International Police Body Backs 'Shoot-To-Kill'

Posted on Friday, August 05 at 12:36 by Diogenes
The shooting of Mr De Menezes, seven times in the head and once in the shoulder, provoked international concern over the Met's so-called shoot-to-kill tactics when dealing with potential suicide bombers in public places. However, the IACP's report indicates widespread international agreement on dealing with new forms of terrorist threat. The president of Britain's Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), Chris Fox, and his Brazilian counterpart, Paul Roberto d'Almeida, both sit on the IACP's international policing steering committee. The report carries detailed information how to identify and disable a suspected suicide bomber. Indicators of potential bombers include heavy clothing whatever the season, walking with an unusual gait or showing signs of irritability, sweating or tunnel vision, it says. If lethal force is justified for stopping suspects, the guidelines state that the usual police tactic of shooting at the torso is inappropriate when dealing with suicide bomb suspects, in case the bullet detonates the explosive. "Hence, if lethal force is justified, all shots should be aimed at a bomber's head - specifically, at the tip of the nose when facing the bomber, at the point of the ear canal from the side, or about one inch below the base of the skull from behind," the guidelines state. Acpo consults internationally and takes on board policing guidelines produced by the IACP, a spokeswoman said today. Acpo's policies must fit into the UK's legal framework, she added. Mr De Menezes, 27, was shot dead the day after four would-be suicide bombers tried to blow up three tube trains and a bus in London. He was tailed by Met officers with the aid of the newly formed special reconnaissance regiment, after he emerged from a south London property under surveillance in connection with the attempted attacks. An inquiry has been set up to investigate the circumstances that led to the shooting amid conflicting reports about whether Mr De Menezes tried to flee when officers moved to arrest him. He had outstayed his visa by two years, the Home Office said last week. Tony Blair and the Met commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, have both apologised for the mistake and police representatives have been negotiating compensation with the family of Mr De Menezes. His killing provoked condemnation in Brazil. Julio de Souza, the mayor of Mr De Menezes' home town, Gonzaga, described the death as an "assassination". Over 6,000 mourners attended his funeral last week. Acpo guidelines state that "police officers will shoot to immediately disable and remove the threat to their lives or those of other members of the public". Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/st| ory/0,16132,1542743,00.html

Note: http://www.guardian.co....

Contributed By



Article Rating

 (0 votes) 

Options




Comments

  1. Fri Aug 05, 2005 8:15 pm
    I've been giving this issue a lot of thought lately, and I admit it's a tough call. That said, I think we have to go back to rights and ethics. Yes, there is a possible hazard that a "runner" might have a bomb. Yes, if he HAS a bomb that he might detonate and kill a lot of innocent people, he should be stopped as quickly and forcefully as deemed necessary. No, I don't think police should be allowed to shoot someone just for running away. For one thing it sets a VERY dangerous precedent and is open to abuse by those wielding that sort of power. It comes dangerously close to a police state (if that isn't already crossing the line). Quite simply, it is immoral (and I hope illegal) to stop someone with more force than necessary. It would have been OK to shoot him, if they had seen he was wearing a bomb. It wasn't OK if they only thought he could be. Technically, if the police have the right to do that, they could also have the right to shoot anyone they felt like shooting, using the "I thought he was an imminent danger to the public" rationale. That's what the police are doing now in Haiti. So far as I'm aware, non of the people they killed have been armed, or doing much more than "looking suspicious".

    No, I'm afraid if we are to live in a civilized society, we can't allow the police such power. Granted there is a greater risk of someone who might have a bomb detonating it, but on the whole, I don't think the policy is going to make much difference in that regard. Where it WILL make a lot of difference, is in whether we can still call ourselves a free society. Frankly, I'd rather take the chance of a terrorist bomb going off, killing me & my family, than having us live in a society where those in authority can shoot us without just cause. Suspicion, simply isn't just cause.

  2. Fri Aug 05, 2005 8:25 pm
    Of course a police officer must shoot to kill a suicide bomber before they go off if they don't feel like dying that day.

  3. by RPW
    Fri Aug 05, 2005 10:56 pm
    We have to decide if we want "anticipatory" laws, to prevent us from injuring ourselves and others (pre-blast), or do we want laws that deal with proven crimes (post-blast). Can't have both.

    ---
    RickW

  4. by avatar Milton
    Sat Aug 06, 2005 11:22 am
    We have to decide whether we want justice or we want "just us"! There are other questions to be asked about the public execution/murder that took place in London. Here are a few of those questions:

    1) Where was this murdered electrician working in July 2005?

    2)Is his murder connected to his work?

    3)Why did the police/assassins allow him to get into a crowded place before they attacked him?

    4)Why do the eye witness accounts of what happened not jibe with the assassins accounts of what happened?

    These are just a few lines of inquiry which a proper investigation would take into account. We don't have proper investigations anymore because our authorities know everything. They tell us everyday that we will be attacked by "thus and so" and that it is inevitable. To enhance our security, they say, we must give up our freedoms. Why? Because it is our freedoms that the enemy hates? So, the enemy wins because our freedoms are taken away to protect us from those who hate our freedoms?

    Sounds like the start of another psycho religion to me.

    We have to decide whether we want laws that apply to everyone equally or do we want an ad hoc kangaroo court run by the ruling class. Is our new creed to be "Do unto others before they do unto you, and keep doing unto them so that they won't ever be able to do unto you"?

  5. by michou
    Sat Aug 06, 2005 12:33 pm
    The Bush Cabal already made that decision for all of us when they "pre"empted Iraq and as Milton eloquently states in his comment below, removing freedoms in order to protect them is nonsensical. Pretty soon, they will want to protect us from ourselves. Should I expect to be 'pre'served soon ? <p>---<br>« Il y a une belle, une terrible rationalité dans la décision d'être libre. » - Gérard Bergeron <br />

  6. Sat Aug 06, 2005 12:54 pm
    Psyscho religion? THATS NOT KOSHER IN THAT RELIGION GAVE US COMMON SENSE LAWS TO BE A FAIR MINDED PEOPLE. Take a good look at your Anglo-Saxon roots and then tell me about religion. Thank the stars we have some law whether it is Religious or nor determines how fair we are in the past and in the future. Shame on you.

  7. Sat Aug 06, 2005 9:52 pm
    Yeah, the problem is that "pre-emptive" strikes are really just "first strikes", with the fancier name used to make them more palatable. Same goes whether it's against a whole country or against a single potential "terrorist".

    All this actually has me yearning for the good ol days when Bush was governor. At least in Texas people get a trial before they get sentenced to death, even though in some cases people are still found to be innocent after the fact. This poor guy in London didn't even get that much, not even a sham of justice, before the police killed him.

    Tell me, when did we start making decisions based on fantasy rather than facts and evidence? Since when did we give police the right to kill people for hypotheticals? Since when did it become "guilty until proven innocent" instead of the other way around? "Shoot first, ask questions later" is also a lousy way of getting any information.

    Ultimately, the potential for abuse is just too great. Anybody heard about the experiment where they had regular people act as prison guards and prisoners--which had to be shut down because the abuses of power became dangerous to the people involved?? It's starting to feel like the whole world is now involved in that experiment.

    And as others have pointed out, it means that we ALL face the possibility that if we act "suspicious" we get shot in the head 7 times. Or shipped off to Syria for torture. Or to Guantanamo Bay.

    THAT is terrifying to me.

    ---
    "When I told him about class warfare, he asked if we did it in JellO."--translation/paraphrase, The Candidate, CBC

  8. Sat Aug 06, 2005 9:56 pm
    But it's different to shoot someone with dynamite actually strapped to their chest as opposed to just someone wearing a long jacket, or scared of the police, or in their own little world. That's the problem.

    ---
    "When I told him about class warfare, he asked if we did it in JellO."--translation/paraphrase, The Candidate, CBC

  9. Sun Aug 07, 2005 12:03 am
    I believe that canada should be conquered. It would be very cool.

  10. Sun Aug 07, 2005 12:08 am
    No, Cananda is an ally to the U.S., and it's resources are valued greatly. Furthermore, many people from Canada prove to be smarter than your average American, and much more open-minded.You may want to re-think your opinion.~Elsa

  11. Sun Aug 07, 2005 12:10 am
    go home. i still think canadas gay.

  12. Sun Aug 07, 2005 12:11 am
    and who uses the word, "Furthermore"?

  13. Sun Aug 07, 2005 12:14 am
    Your vocabulary is as limited as your mind is. I doubt you even know where Canada is on a map. You have alot to learn!~Jason

  14. Sun Aug 07, 2005 12:16 am
    o no man, if you are, i do no wer canada is, and i no wat furthermore means, yet y say furthermore when you can just save sylables and typing time, by saying also?



view comments in forum


You need to be a member and be logged into the site, to comment on stories.




Your Voice

To post to the site, just sign up for a free membership/user account and then hit submit. Posts in English or French are welcome. You can email any other suggestions or comments on site content to the site editor. (Please note that Vive le Canada does not necessarily endorse the opinions or comments posted on the site.)

canadian bloggers | canadian news