HomeQuote Of The DayQuote Of The Day – War On Terror Edition Quote Of The Day – War On Terror Edition Kevin July 26, 2005 Quote Of The Day 14 Comments “Shoot to kill is the only option“ John Stalker, a former Deputy Chief Constable from Manchester, explains the reasoning behind Britain’s terrorism engagement policy. Something old, something new, something borrowed, something blew (up) Notes From Around The Blogoshpere Related Posts Quote Of The Day – 'Rescue Me' Edition Quote Of The Day – Nanny State Edition Quote Of The Day – Red State/Blue Review Edition About The Author Kevin Kevin founded Wizbang in 2003. He still contributes occasionally and handles all the technical and design work for the site. 14 Comments Scott Ferguson July 26, 2005 Stalker says: “My heart goes out to that poor young man. He is just as much a victim of the suicide bombers as the tube and bus passengers killed a fortnight ago.” Jesus. He can’t seem to wrap his mind around the notion that maybe, just maybe, the Brazilian was a victim of a police officer who pumped five bullets into his head while he was laying prone in submission on the ground. Nope, not our fault, he was a victim of terrorism. Nothing to see here, move along. Joe July 26, 2005 Scott Ferguson: So, what’s your solution? Alternate story: “Two police officers were amongst the dead as a suicide bomber detonated his belt in a London tube station. Video surveillance showed the two officers chacing the bomber, trying to stop him. The bomber was seen to stop, turn to face the officers (hand within jacket), smile, and explode.” goddessoftheclassroom July 26, 2005 “lying prone in sumission” AFTER being chased AFTER being told to stop AFTER jumping a turnstile AFTER trying to jump on a train Sabba Hillel July 26, 2005 I find it interesting that Israel would be excoriated even if they had not shot the person. Actually, the complaint should have been about the policeman shooting the suspect five times. A single “double tap” should have been enough. Then again, perhaps the trigger was sensitive enough to shoot five rounds before the officer released it. Does the report state that he was shot by one officer. Perhaps several officers triggered one (or two) rounds each. In that case, the results are good as they show careful aiming to avoid wild shots that good harm innocent bystanders. Scott Ferguson July 26, 2005 goddessoftheclassroom: Okay. So now after all that, he’s laying in front of you, on his face, not moving. All the time in the world. Pump five bullets into his head? I don’t buy the argument that “he might have had a bomb on him.” It makes no intuitive sense. If he has a bomb on him, is shooting him in the head going to NOT make it explode? What particularly galls me is that the appropriately-named Stalker is completely unwilling to countenance the possibility that perhaps the trigger man made an error of judgment, or that the policies that he may or may not have been guided by are faulty. An officer shot a supine man in the head, therefore the poor chap was a victim of terrorism??? Please. That beggars belief. joe July 26, 2005 It makes no intuitive sense. If he has a bomb on him, is shooting him in the head going to NOT make it explode? Unless it’s on a timer, yes. AnonymousDrivel July 26, 2005 RE: Scott Ferguson’s post (July 26, 2005 02:58 PM) Pump five bullets into his head? OK. What if it was just one and that one killed him? Would that have been acceptable? Do the police need a guide to indicate the appropriate number of rounds to fire at different appendages? …is shooting him in the head going to NOT make it explode? A wounded man still has innervated muscles. Unless a reflex or, as joe stated, timer is the switch, then that wounded man with a bomb is still a threat. Also, if he was a terrorist, wouldn’t he be even more incensed at his captors who shot (at) him providing even more incentive to obliterate his evil oppressors? What particularly galls me is… the possibility that perhaps the trigger man made an error of judgment, or that the policies that he may or may not have been guided by are faulty. Yes, both are possibilities. What do you suggest be the appropriate policy given that, in this case, the victim was dressed suspiciously, ran into an area past a barricade of sorts after the pleading by officers of law to stop, and headed toward an area that had been a prime target for terrorist homicide bombers just days before? An officer shot a supine man in the head, therefore the poor chap was a victim of terrorism??? In an indirect way, yes. If you want to get technical to an extreme, the man died directly from acute trauma of the brain. A bullet’s impact indirectly killed him. A gun forced that mass into his brain and indirectly killed him. An officer engaged a weapon and indirectly killed him. An officer was employed on behalf of society to defend that society and so society indirectly killed him. Contemporaneous events from an external cultural influence gone haywire caused an acutely sensitive society to respond with force and that external pressure indirectly killed him. Of course I present this extreme to emphasize that this was a chain of events whose source derived from immediate terrorist impositions. Society responds in many different ways, but it would not have responded in such a manner had terrorists not attacked just relative moments prior. Terrorists know that creating chaos is easy and such ancillary “benefits” (ugly use of the word, I know) make their actions just that much more powerful. Such events will inevitably recur until terrorism goes the way of the Dodo. Laurence Simon July 26, 2005 God a problem with it, Scott Ferguson? Fine. Go into your workshop, roll up your sleeves, and invent a solution. You’ll make billions. McGehee July 26, 2005 If there had been no bombings in London during the weeks before, de Menezes could have hopped that turnstile and risked no more than a fine. That right there is all you need to show that the terrorists bear most of the responsibility for his death. Les Nessman July 27, 2005 “So now after all that, he’s laying in front of you, on his face, not moving. All the time in the world.” All the time in the world. Hyperbole much? Palmateer July 27, 2005 It’s no longer “the war on terror,” it’s now “a global struggle against violent extremism.” http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/?feed=TopNews&article=UPI-1-20050726-20185800-bc-us-terrorslogan.xml Steve Crickmore July 27, 2005 According to ,The Guardian, today, a police source said: “If the firearms team are reasonably certain the person is a suicide bomber then there is no need to issue any (verbal) warning. What does “reasonably certain” mean to these police officers..Their record of 0 for 1, does not inspire confidence nor does Ian Blair, the Met Chief, saying “I know there have been 250 incidents since July 7, where we have considered whether we are seeing a suicide bomber,” he said. “I know that when I last saw it there had been seven times when we have got as close to calling it as ‘that’ and we haven’t.” This a relief, that 7 other calls were close to be “reasonably certain” that a London Transport passenger was a suicide bomber. No wonder Orwell was English. On the Menezes (Brazilian) case, another senior Met insider said: “When the truth comes out it is going to be horrific”…It already is. ericatruth July 28, 2005 i’m glad they shot him – should shoot more Nathan July 28, 2005 The shoot to kill policy is wrong. First, you don’t have to be alive to make something explode. Dead man triggers have been around since the 1900s. When planning a terrorist suicide attack, if the policy is “shoot to kill” then the agent will be given a dead man trigger. Second, a policy which leaves suspects in a state where they can be questioned is better than one that doesn’t. Third, a policy where mistakes can be corrected beats one where mistakes are permanent. Fourth, a shoot to kill policy enforced by plainclothes policemen is utterly indistinguishable from a hit, no matter what they were shouting. The British police who shot that man were murdering criminals.