You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Crooks can gas sleeping caravanners and celebrities in their bedrooms . What was to stop the cops discretely pumping the flat full of gas while the occupants were a bit drowsy?
false flag innit
That would have been better than shooting them (yet). After a bit of 'boarding, they might have provided some valuable info about other scum like themselves.
Crooks can gas sleeping caravanners and celebrities in their bedrooms
Crooks can gas sleeping caravanners and celebrities in their bedrooms
Has this ever been proven?
Do you remember the Moscow theatre - IIRC Russians killed over 100 people with the gas...
> http://www.rcoa.ac.uk/news-and-bulletin/rcoa-news-and-statements/statement-alleged-gassing-motor-vehicles
That answers that question then!
Crooks can gas sleeping caravanners and celebrities in their bedrooms . What was to stop the cops discretely pumping the flat full of gas while the occupants were a bit drowsy?
It could possibly be effective way of ensuring people who you know are asleep stay asleep (and those people are in a small space, at ground level), it would be quite difficult to do something while people are awake and not have them realise something is happening.
Maybe the police should sneak into the flat downstairs, pump up the volume and pump the target flat full of canabis. The suspects would figure that it was just another party and would end up stoned. The police could then tempt them out by wafting take-away pizza in the corridor......
Either that or pump the flat full of nitrous 8)
Maybe they wanted to send a message.
I'm sure they considered that option for about a micro-second, however better options where available.
They should have sent Mr Corbyn to knock on the door and ask them if they wanted to pop-out for a coffee and a chat.
They should have sent Mr Corbyn to knock on the door and ask them if they wanted to pop-out for a coffee and a chat.
😀
Honestly saying not to shoot terrorists that killed (executed actually) 89 people in a concert hall. He's massively away from popular opinion on this one
[img] 
[/img]
Did the Russians not try this at the theater a few years back? It did not end well. 😕
tonyg2003 - MemberHonestly saying not to shoot terrorists that killed (executed actually) 89 people in a concert hall.
Yeah, but [i]honestly[/i], you just made that up.
If the flat had actually been a building in Syria then they would have sent in a drone and flattened it. I'm not suggesting that they do that with a residential block in Paris but it does raise an interesting question about whether an airstrike could / would have been used on home soil if the terrorists were, for example, holed up in a farmhouse.
Yeah, but honestly, you just made that up.
I listened to the full Corbyn interview and he was saying that they shouldn't shoot terrorists shooting people on the street. Listen to it. The man is deluded.
If the flat had actually been a building in Syria then they would have sent in a drone and flattened it. I'm not suggesting that they do that with a residential block in Paris but it does raise an interesting question about whether an airstrike could / would have been used on home soil if the terrorists were, for example, holed up in a farmhouse.
Unlikely as they would want any intel that could find in the farmhouse too. In Syria if they couldn't lift the person to extract info due to the high risk then a drone attack makes more sense knowing you wouldn't be able to get any info from the flat Syria due to the same risks. Also in Syria ISIS would most likely have the whole building to themselves so any collateral damage would most likely be other combatants so no loss.
Honestly saying not to shoot terrorists that killed (executed actually) 89 people in a concert hall. He's massively away from popular opinion on this one
From outspoken popular opinion maybe. Plenty are prepared to at least think about rather than "eye for an eye" knee jerk playground stuff. And for that - as a reasoned counter - he should be congratulated. Otherwise where will it all end, really?
If the flat had actually been a building in Syria then they would have sent in a drone and flattened it. I'm not suggesting that they do that with a residential block in Paris but it does raise an interesting question about whether an airstrike could / would have been used on home soil if the terrorists were, for example, holed up in a farmhouse.
Not if it didn't satisfy the rules of engagement and targeting policy they wouldn't, these impose tight limits on things like collateral damage. Generally the aim of these raids is to arrest the individuals and extract any intelligence from them or their surroundings, which wouldn't work with an air attack.
If the flat had actually been a building in Syria then they would have sent in a drone and flattened it. I'm not suggesting that they do that with a residential block in Paris but it does raise an interesting question about whether an airstrike could / would have been used on home soil if the terrorists were, for example, holed up in a farmhouse.
No need for an air-strike on home soil as they control the area around the target. They don't control the land in Syria so have to do it remotely.
tonyg2003 - MemberI listened to the full Corbyn interview and he was saying that they shouldn't shoot terrorists shooting people on the street.
Nope, you made that up too.
'I'm not happy with the shoot to kill policy in general – I think that is quite dangerous and I think can often can be counter-productive.
I think you have to have security that prevents people firing off weapons [b]where they can,[/b] there are various degrees of doing things as we know. But the idea you end up with a war on the streets is not a good thing.
Surely you have to work to[b] try and prevent these things happening[/b], that's got to be the priority.'
My bold but this is what he actually said. You avoid shooting where you can. You work to prevent it from happening. You don't go out with the intention of killing people except as a last resort (as some believe we did in NI)). He hasn't said we shouldn't shoot terrorists.
He said something which was open to intentional misinterpretation by people who want to twist his words- which to be fair, in his position is a mistake. And then he issued a clarification of what he said, which inevitably the same people who choose to twist it claim is a u-turn
Plenty are prepared to at least think about rather than "eye for an eye" knee jerk playground stuff. And for that - as a reasoned counter - he should be congratulated
I'm not saying that bombing Syria is anything to do with his comments about terrorists on the streets. Actually I don't agree with bombing ISIS in Syria. It makes us as bad as the terrorists in some ways. What I'm saying is the having a "no shoot to kill" policy against suicide bombers armed with Kalashnikovs wandering a major city, is bizarre.
Anyhow, the lady wasn't shot, she blew herself up.
Nope, you made that up too.[b]'I'm not happy with the shoot to kill policy in general – I think that is quite dangerous and I think can often can be counter-productive[/b].
I think you have to have security that prevents people firing off weapons where they can, there are various degrees of doing things as we know. But the idea you end up with a war on the streets is not a good thing.
Surely you have to work to try and prevent these things happening, that's got to be the priority.'
I'm sorry that you see a different meaning to the same interview that we both saw. As I bolded he was against shoot to kill. In a situation like Paris you need clear guidelines and his certainly aren't. He is saying that he does want shoot to kill. Look at what he has also said at some of the labour meetings, he's against shoot to kill.
Being against shoot-to-kill isn't the same as being against shooting terrorists. A shoot-to-kill policy means allowing police to open fire without issuing a warning first. It doesn't prevent them from shooting.
I think that it's a bit of a hot button topic because there's been allegations that an unofficial shoot-to-kill policy effectively allowed the police to make extra-judicial executions during the Troubles.
As I posted in the other thread Corbyn has put Ken Livingston in charge of defence policy, except that hasn't gone well so far either.
Being against shoot-to-kill isn't the same as being against shooting terrorists. A shoot-to-kill policy means allowing police to open fire without issuing a warning first. It doesn't prevent them from shooting.
I thought shoot-to-kill was just one journo's way of describing the current ROE in a way that would put Politicians on the spot, although only Corbyn fell for it.
Surely there are no proposed changes to UK firearms officer's ROE?
How many times have the police shot a unarmed person becuase they 'thought' they saw something or they targeted the wrong person to follow and end up shooting them (all foreigners look the same mentality)
The police have a hard enough job raiding the 'right' house 🙄
Get Cressida Dick in 🙄 she will weed out all the Brazilian electricians.
Surely there are no proposed changes to UK firearms officer's ROE?
UK Firearms officers are trained to shoot to kill, especially if they feel it's a suicide bomber. Single bullet to the base of the neck from behind with a plain clothes officer.
The ROE for normal firearms officers will remain the same and it is normally single shot and re-assess hence a lot of the rifles you see them carrying are actually semi automatic and not fully automatic as people think. They are trained to aim for centre mass as it's a more reliable place to hit when someone is moving.
It's also worth noting that one of th ebiggest issues the police face in a marauding terrorist situation is what rifle to use, the 9mm in the MP5 doesn't have suitable range or stopping power so they have swapped to the 5.56mm G36 or Sig but this causes an issue with the bullets going straight through the bad guy and killing innocent bystanders.
They still have the issue that the bad guys are generally firing superior power rifles in the form of the 7.62 round. Part of the reason the army had to adopt heavier calibre weapons in the sharpshooter so as they can return fire at suitable distances.
On the original subject, it does appear going in with a deliberate entry was the wrong answer but may have been the only one they felt suitable based on the intel they had. Better that than the bad guys coming out shooting in the street.
The current RoE allow opening fire without a warning if there isn't time or to do so would increase the danger, ISTR. They need to protect those who open fire, because they have to make difficult decisions quickly to protect the populace without the benefit of hindsight. There's little evidence of trigger-happiness among British police, look at the response to Lee Rigby's killers for restraint, or Pte Clegg or Sgt Blackmore's cases for legal action against those who go out with the RoE.
This might be whatiffery but I don't know what the ROE are. So in a hostage type situation where it is known or strongly expected that suicide vests are being worn. A firearms officer has a clear aim at a terrorist. Are they expected to shout a warning first? They might as well give them a countdown. I'd hope there's enough discretion to be able to shoot to kill already without needing a policy change.
Edit - crossed with previous post
This might be whatiffery but I don't know what the ROE are. So in a hostage type situation where it is known or strongly expected that suicide vests are being worn. A firearms officer has a clear aim at a terrorist. Are they expected to shout a warning first? They might as well give them a countdown. I'd hope there's enough discretion to be able to shoot to kill already without needing a policy change.
I'm pretty certain there is exactly that discretion - shooting dead a hostage taker would be regarded by a jury as reasonable force.
AFAIK the police firearms people obey the same law as you and I in that regard and as yet nobody has indicated any change in policy.
AFAICT "Shoot-to-kill" is not a new policy, it's just a term a journo used and Corbyn picked up an ran with for reasons best known to himself.
The ROE are perfectly reasonable and & unless anyone else has heard otherwise there seem to be no plans to change them.
AFAIK the police firearms people obey the same law as you and I in that regard and as yet nobody has indicated any change in policy
No change in policy as the common law situation has been the same for a long time, but they certianly did have to rethink policy with op Kratos (though they don't call it that any more) where the individual officer might not be able to ascertain beyond doubt whether the suspect might be a suicide/remote control bomber.
French police say they came under the heaviest fire they have ever experienced. The lady bomber ran out of the flat towards them in an attempt to blow them up too.
The photos of the police shields covered in bullet holes are pretty shocking (from Bataclan). Chapeau to those officers
[img] 
[/img]
@somouk - "centre of mass" does that mean chest because that's a bit flawed if they are wearing a modern flak jacket.
would the gas have been inflammable, otherwise there could have been even more of a mess when that lady detonated herself.
IIRC, modern flak jackets are designed to stop up to 9mm pistol rounds, they don't work against modern assault rifle rounds.
takes some balls to go into a confined space knowing that kind of weaponry is likely to be pointed at you.
He's massively away from popular opinion on this one
hmmmm... more like away from the opinion of retards, who dare I say it, don't necessarily always have the most useful contributions to make to any discussion
the opinion of retards, who dare I say it, don't necessarily always have the most useful contributions to make to any discussion
People with learning difficulties can vote:
http://www.downs-syndrome.org.uk/for-people-with-downs-syndrome/information/voting-2/
The shoot to kill policy debate is a classic illustration of asking and answering questions without defining terms. Should police officers who honesty believe the action is necessary and proportionate to prevent a terrorist killing be allowed to shoot to lethal effect ,answer yes seems obvious to me and that is what Corbyn clearly implied but did not clarify in his first answer.
But for many Shoot to Kill harks back to an alleged counter terrorist policy in Norther Ireland where suspects were to be shot on sight regardless of circumstances.
Or the modern tactics from the US in Iraq and Israel in Gaza where people are/were eliminated for such acts as talking on cell phones or carrying spades.
Clearly it would be wrong to allow our police to kill on mere suspicion and that is the slope we get ourselves to the top of if we suggest we should move from our current existing rules to some new shoot to kill policy and that is where David Cameron also failed to draw a line with his " support all necessary police powers" slick sound bite that was so impressive yet facile.
hmmmm... more like away from the opinion of retards, who dare I say it, don't necessarily always have the most useful contributions to make to any discussion
Ah, that's right, anyone who disagrees with Leftie policies is either defective or mad - good to see that you're following the statesmanlike example of the party leadership...
I'm pretty sure, even with an actual "shoot to kill" policy, you ain't gonna get shot if you aren't a direct threat.
But, come running out of a house spraying bullets from an assault rifle and all bets are off.......
I'm no fan of Corbyn, but I'm increasingly worried by the medias presentation of his (and others) words, and the public blindly swallowing that interpretation.
Any sane person is against a general shoot to kill policy, but he didn't say that the Police shouldn't be able to shoot when necessary - in line with general laws on self defence as others have stated.
I disagree with a lot of his policies, but he seems to take a measured view on issues and doesn't rush to knee jerk soundbites.
@crankboy - but the follow on questions, on the principle of whether he would ever, in theory, authorise military action against Islamic fundementalists, was fair, far less nuanced, and deserved a straight answer that he was utterley unable to give.
Ah, that's right, anyone who disagrees with Leftie policies is either defective or mad
truth hurts son
Clearly it would be wrong to allow our police to kill on mere suspicion and that is the slope we get ourselves to the top of if we suggest we should move from our current existing rules to some new shoot to kill policy
AFAIK there's no such proposal.
IIRC, modern flak jackets are designed to stop up to 9mm pistol rounds, they don't work against modern assault rifle rounds.
The ones with ceramic plate inserts are more resisant e.g.
Level III Rating: AR500 Armor® body armor is Stand-Alone and Multi-Hit capable. Designed to defeat rifle threats up to 7.62x51 M80 NATO Ball (.308 Winchester) at velocities up to 2,780 feet per second and all pistol calibers.
The last time we tried shoot to kill on a 'terrorist' in the UK, we ended up with a student being killed on the Underground, so I can't see why everyone is so keen on it...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes
Nobody on any side of the debate Corbyn included says you don't top the terrorist who comes out of a door spraying bullets we don't need some new Shoot To Kill policy to authorise that in fact we don't need any policy at all that is what the common and statute law allows and to an extent expects.
The last time we tried shoot to kill on a 'terrorist' in the UK, we ended up with a student being killed on the Underground, so I can't see why everyone is so keen on it...
Given there was an open verdict at the inquest it seems doubtful if that killing was legal, so hardly a good example of the current rules being correctly followed.
we don't need some new Shoot To Kill policy
What new policy? Where is this new policy?
we don't need any policy at all that is what the common and statute law allows and to an extent expects.
We don't, so what new policy are you talking about?
whether an airstrike could / would have been used on home soil if the terrorists were, for example, holed up in a farmhouse.
The French military undoubtedly would. Whether their political masters would allow them is not quite so clear. It wasn't so long ago that the French secret service operated on home soil sweeping up enemies of the state.
Ninfan re bombing Syria did he not say he would not say he would and he would not say he wouldn't but he does not support it at this stage. I can see why that does not give some a satisfying simplistic clarity but to set out preconditions to yes I would bomb Syria in the event of x y and z is to set up a hostage to fortune . I can see very good reasons for not bombing Syria now . But again define terms of bombing . I can see a powerful argument for close air support of those fighting Isis if we wish to defeat Isis in that region.
The question asked of Corbyn which created this debate " if you were pm would you be happy to order the police to shoot to kill on Britain's streets " that was the new shoot to kill policy as it goes beyond the current self defence defence of another law which forms our current ROE and is the pm ordering Shoot to Kill.that's the new bit outofbreath.
whether an airstrike could / would have been used on home soil if the terrorists were, for example, holed up in a farmhouse.
Doesn't really make sense to just blow up the farmhouse, you'd get no intelligence from it. Much better to try and take them alive and potentially find out about other plots etc.
atlaz - MemberIt wasn't so long ago that the French secret service operated on home soil sweeping up enemies of the state.
And in New Zealand, murdering photographers on Greenpeace boats. These crazy terrorists eh...
Just heard report on R4 and the police chief said around 5000 rounds were fired at the seige today! Thats some fire fight in a built up area! Must have been terrifying for everyone.
The only time police don't shoot to kill is in films. I know it probably isn't 'policy' but shooting to wound or disable just isn't feasible.
The question asked of Corbyn which created this debate " if you were pm would you be happy to order the police to shoot to kill on Britain's streets " that was the new shoot to kill policy as it goes beyond the current self defence defence of another law which forms our current ROE and is the pm ordering Shoot to Kill.that's the new bit outofbreath.
Just because a Journo phrases a question in a certain way doesn't mean any new policy has been suggested.
They already do shoot to kill, they never shoot to wound for well published reasons.
AFAICT there is no new policy, the police can use reasonable force just like you and I. There's no proposal to allow the police to use "unreasonable force".
Terrorists need a bit more of this..
The more that are eliminated in the 1st instance the better. Screw any 'arrest them & bring them to justice' bollix. It's gone waay beyond that now. What's 'justice' going to do? We can't execute them after they've been arrested (well ok, we could) We aint going to re-educate them to address their offending behaviour either ( at a cost of well over 35k per head per annum in a Cat A prison & that's before they try to radicalise any others!)
Corbyn's as bad as Cameron (IMO) but on the opposite scale, 'yap yap yap, lets discuss it over coffee. Soft shite.
I'm not a politician thankfully but theyr'e in charge. (apparently)
The police definatly do not shoot to wound, but I don't think they shoot to kill either.
I think they shoot to neutralise the threat as quickly and effectively as possible. If you die you die and you live if you are lucky.
If there intent was to kill, after gunning down lee rigbys killers they would have walked over and put one in their heads.
But they didn't they instead started first aid with the intent of saving them.
When visiting a friend in hospital last year there was someone on the ward who had two police officers with him the whole time. I asked him why, he said he had been shot eight times. I said is that what the police were here for, to protect him from who ever shot him. He said no it was the police who shot him. And when I asked why he just said gun crime.
esselgruntfuttock - MemberThe more that are eliminated in the 1st instance the better. Screw any 'arrest them & bring them to justice' bollix. It's gone waay beyond that now. What's 'justice' going to do?
Serious? 1) Intelligence, helps us find more of them, learn their plans. And 2), Justice is for us, not for them. Once you decide some people aren't worthy of justice, where does that end?
The trouble is, that
often you eliminate Brazilian electricians and other innocent people. The Birmingham 6, the Guildford 4 ? Should those innocent guys have just been eliminated too?The more that are eliminated in the 1st instance the better. Screw any 'arrest them & bring them to justice' bollix.
Thanks Chip. Looks like policy is shoot for the torso which is the biggest target except where it's a possible suicide bomber when they go for head or leg to prevent the bomb going off when the bullet strikes. No change to this policy in the last 15 years or so.
"Police firearms training actually teaches the use and discharge of firearms to "remove the threat" rather than to kill. Following the September 11, 2001 attacks new guidelines were developed for identifying, confronting, and dealing forcefully with terrorist suspects. These guidelines were given the code name "Operation Kratos".
Based in part on advice from the security forces of Israel and Sri Lanka—two countries with experience of suicide bombings—Operation Kratos guidelines allegedly state that the head or lower limbs should be aimed at when a suspected suicide bomber appears to have no intention of surrendering. This is contrary to the usual practice of aiming at the torso, which presents the biggest target, as a hit to the torso may detonate an explosive belt."
@somouk - "centre of mass" does that mean chest because that's a bit flawed if they are wearing a modern flak jacket.
If they were wearing decent plated body armour a 5.56 to the chest would have enough kinetic energy to certainly annoy them and slow them enough for follow up shots. The cheaper stuff as mentioned is designed to stop lower energy rounds so 5.56 would shred it.
I certainly would not have wanted to be holding that shield when it was hit like that. They are bloody heavy bits of kit but I bet it moved some with the 7.62 hitting it.
They are bloody heavy bits of kit but I bet it moved some with the 7.62 hitting it.
Having fired assault rifles, the kick back isn't massive and the kick back is the same force as the projectile striking the target in a vacuum (Newton's 3rd law), so if the shield has someone bracing it, the feeling will be less than the kickback on the person firing the round as a) the shield weighs more than an assault rifle, so the overall mass is greater and b) the round will have lost some momentum by the time it strikes.
Argh. I despise all talk of 'shoot to kill' polices. It's the worst turn of bloody phrase.
Nicked from aarse.. Translated account of the incident from the Boss of the team that stormed the flat
Having fired assault rifles, the kick back isn't massive and the kick back is the same force as the projectile striking the target in a vacuum (Newton's 3rd law), so if the shield has someone bracing it, the feeling will be less than the kickback on the person firing the round as a) the shield weighs more than an assault rifle, so the overall mass is greater and b) the round will have lost some momentum by the time it strikes.
I was referring more to the person backing away from the fire more than the shield itself moving through kinetic energy.
The force of a round hitting someone is increased compared to the force felt when firing it, firstly the rifle design will generally reduce recoil to the firer but also the area that force is being applied is smaller in the head of the bullet compared to the surface area of the butt against the shoulder.
Have a read of this, especially misconceptions: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recoil
Ala this. [url=
gun shooting.[/url]
Designed to not pass any recoil to the firer. But the kinetic energy would make a big hole.
Details he gave of the operation in Saint Denis paint a picture of a ferocious battle
Police used 5,000 rounds of ammunition
The main building targeted was hit so hard it is now at risk of collapse
A body was found "riddled with impacts", which made it impossible to identify for now
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34859082 ]BBC report[/url] 😯
firstly the rifle design will generally reduce recoil to the firer but also the area that force is being applied is smaller in the head of the bullet compared to the surface area of the butt against the shoulder.
You can't reduce the recoil energy, all you can do is spread the energy out over time, which reduces the force at any one instant in time.. The point about bullet surface area is irrelevant when hitting a shield as the shield will transfer the energy to the holder over a much wider area than the bullet's profile, same principle as a bullet proof vest, spread the energy out over the whole chest and a you won't even break a rib.
166 magazines of 5.56. I''d imagine that number would include pistol and sniper rounds. The shield man would have been carrying a pistol, I'd imagine a few shotgun rounds for possible breaches and then not forgetting the party piece; 40mm grenades. That's my kind of party.
Thanks gwaelod.
Not completely true. An automatic / semi-automatic rifle uses part of the recoil energy to compress the spring that operates the cartridge eject and reload mechanism.
I've over the years shot both Lee Enfield .303 and 7.62 SLR rifles and the recoil from the SLR was significantly lower.
The trouble is, thatoften you eliminate Brazilian electricians and other innocent people. The Birmingham 6, the Guildford 4 ? Should those innocent guys have just been eliminated too?
Or 129 innocent Parisian revellers? In one sitting.
An automatic / semi-automatic rifle uses part of the recoil energy to compress the spring that operates the cartridge eject and reload mechanism.
I doubt it's more than a few % of the overall energy.
and the recoil from the SLR was significantly lower.
Probably from spreading the energy out over time (e.g. shock absorber in the but) which makes the recoil force lower, but the total energy is the same (bar a bit lost as heat in the shock absorber).
gwaelod - MemberNicked from aarse.. Translated account of the incident from the Boss of the team that stormed the flat
😯
I've over the years shot both Lee Enfield .303 and 7.62 SLR rifles and the recoil from the SLR was significantly lower.
The 303 is bolt action and they generally had brass butt plates, the SLR was gas operated and had a rubber butt plate so the two would be worlds apart in recoil.