London Shooting: What would you have do?

[TheStatutoryApe]

Could you please indicate or clarify how that relates to my post?

Sorry, I didn't intend to direct that at you specifically but the question of why the man was shot so many times in general.

 

[hitssquad]

I remember, maybe 1 year ago, an argentinian men was ilegaly modifying glocks and beretas to full auto, and selling them in the net, he was caught by fbi agents and sent to USA.

The rarely-talked-about Glock 18 is fully automatic from the factory. It is the full-auto version of the Glock 17. Apparently full-autos are legal for carry in the Philippines. This person has posted videos of himself firing his various full-auto weapons including both of his full-auto Glocks.
http://www.starsol.org/ericl/quicktm.html

Interestingly, neither of his Glocks are Glock 18s (he has a full-auto Glock 26 and a full-auto Glock 19). I don't know if his Glocks came from the factory that way.

 

[Townsend]

I think most gun people would contest this. There are instances of people surviving gunshot wounds to the head, even from .45s* (I think this was probably a Beretta 92 which is a 9mm=.355 caliber). Five shots is surer than one shot, though still not a guarantee, as experience in the field has proven.

I have heard of a double tap and a triple tap but a penta tap? All in the base of the skull? And while the guy is being held down? That's crazy...

And I would not contest the idea that a double or triple tap is needed to ensure the guy is dead but I see no reason for five shots in the base of the skull. It is not needed and is probably really gross...

As far as field experience goes...how many people have survived a 9mm or larger double tap at point blank range? I would bet that less than 1% would survive.

 

[hitssquad]

As far as field experience goes...how many people have survived a 9mm or larger double tap at point blank range?

It isn't relevant what proportion survive. It is only relevant that some do survive and that it was determined that the suspect needed to be stopped from functioning immediately.

Your car would probably start if it had a somewhat smaller battery. If it is sick to immediately ensure decommissioning of the suspect, isn't it also sick that you use a battery that is larger than one that would probably work?

 

[The Smoking Man]

Yet another set of theories:

Brazilian Running Late When Killed by UK Cops
Brits Link Bombs to Iraq War

SAO PAULO, Brazil, July 25--The Brazilian electrician mistakenly killed by British plainclothes police may have run from them because he was afraid they were hoodlums, or simply because he was late for work, his friends told Brazilian newspapers in articles published Sunday.

Jean Charles de Menezes, 27, was shot dead Friday in a subway train after being chased by police through Stockwell Underground station in south London, AFP reported.

Gesio de Avila, a co-worker, said Menezes had called him when he entered the station to tell him he would be a little late for work.

The two were to install a fire alarm in a building in northwest London, Avila said.

“If he ran, it was simply because he was late,“ Avila told O Estado de Sao Paulo from London.

Menezes’ family earlier said he was on his way to work when he was killed.
Fausto Soares, who lives in London and was a friend of the victim, told O Globo newspaper that Menezes probably ran away from the plainclothes officers because he thought they were attackers.

“He was assaulted by Englishmen (two weeks earlier) and because of that he may have been scared,“ said Soares, who is Brazilian.

 

[The Smoking Man]

It isn't relevant what proportion survive. It is only relevant that some do survive and that it was determined that the suspect needed to be stopped from functioning immediately.

Your car would probably start if it had a somewhat smaller battery. If it is sick to immediately ensure decommissioning of the suspect, isn't it also sick that you use a battery that is larger than one that would probably work?

No.

It is sick that you equate a human being with a car and battery.

The man was being held down by two police officers while another was close enough to put 7 bullets into his medulla oblongata ... the base of the skull.

If he had been a terrorist, he had the distance from the subway entrance to the train ... the LOWEST train and not the closest train by the way ... to detonate or at least prepare to detonate.

If he was a terrorist, why wouldn't he have gone for the closest target rather than head for the train with the least populated ... the one going OUT of the city on a morning?

(His destination was North West London where he was wiring a fire alarm NOT the downtown)

 

[Smurf]

It keeps nagging at me, if he was being held down by two officers, why did they need to shoot him in the first place? Are two men not capable of keeping his arms in sight and immobile? They had him pinned down.

 

[The Smoking Man]

I don't know about London but around here in many circumstances it is common practice to unload the weopon completely when a police officer shoots to kill.

What part of Alabama are you from where you unload a full clip into the base of a skull of a man being pinned to the ground by two other policemen? This gun was a Glock 18: http://www.glock.com/g18.htm

You do realize that a Glock 18 has a magazine that has 31 bullets?

Even the rednecks around your place might choose to stop before the face and dental records completely disappeared.

Please recognize something ... these were not typecal police men. They were not even the usual suspects who get handed a weapon for standard use.

These were a special tactical unit for terrorist responses.

A glock 18 IS NOT STANDARD ISSUE.

 

[hitssquad]

Glock 18 vs Glock 17

What part of Alabama are you from where you unload a full clip into the base of a skull of a man being pinned to the ground by two other policemen? This gun was a Glock 18: http://www.glock.com/g18.htm

You do realize that a Glock 18 has a magazine that has 31 bullets?

It was a Glock 17.
guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1535984,00.html

--
[...] an initial two-week training course in the use of the Glock 17, which was the weapon that killed Jean Charles de Menezes [...]
--


The Glock 17 is a 9mm and is standard issue at most police departments in the U.S. It uses double stack magazines and the police-only magazine hold 17 or 19 rounds. Extra-long magazines hold 31 rounds, but these are plainclothes police officers who might look funny with giant magazines sticking out of their concealed guns.

The Glock 18 is a factory full-auto Glock 17.
remtek.com/arms/glock/model/9/18/

--
The G18C looks like a standard Glock 17 9x19mm handgun. Whatever carry method is good for a handgun is the same for the G18. It is a very non-threatening piece of equipment. No bad guy, spectator or news reporter would have a clue until the gun is fired.

The G18 is controllable and will not spray bullets indiscriminately all over the area, despite the 50 to 70 years of bad press that has accrued to the concept of shooting a hand-held machine pistol. Common wisdom is that you can not hit anything with the gun without a shoulder stock, and even with the stock it is still an iffy proposition. Common wisdom has not shot a Glock 18!
--

 

[The Smoking Man]

It was a Glock 17.
guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1535984,00.html

--
[...] an initial two-week training course in the use of the Glock 17, which was the weapon that killed Jean Charles de Menezes [...]
--


The Glock 17 is a 9mm and is standard issue at most police departments in the U.S. It uses double stack magazines and the police-only magazine hold 17 or 19 rounds. Extra-long magazines hold 31 rounds, but these are plainclothes police officers who might look funny with giant magazines sticking out of their concealed guns.

The Glock 18 is a factory full-auto Glock 17.
remtek.com/arms/glock/model/9/18/

--
The G18C looks like a standard Glock 17 9x19mm handgun. Whatever carry method is good for a handgun is the same for the G18. It is a very non-threatening piece of equipment. No bad guy, spectator or news reporter would have a clue until the gun is fired.

The G18 is controllable and will not spray bullets indiscriminately all over the area, despite the 50 to 70 years of bad press that has accrued to the concept of shooting a hand-held machine pistol. Common wisdom is that you can not hit anything with the gun without a shoulder stock, and even with the stock it is still an iffy proposition. Common wisdom has not shot a Glock 18!
--

So ... you think they went full auto with a standard clip?

 

[hitssquad]

So ... you think they went full auto with a standard clip?

It was a Glock 17. You can't shoot full auto with a Glock 17.

 

[Smurf]

You're not fooling anyone with that quick edit hitssquad, we saw you!

 

[The Smoking Man]

It was a Glock 17. You can't shoot full auto with a Glock 17.

Sombody.Else.Here.Reported.It.Was.A.Glock.18

Well, this proves that it wasn't an accident that 8 bullets got put into his head then.

If it was a revolver, he would have had to stop to re-load.

 

[Smurf]

Sombody.Else.Here.Reported.It.Was.A.Glock.18

*sigh* and no one else will ever get it

Well, this proves that it wasn't an accident that 8 bullets got put into his head then.

If it was a revolver, he would have had to stop to re-load.

Unless they modified it illegally to be fully automatic !

But then.. that's ok, because they're cops. I'm sure they knew what was best when they were doing it.

 

[russ_watters]

Uh... shoot to kill. If he's disabled, he can still hit the trigger if he's carrying a bomb.

[from the poll] Shoot for a body shot.

For everyone's info, shooting to disable is not allowed in any rules of engagement I've ever heard of. Guns are meant for one thing, killing, and you can only pull a gun and shoot it in a shoot-to-kill situation for several reasons: one, as enigma said, being "disabled" is not an easy criteria. Two, shooting to disable can permanently maim someone and that's considered cruel and unusual punishment. Third, if you're shooting to disable, you could still end up killing the person, so you can't take the risk of using the gun to disable someone.

 

[The Smoking Man]

For everyone's info, shooting to disable is not allowed in any rules of engagement I've ever heard of. Guns are meant for one thing, killing, and you can only pull a gun and shoot it in a shoot-to-kill situation for several reasons: one, as enigma said, being "disabled" is not an easy criteria. Two, shooting to disable can permanently maim someone and that's considered cruel and unusual punishment. Third, if you're shooting to disable, you could still end up killing the person, so you can't take the risk of using the gun to disable someone.

Just a minute, we'll have the British police alter their rules of engagement to suit your interpretation then.http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050726/ap_on_re_eu/shoot_to_kill_2

 

[Art]

For everyone's info, shooting to disable is not allowed in any rules of engagement I've ever heard of. Guns are meant for one thing, killing, and you can only pull a gun and shoot it in a shoot-to-kill situation for several reasons: one, as enigma said, being "disabled" is not an easy criteria. Two, shooting to disable can permanently maim someone and that's considered cruel and unusual punishment. Third, if you're shooting to disable, you could still end up killing the person, so you can't take the risk of using the gun to disable someone.

Well you'll never be able to say that again

Rules of engagement for armed police (ACPO guidelines)
Must identify themselves and declare intent to fire (unless this risks serious harm)
Usually trained to aim for the torso, to incapacitate and for greater accuracy
Should reassess situation after each shot

 

[russ_watters]

Just a minute, we'll have the British police alter their rules of engagement to suit your interpretation then.http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050726/ap_on_re_eu/shoot_to_kill_2

You must have misunderstood the link, because it does not contradict what I said.

edit: for further clarification, when they said "shoot-to-kill" in the article, that was a poor choice of words and probably what confused you. A better way to say it would be "shoot-on-sight", meaning that you can kill someone even if they aren't a direct threat to anyone. That's the type of policy the UK denies having.

 

[russ_watters]

Well you'll never be able to say that again

Jeez, both of you - can you stop with the arguing for the sake of arguing? You're wrong too.

Shooting someone in the torso is a deadly-force shot. Yes, the goal of shooting is to eliminate the threat: the way to do that is with deadly force. People often suggest that criminals could/should be shot in the knee/leg/gun hand and that's the misconception that I was trying to dispel.

Rereading the poll, its not at all clear what is meant by "shoot for a body shot" since that should be covered by "shoot to kill".

edit: HERE are the DOD guidelines on the use of deadly force. Note first of all the definition of deadly force: "Force that a person uses causing, or that a person knows or should know would create a substantial risk of causing, death or serious bodily harm." Essentially, by definition, shooting means shooting to kill.

 

[Art]

Jeez, both of you - can you stop with the arguing for the sake of arguing? You're wrong too.

I'm wrong? I didn't write the ACPO guidelines I'm just quoting them.

Shooting someone in the torso is a deadly-force shot. Yes, the goal of shooting is to eliminate the threat: the way to do that is with deadly force. People often suggest that criminals could/should be shot in the knee/leg/gun hand and that's the misconception that I was trying to dispel.

The reason the guidelines were (secretly) recently changed in the UK was because under the old rules the idea was to disable a target hopefully without killing him / her whereas now in the case of suspected suicide bombers the new rule is to kill outright.

Rereading the poll, its not at all clear what is meant by "shoot for a body shot" since that should be covered by "shoot to kill".

It's not for the reasons I just gave above.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm wrong? I didn't write the ACPO guidelines I'm just quoting them.

And misunderstanding them.

The reason the guidelines were (secretly) recently changed in the UK was because under the old rules the idea was to disable a target hopefully without killing him / her whereas now in the case of suspected suicide bombers the new rule is to kill outright.

It doesn't say that in the quote you posted. Do you have a source?

 

[Art]

edit: HERE are the DOD guidelines on the use of deadly force. Note first of all the definition of deadly force: "Force that a person uses causing, or that a person knows or should know would create a substantial risk of causing, death or serious bodily harm." Essentially, by definition, shooting means shooting to kill.

These are the US guidelines, surprisingly the UK has it's own.

 

[russ_watters]

These are the US guidelines, surprisingly the UK has it's own.

Indeed - please post the guidelines where it supports what you said. What you posted doesn't.

 

[Art]

And misunderstanding them. It doesn't say that in the quote you posted. Do you have a source?

Ah so you see

Reasess the situation after each shot

as make sure they're dead and if not fire again.

 

[DM]

Hasn't the UK adopted 'Shoot-to-kill' policies by Israel?

 

[Art]

Hasn't the UK adopted 'Shoot-to-kill' policies by Israel?

Yes they have. As of February this year I believe. Russ seems to believe this was always UK policy.

 

[russ_watters]

Here, Art, I'll make it easier for you. http://www.acpo.police.uk/asp/policies/Data/firearms.pdf are the ACPO guidelines. Please show me where it says that police officers may shoot to disable only - ie shoot without the reasonable expectation of killing the target.

 

[Antiphon]

I fully suppor the shoot to kill policy. It's long overdue.

When the subways are being bombed by religious neo-facists, you
better not bolt when the police tell you to stop. And if you're wearing
a heavy coat in the hot weather on top of it then expect a hot slug.

 

[The Smoking Man]

I fully suppor the shoot to kill policy. It's long overdue.

When the subways are being bombed by religious neo-facists, you
better not bolt when the police tell you to stop. And if you're wearing
a heavy coat in the hot weather on top of it then expect a hot slug.

He was wearing a 'sweat-shirt' with a zipper (fleece Jacket) and it was 20C - 68F.

 

[Antiphon]

He was wearing a 'sweat-shirt' with a zipper (fleece Jacket) and it was 20C - 68F.

Ok. I'll retract the "expect a hot slug" part. The rest stands.

 

[Anttech]

I fully suppor the shoot to kill policy. It's long overdue.

When the subways are being bombed by religious neo-facists, you
better not bolt when the police tell you to stop. And if you're wearing
a heavy coat in the hot weather on top of it then expect a hot slug.

Hell yeh, and while we are at it, why not introduce Marshal law, and sign all our rights away to the government so they can better protect us, Orwell style!

The police made a big mistake, another innocent life was lost, the people who did this should be made accountable! Twichy police with Guns only plays into the hands of the terrorists!

You can't go around "shooting" people on the subway without very good reason (Its just not Brittish! ) ... I'll admit he shouldn't have run, but what is wrong with using a stun gun, until they were 100% sure of the guys motives!

 

[The Smoking Man]

Ok. I'll retract the "expect a hot slug" part. The rest stands.

M'kay ... I don't advise you run for a train then.

 

[alexandra]

There is an option you have failed to enter into the poll ...

"Raid the house for which they had the address 24 hous before."

If they thought this was where the bombers may be originating from and they had an address, why didn't they go in and clear the premises?

I haven't read the whole thread yet, but so far this option definitely gets my vote.

 

[alexandra]

I could definitely see a handover from one team to the other contributing to this. In fact, I can practically imagine the conversation about the suspect and the slowly rising stress as it dawned on them that they might be facing a terribly critical decision instead of just accomplishing routine surveillance.

Good point, BobG - if there was a breakdown of communication at the point of the handover then this could have been a huge contributing factor.

 

[alexandra]

Someone points a gun at me, I'm putting my hands in the air.

Perhaps this would have been the wisest thing to do if we were living in different times, loseyourname, but according to some information located by TSM this would not guarantee you your life any more (this is what I mean about there no longer being rule by law):

...

The SAS members defended their actions in court by claiming all three made threatening moves — either to grab a weapon or to trigger a bomb — in the split second before they were shot. Witnesses, however, claimed they saw two of the IRA members put their hands in the air before they were shot, while a third was "finished off" when lying on the ground.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050726/ap_on_re_eu/shoot_to_kill_2