Viewing Thread:
"YH QoTD"

[URL]http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13394581,00.html[/URL]

So, the bloke that was shot at Stockwell on Thrusday (Friday?) was not a bomber.

And now his family is suing the police.

So, a couple of questions here:

1. Is the shoot to kill policy correct, in your view?

2. Should his family sue?


I think that if he was innocent, why did he run off? I know if I was confronted by a number of men with guns, then I'd stop pretty damn quick - even if I couldn't understand what they were saying.

As for the shoot to kill policy, I think that it is the right thing to do. If you shoot to injure, a suicide bomber could still detonate their device, so you don't actually stop anything.

Looking at it completly objectively, 1 dead innocent is far better than 10 dead innocents.

Obviously no dead would be best, but can the police take the chance?

JFH wrote:
> Couldn't the police just invest in some tranquilizer darts?

I doubt they are as effective (no doubt as in the movies a person shot doesn't drop immediately) + certain rounds of bullet will go through solid objects whereas a dart won't.

SubZero would be handy.

Couldn't the police just invest in some tranquilizer darts? I'm sure that somebody has by now invented some that work instantly and are safe to use on humans. You would disable the suspect, check them over for any signs of being a terrorist, interview them if necessary, then either arrest them or set them free depending on the outcome.

I'm sure I've missed an obvious flaw here so please point it out to me.

Yes let's all take the moral highground after the event and after we know now the guy wasn't a bomber.

Nope: You run from armed police in a terrorism hotspot: you get shot.

End of.

Give them some free train passes I say.

I think shoot-to-kill is a good thing, and I believe the Police did the right thing. He should have stopped when he heard a bunch of armed Police yelling 'Freeze'. He didn't stop, so they took necessary action.

I think the family are fully entitled to some compensation for the murder of their son.

What about his family sueing? Suing? Neither look right...

Anyway, no amount of cash will bring him back.

But then I'm not the one that's just lost a relative...

I would have very much like to be the guy who didn't shoot, and didn't murder an innocent man.

Run to the train, kill trapped people, probably. Would you want to be the guy who didn't shoot and watched innocent commuters die?

His visa had run out.

I suppose this new policy of shooting everyone who runs away in the head 5 times would certainly lower crime rates.

You really think suicide bombers would run away anyway? Or would they perhaps surrender like reasonable people, and then blow themselves up?