[lewis111]

Mainly aiming this at police and serious cases but you can answer generally

Discuss

[Liam-]

Yes

[Ninastar]

if a police officer is about the be killed, then absolutely.

[Denver]

Yes if the police are putting there life at risk they should be given a weapon to defend themselves

[LukeB]

Only in VERY serious cases

[kirklancaster]

Though not often - despite the increasingly exceptionally violent and insane world in which we live - I think that there WILL be times when our military or armed police have no choice than to 'kill or be killed' but there should ALWAYS be a rigorous enquiry after such an incident HAS occurred.

If I personally was faced with an insane jihadist armed with an automatic weapon AND wearing a 'Suicide Belt', I would ALWAYS shoot to kill.

For all other scenarios, I cannot see why a 'Shoot to Disable' policy is not sufficient.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

Though not often - despite the increasingly exceptionally violent and insane world in which we live - I think that there WILL be times when our military or armed police have no choice than to 'kill or be killed' but there should ALWAYS be a rigorous enquiry after such an incident HAS occurred.

If I personally was faced with an insane jihadist armed with an automatic weapon AND wearing a 'Suicide Belt', I would ALWAYS shoot to kill.

For all other scenarios, I cannot see why a 'Shoot to Disable' policy is not sufficient.

Really strong and good post,I go along with this completely.

[lewis111]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

Though not often - despite the increasingly exceptionally violent and insane world in which we live - I think that there WILL be times when our military or armed police have no choice than to 'kill or be killed' but there should ALWAYS be a rigorous enquiry after such an incident HAS occurred.

If I personally was faced with an insane jihadist armed with an automatic weapon AND wearing a 'Suicide Belt', I would ALWAYS shoot to kill.

For all other scenarios, I cannot see why a 'Shoot to Disable' policy is not sufficient.

I completely agree. Shoot to disabled should be used if police are not under immediate threat or anyone else is and they have time and are calm enough to make sure they do not kill the person
If their own or many other's lives are at risk they should be stopping the killer, not thinking about if the murderer/terrorist will die or be hurt

[JoshBB]

If absolutely necessary, for example if lots of peoples' lives were endangered and guilt was beyond doubt, then yes.

[bots]

While a policy may come into play, more depends on the ammunition used and that can't be changed on a split second dependent on the situation

[Tom4784]

Only when there's no other option.

[JoshBB]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

Though not often - despite the increasingly exceptionally violent and insane world in which we live - I think that there WILL be times when our military or armed police have no choice than to 'kill or be killed' but there should ALWAYS be a rigorous enquiry after such an incident HAS occurred.

If I personally was faced with an insane jihadist armed with an automatic weapon AND wearing a 'Suicide Belt', I would ALWAYS shoot to kill.

For all other scenarios, I cannot see why a 'Shoot to Disable' policy is not sufficient.

Very well-written. Shoot to Kill is acceptable only in exceptional circumstances such as the one you mentioned.

[Amy Jade]

I think shoot to kill should only be allowed if the situation really warrens it, such as an armed person is pointing a gun at an innocent victims head and the only way to stop the threat is STK then do it but if it's an armed person that could be stopped with less force and reasonably detained then that.

[Northern Monkey]

Yes of course.If they are going to point a gun or hold a knife to somebody or have explosives then kill them.

[Firewire]

Only in very serious cases, when there isn't another option. For example, preventing someone else's death.

[bots]

[Vicky.]

Depends. I mean, the De Mendez case should have taught us something at least...

I really don't know where I stand on this tbh, do I prefer the chance of a few innocents being killed when it makes it easier to get terrorists? :S

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Depends. I mean, the De Mendez case should have taught us something at least...

I really don't know where I stand on this tbh, do I prefer the chance of a few innocents being killed when it makes it easier to get terrorists? :S

That's what came to mind when I read the ops question. Shoot to kill policies can't afford to make mistakes with innocent civilians like Mendez. That whole scenario that led to his death was just a cluster fk of errors.

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Only when there's no other option.

....hmmm, I'm with Dezzy in this but I do also think that it's a difficult one because 'allowed to shoot to kill' can sometimes be interpreted as a first option...and I think has in many police cases...to give someone that power is then taking all control away and giving it to someone else...leaving an individual personality to decide the 'no other option' situation...and as we know, every personality is different....so hmmmm really....

[lostalex]

you shouldn't aim a gun at someone unless you are willing to kill them.

I think some people have an ignorant view of guns because of movies, they think it's easy to just shoot them in the leg to incapacitate them or even shoot the gun out of their hands because we see it in movies all the time. handguns are not that accurate especially when you only have fractions of a second to make a decision to fire.

[Scarlett.]

I probably would have been against the idea last year, but it's clear we are entering more dangerous times, but it must always be when there is no other option, like as in, someone who is obviously going to kill others, and not some guy who is running away from guys with guns.

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Chewy

I probably would have been against the idea last year, but it's clear we are entering more dangerous times, but it must always be when there is no other option, like as in, someone who is obviously going to kill others, and not some guy who is running away from guys with guns.

don't you think, if you make a general rule, if you run away from police they cannot use any force against you it will encourage ALL criminals to run??

It's like saying no police can break the speed limit when they are pursuing a criminal. all that does is tell the criminals if they break speed limit they can get away.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by lostalex

don't you think, if you make a general rule, if you run away from police they cannot use any force against you it will encourage ALL criminals to run??

It's like saying no police can break the speed limit when they are pursuing a criminal. all that does is tell the criminals if they break speed limit they can get away.

There are ways of using force on criminals running from the police that don't involve shooting them down.

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

There are ways of using force on criminals running from the police that don't involve shooting them down.

but it gives the criminals another advantage, doesn't it?

[Ammi]

..there is no coming back from shoot to kill if it's implemented, no margin of human error and it's a human who is holding the gun..if someone is innocent of a crime, then they are dead ..if someone is guilty of a crime, then their sentence of death has been decided out of any law/justice system...