certainly quells the Brazilians "always cutting in line" thing.

[MickeyLumbo]

I still have mine from my 80's HS days. Levis. Faded. Collar almost stuck in the flipped up position.

What can I say? I was a preppy.

i'll bet you were a HOT Young Republican~:p

[Motorboat Cruiser]

i'll bet you were a HOT Young Republican~:p

Perhaps, but look at the price that his sphincter paid.

[scaeagles]

On a complete side note, I was helping my in-laws tear out a rather large block wall last Sunday. We were using a jack hammer, and my brother in law offered to shove it down my throat to see if it would help. I wanted to ask Sac, Scrooge, and/or MBC just how that feels first, though.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Depends on your gag reflex.

[Kevy Baby]

Any time this argument comes up, I can't help but think of Stephen King's "The Dead Zone" (I am refering to the book and original movie, not the current TV show - which BTW is pretty good).

[SacTown Chronic]

Heh, it's amazing how often "The Dead Zone" creeps into my mind when I'm thinking about George W Bush. Seriously.

[SacTown Chronic]

We were using a jack hammer, and my brother in law offered to shove it down my throat to see if it would help. I wanted to ask Sac, Scrooge, and/or MBC just how that feels first, though.

One of these names doesn't belong, Duddits.

[Kevy Baby]

One of these names doesn't belong, Duddits.Yeah, MBC knows nothing about that kind of thing.

[scaeagles]

One of these names doesn't belong, Duddits.

That's not what MickeyLumbo says. He says you actually nicknamed him "the jackhammer".

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Yeah, MBC knows nothing about that kind of thing.

Exactly.


;)

[Name]

That's not what MickeyLumbo says. He says you actually nicknamed him "the jackhammer".
Yes, but was that about an oral encounter?

[Scrooge McSam]

One of these names doesn't belong, Duddits.

Thanks for taking up for me, Sac!

[MickeyLumbo]

That's not what MickeyLumbo says. He says you actually nicknamed him "the jackhammer".

that's cuz Sac has trouble pronouncing "pneumatic drill".