should suspect terrorists be shot on site

Local lass · should suspect terrorists be shot on site

The police are getting it in the neck that the brazilian on the london underground should never have been shot even though they suspected him of being a terrorist.
should they shoot on site
In a way they are damed if they do and damed if they dont.

rosco

No, not on sight either! Very Happy

All this emotive language about being at 'war with terror' - it's not a war for goodness sakes and the police are not soldiers. You can't just shoot (to kill) someone because you think they might possibly be a terrorist.

I am just so against the whole rhetoric the way panic levels of the public are driven up to absurd levels such that we really think it is ok to gun someone down like and consider the fact that they are not a terrorist an "acceptable risk".

WeAreSTFC

there was no sign that he was a suicide bomber... but we're not told about armed intelligence.

I'm 50/50 on the Menezes thing.

Anyone who really does look like a suicide bomber and is about to blow themselves up, it's either kill them or get killed.

They're too dangerous to live.

Local lass

They should be shot on site .its to bigger risk.if the police have high suspicions on someone being a terrorist then shot them.
if they guy was one and he bombed the trains that day and people knew that the police suspected him imagen the backlash to that one.
there damed if hey do shoot and damed if they dont.

Bear

I suppose it depends on what you mean by shoot on site for example if a terrorist is stood there threatening to blow up a train, plane or whatever then yes they probably should be but if they are just boarding a tube train as in the case of Mr Menedez and the authorities only have a suspicion they he may be going to commit a suicide bombing it becomes very difficult to make that decision and there will be occasions when they get it wrong so the question should not be should we have a shoot on site policy in these cses but more a question of are we prepared to take the consequences when they get it wrong.

rosco

Yes, there needs to be a pretty strong idea that the person you are thinking of shoot is a terrorist - I know that you cannot be 100% certain but it's got to be a heck of a lot better than 50/50: as Bear says, someone boarding a tube train that has come from a house under observation is not enough justification in itself, as we have seen.

Local lass

Bear

Local Lass I beleive you are right in that he ran which he would do because I also beleive I'm right when I say this that he was in the country illegally. Now I know it might be tempting to say we should have a shoot to kill policy for all illegal immigrants but I dont think they are in the same category as suicide bombers. The point I was trying to make is that if we have a shoot to kill policy in these cases we must be prepared to take the flack when we get it wrong and not just sack the top policeman and I myself have an open mind as to wether we should have one or not.

Local lass

what if they were right though bear they would be classed as heros.
could they have risked it?As london was on high alert they had every right.its better to be safe than sorry.
if they were right and he got on a train and caused death and destruction imagen the out cry then.
they acted on the imformation they had the time and acted accordenly.

rosco

Local lass

fact, from what I read of the trial, that was actually not the case - he wasn't running or ordered to stop.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i will look that up Very Happy

Geddi

Mr Menezes was not running anywhere. He was not wearing a bulky jacket. He was not seen to leave the house which was under surveilance (the copper watching had gone for a jimmy without getting cover). He was not behaving in any way shape or form in a suspicious manner (according to close witness testimonies). He was not aware he was even being spoken to (what if he were a deaf man and was running for a late train?).

All in all, those who like to call for murder to protect them and others should consider the consequences of what they are calling for...

It could be YOUR brother/uncle/son who next gets shot down mistaken for a 'terrorist'.

The War Against Terror is a complete farce, except that it has many more victims than terrorism ever did. It is a dark, dark comedy where the punchlines are interspersed with the mourning of bereaved families. It is rare in this country, thankfully, and we have certain standards which are demanded to be upheld. In Iraq, Afghanistan and other countries on the real front line of terrorism, there are victims of such incidents almost daily. I watched on NEWS last night as a cold description of a four missile strike on a building in Somalia was completely obliterated, all to hit one man. The NEWS reader calmly described the process by which this was enabled by satellite transmission and a signal to a US ship off the coast of Somalia which fired the guided missiles onto the target! It was a callous description of an act of terrorism. One man? Who else was also killed in that attack? Were there children involved? Mothers? Who else? How many innocent victims were killed or maimed in the attack which our NEWS reader calmly described?

The man being targeted was supposed to be a terrorist, but now I guess we will never know. He will not face trial anywhere. His own evidence will not be heard. We will not know why he was really killed. It seems that he was accused and that is enough to murder him in cold blood and all who were around him.

We will never know if he was a terrorist or not now. I say those who killed him are terrorists in every sense of the word.

rosco