[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]

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.