London Bridge - Terrorist Attack

[Fish]

I've read a couple times now it was a classic "double tap" ? On the face of things a double tap sounds like it should be bang/bang but having watched it, that's not how it seemed, it was more like bang.....delay...bang. but what do I know.

At such close quarters I’d expect the body on the first shot to move, more likely rise and fall, especially as the terrorist was lying on the ground, so the slight delay is due to a first shot being discharged to the body, usually the chest then quickly refocus and take aim for a second kill shot, possibly the head if safe to do so.

2 specifically controlled aimed shots do not need to be fast, the recoil of whatever weapon thats being fired can and will dictate how quickly you take them, a hand gun would be much quicker dependent on its caliber than a semi automatic imo, the actions of the armed police officer were textbook in everything he did, from his stance through to him discharging his weapon. He was in total control and he neutralised the threat perfectly imo.

 

[Fish]

On the second video 7 further rounds were fired from a couple of them - it looks very strange where the guy had already been double tapped and it looked like his threat was gone by the other video of him. Hence why the question was asked if there was a second person that hasn’t been mentioned ? Or a lot of rounds into one person

Maybe with everyone back they were told to aim at the vest?

I doubt he moved again after 2 close quarter shots, but if he did, then they'd possibly fire more from distance to be sure?

No indication of a second terrorist.

 

[road2ruin]

On the second video 7 further rounds were fired from a couple of them - it looks very strange where the guy had already been double tapped and it looked like his threat was gone by the other video of him. Hence why the question was asked if there was a second person that hasn’t been mentioned ? Or a lot of rounds into one person

I’ve seen most of the videos haven’t come across one that shows any more than two shots. Can you share?

As far as I am concerned the police acted correctly, you cannot ask for the attacker to give you a sec so you can check to see if the vest etc was real. They believed so and acted. To be honest the guy probably got his wish, being shot but at least we don’t have tax payers money keeping him locked up.

The bigger question is why he was out in the first place. Why were IPP’s abolished for fixed term sentences when there are people like this incapable if change.

 

[Fish]

I’ve seen most of the videos haven’t come across one that shows any more than two shots. Can you share? .

it was confirmed by the Police Commissioner that ‘further shots were applied’. They were from quite a distance though and once the immediate area near the terrorist was clear.

Too easy to read more into it, they have to have ‘good cause’ to discharge their weapons, so if they did, as was confirmed, it was because they believed the initial threat wasn’t fully neutralised.

 

[ger147]

The Police who attended the incident carried out a very difficult job extremely well. I'm sure the investigation will find that the decisions made were 100% correct under the circumstances given what was known at the time the decisions were taken.

 

[Pin-seeker]

Just shows how hard a job the police have when we have so many snowflakes that live in a bubble that question everything.

 

[USER1999]

I'm not.
It would be interesting to hear your reasons why Murph.
Alternatives?????

Not sure, and I am glad I don't have to make the decision. Just not that into killing people I guess. I like to think I live in a civilsed country. No judge, jury, executioner all in one.

Jean Paul DeMenenzies still worries me.

 

[Pin-seeker]

Not sure, and I am glad I don't have to make the decision. Just not that into killing people I guess. I like to think I live in a civilsed country. No judge, jury, executioner all in one.

Jean Paul DeMenenzies still worries me.

I’d also like to think I live in a world where scum don’t want to take innocent life’s.
But sadly that’s not true.

 

[woofers]

Not sure, and I am glad I don't have to make the decision. Just not that into killing people I guess. I like to think I live in a civilsed country. No judge, jury, executioner all in one.

Jean Paul DeMenenzies still worries me.

I agree with regarding Jean Paul DeMenenzies but the incident yesterday was different.

Someone who’s dress sense includes wearing an explosive vest is not somehow normal and they are surely intent on causing fear and harm.
Can you imagine the police officers trying to make an arrest -
“OK mate, you’re under arrest, anything you say....what’s that button you’re ...” BOOM.
Operation Kratos in action yesterday.

 

[USER1999]

Sure, it's different, but still not comfortable with it.

 

[Smiffy]

Sure, it's different, but still not comfortable with it.

Don't get me wrong Murph, I'm not comfortable with anybody being killed.
But given the choice of one crazed individual or the possibility of scores of innocent people out shopping just before Christmas??
Two bullets to the head wins it for me.

 

[Hobbit]

Don't get me wrong Murph, I'm not comfortable with anybody being killed.
But given the choice of one crazed individual or the possibility of scores of innocent people out shopping just before Christmas??
Two bullets to the head wins it for me.

Its a "like" from me but even the comment, "two bullets to the head wins it from me" sounds brutal. And if the choice is between innocent bystanders blown up by a suicide vest or the death of the terrorist there is no choice.

But having accepted what is in effect a death sentence, what should the outcome be if he'd been captured? Taking a step back for a second what further damage could the terrorist do if captured? If released he could go on to commit further atrocities - think that's what he did following his release under licence. He could go on to radicalise others in prison who would go on to commit terrorist atrocities.

For me, there are two choices; death penalty... no not ever. And in reality I don't ever expect the UK will go back to having it on the statute books. Which actually leaves us with one choice, imprisonment.

And it is with imprisonment that there are a number of choices. Length of sentence = life. If the terrorist is in for life he won't directly commit further atrocities. Solitary confinement to stop radicalisation of others? I'm uncomfortable with things that might be deemed inhumane. But why not have a T wing in a prison where all the radicals are kept. They're in for life, so are quite welcome to have whatever conversations with each other they want. No TV, no newspapers, no access to social media or computers.

Personalising the threat; there was a question asked earlier in the thread, "what if it was your wife, daughter..." The response, no doubt a personal one, was dismissive. Our daughter works in Westminster. She was travelling to work on the Tube when the July bombings occurred. She used to use the Tube station where the Brazilian De Menezes was shot. She was leaving her office in Westminster when a Police Officer 20yds away shot the killer of PC Keith Palmer. Our heart sinks every time we hear of an incident, and doesn't recover till we get the text message from her saying she's ok. I want the threat removed!

No doubt there'll be lots of noise about reviews etc. My first act, if I had the choice, would be to revoke the licence of every convicted terrorist.

 

[Imurg]

If you are committing inhuman acts do you deserve to be treated in an inhuman manner..?
In a way, we do have a form of Capital Punishment....
And it was delivered the other day
If you commit acts of atrocity and the Police, in their judgement, deem it necessary to neutralise the threat by taking your life then it amounts to the same as someone doing the same thing but is captured, tried, convicted and hanged/shot/lethal injection......that just takes longer.
I would have had no qualms about the Police taking out the killers of Lee Rigby or anyone, in similar circumstances, who has or is about to take a life.

 

[Smiffy]

The money it would cost to process and incacerate nut jobs like this is astronomical. I'd rather it went on education or the NHS.

 

[PhilTheFragger]

Basically if you wear a bomb vest, you will be shot dead by the police, they cannot take the chance or the time to find out if it is real or fake.

I heard a story of a bloke going to a fancy dress party dressed as a terrorist was told in no uncertain terms by a mate who was a copper to remove his fake vest immediately as it was a danger to his life.

Idiot

 

[Fish]

I would have had no qualms about the Police taking out the killers of Lee Rigby or anyone, in similar circumstances, who has or is about to take a life.

I’m not sure what the current rules of engagement are, but based on my yellow card, I had the discretion to open fire without warning if my life or anyone I was in a position to protect was in danger of their life or seriously injury.

So if there’s not much difference between any agencies, armed forces, police etc, then knowing lives had been taken, injuries and the threat to commit more was evident by being in possession of a knife and then seeing a suicide vest, then you open fire without hesitation.

I would think the rules haven’t changed that much, maybe slightly reworded, but the ability to open fire when any life threatening actions are being performed or have been performed, then you simply remove the threat quickly with lethal force, so it’s still there imo.

 

[Wolf]

I’m not sure what the current rules of engagement are, but based on my yellow card, I had the discretion to open fire without warning if my life or anyone I was in a position to protect was in danger of their life or seriously injury.

So if there’s not much difference between any agencies, armed forces, police etc, then knowing lives had been taken, injuries and the threat to commit more was evident by being in possession of a knife and then seeing a suicide vest, then you open fire without hesitation.

I would think the rules haven’t changed that much, maybe slightly reworded, but the ability to open fire when any life threatening actions are being performed or have been performed, then you simply remove the threat quickly with lethal force, so it’s still there imo.

The Joint service agreement in association with the Armed forces act 2006 which governs all rules of engagement and rulings by which any crimes will be prosecuted from memory states.

The law applies to Service personnel throughout the world due to the operation of the Armed Forces Act 2006, and provides that a person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances for self-defence, the defence of others, the prevention of crime or the lawful arrest of offenders.

Where it gets a bit of a grey are is what happens during an attack where life is taken but continued threat cannot be guaranteed or is open to interpretation. For example I remember on one 1 tour we had an ops officer giving us a briefing on the JSA to keep us current, he explained an incident to us where there had been a section out on patrol and a gunman dressed as a civvy had walked up to and shot 4 men in the face then dropped his weapon on the ground to surrender it couldn't be seen if he had any other weapons but had the remaining section members shot him in return for his actions they would have been convicted of a war crime for killing what seemed to be an unarmed man. However had he been wearing an S Vest then they could have taken the shot regardless and neutralised the threat.

Which is what the police officers did in London and is why they carried out the correct actions even though he was on the floor, they'll still get investigated for it as everytime a fire arm is used they have an obligation to but in that case should be easily shown as a lawful killing.

 

[USER1999]

The guy in question was disarmed by the public, held by the public, and then shot by the police.

If his vest was real, why would he not have set it off at the event he was there to participate in. The event where sadly, he stabbed people, but a bomb blast would have been more effective.

I am still not sure this was right.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

The guy in question was disarmed by the public, held by the public, and then shot by the police.

If his vest was real, why would he not have set it off at the event he was there to participate in. The event where sadly, he stabbed people, but a bomb blast would have been more effective.

I am still not sure this was right.

He had his knives took off him, was still fighting with the public, the policeman shouted bomb when he was turned over.
How do you know he didn’t think there wasn’t enough people to denote his vest in the building and ran outside to maybe get on a bus or run into a crowded pub.
You are using hindsight to ask questions, the people caught up in this had no time to think and debate.

 

[Captainron]

100% behind the killing of the terrorist. Take zero chances with that sort of thing.
“Surrender” to draw some police in for the arrest and then set it off to make more of a statement? No ta. Dead people can’t set off bombs