Shoot to kill: A policy that was DOA?

[Scrooge McSam]

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

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]

Originally Posted by Prudence

*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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

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.