Woolwich soldier killing

[jimbob.someroo]

Having seen the film clip last night and heard the culprit talking I found my self thinking "terrorist attack - really ?" Doesn't anyone else have the thought that is this simply two psychopathic individuals with no control or perspective or care for consequence who were happy to gratuitously brutalise and behead a victim who may or may not have been selected in advance and then justify the whole thing on some sense of religious injustice.

Been biting my tongue on getting involved in this thread, despite following it from t'start but wanted to echo this thought really.

There's murders every day from people of all different races and religions. I think it's fair to say that in most cases the killers and victims have different opinions on things, whether that's religion or some other reason. I think it's far too easy to lump it all in with terrorism and use it to look and condemn a wider group of people.

There was a murder of a Pakistani man in Birmingham at the start of the month. A few similarities in the fact it was racially motivated and a viscous stabbing / knifing out on the street. There's been hardly any press coverage of that - yet had it been the other way round, I'm sure we'd have heard plenty more. - http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/02/birmingham-murder-racially-motivated-police

I'm not for one minute excusing the murderers in either case or saying one is worse than the other, but this has been so hyped up by the media because of the 'terrorist' label associated and enabled a nationwide scare mongering of anyone who believes in a different faith, that it's getting out of control. This is bread and butter for news outlets like the Daily Mail / Express / Times / Sun who will have made more money today than they will have all year (so much for sticking it to Murdoch hey?!)

The blokes will go to prison in England for a long time, and if they ever get out, they're not going to be 'sent back to where they're from' as people have quite rightly pointed out, that'd be South London. This was two horrendous blokes, with a twisted warped take on religion. These sorts of people exist in all countries and all religions (look at the Christian bloke in Norway that killed all the school kids) and are unfortunate part of life. What events like this shouldn't do, is typecast entire groups of people, based on the ridiculous views of these ridiculous individuals.

 

[bladeplayer]

.

Another thing. I know from experience of firearms training that no one who is firearms trained would EVER shoot just to wound or disable a target. As someone who has undergone firearms training and carried firearms in a previous career, unless the engagement rules have changed recently failing to kill the targets from the distance they were shot from was either horrendously bad shooting or a deliberate but highly risky strategy to disable the targets but take them alive. Doing that, in my experience would never be encouraged (old school perhaps). It actually takes a fantastic shot to guarantee immediate immobilisation of a target but not death, in fact you'd use a taser for that long before your use a Gloch pistol. Unless the whole policy has changed very recently they should both be stone dead and the shooter, although publicly being praised will probably privately be torn up for toilet paper for failing to kill targets that close and that dangerous.

No offence here mate and i bow to your superior knowledge in the case but are you telling us that Armed British police would have a shoot to kill policy ? I would be amazed if this was the case ..

is it not minimum force deemed necessary ??

 

[MetalMickie]

No i dont but until i see all the evidence (never happen) its hard to have a definative judgement. Everybody has theories and bits of stories but until you see all the facts in front of you i dont believe we could ever judge it right or wrong.

But once again as per my other posts its all pointless either way if we are going to let this scum do this to us on our own soil.

I agree with much of what you say but what concerns me is that the actions of successive UK governments may have served as recruitment propaganda for the terrorist organisations.

N.B. This in no way is intended to justify or excuse these evil b******.

 

[stevie_r]

No offence here mate and i bow to your superior knowledge in the case but are you telling us that Armed British police would have a shoot to kill policy ? I would be amazed if this was the case ..

is it not minimum force deemed necessary ??

You don't shoot to wound, it's difficult to do. A firearm is a last resort.

 

[G1BB0]

behead them both, put them on display outside the tower of London!

ok a bit OTT but if we dont make examples of individuals like these 2 then sorry we are on a slippery slope. Prison will probably cost more than my lifetime tax contribution.... yeah thats right isnt it?

very angry atm but then so are a lot of people the world over. The world is knackered simples, maybe we need Klaatu to pay a visit

 

[MetalMickie]

There was a murder of a Pakistani man in Birmingham at the start of the month.

A word of caution; I don't believe that the motive for this murder has yet been established as no one has yet been arrested & charged. There is a suspicion that there may be a racial motive.

 

[G1BB0]

very good post MM

grr you edited the original one

 

[Five&One]

No offence here mate and i bow to your superior knowledge in the case but are you telling us that Armed British police would have a shoot to kill policy ? I would be amazed if this was the case ..

is it not minimum force deemed necessary ??

"Shoot to kill" is an emotive phrase born in N.Ireland during the troubles when the SAS and other elite army units were seeking out known terrorists, entrapping them and essentially killing them in cold blood as opposed to arresting them.

That's a whole different thing from being faced with a situation where there is an immediate threat to life that can only be averted by lethal force. In that circumstance you shoot to kill, every time. If you don't shoot to kill you are taking one hell of a risk allowing a dangerous life threatening target to continue to be mobile. You cannot shoot to immobilise,it's virtually impossible to get it right. Shooting to kill at that distance is relatively straightforward unless there was something or someone else close to the line of fire, which again can very quickly be eradicated by changing position. taking two steps to the left or right at that distance would change the entire line of fire and the perspective of the shot. Perhaps she (I understand it was a female officer ) thought she didn't have time to re position and take the deadly shot, doubly difficult considering she had two lethally dangerous targets to try and eliminate immediately.

 

[jimbob.someroo]

A word of caution; I don't believe that the motive for this murder has yet been established as no one has yet been arrested & charged. There is a suspicion that there may be a racial motive.

Which is fair, but it is most likely a racially motivated attack as the police don't often hint that it is without proof.

Either way there's been countless non-white victims over the past few years (as there has been white victims). There was the Indian student in Manchester, Anuj Bidve and countless previous to that - involving many different backgrounds (black/white/indian/christian/muslim etc).

I just think at times the media are to quick to lump it in with terrorism, which in turn causes nationwide outrage; instead of looking at, and chastising, the individuals responsible.

 

[Blue in Munich]

Another thing. I know from experience of firearms training that no one who is firearms trained would EVER shoot just to wound or disable a target. As someone who has undergone firearms training and carried firearms in a previous career, unless the engagement rules have changed recently failing to kill the targets from the distance they were shot from was either horrendously bad shooting or a deliberate but highly risky strategy to disable the targets but take them alive. Doing that, in my experience would never be encouraged (old school perhaps). It actually takes a fantastic shot to guarantee immediate immobilisation of a target but not death, in fact you'd use a taser for that long before your use a Gloch pistol. Unless the whole policy has changed very recently they should both be stone dead and the shooter, although publicly being praised will probably privately be torn up for toilet paper for failing to kill targets that close and that dangerous.

Was your experience ex-Army or ex-Police? Because I think you'll find the underlying policies between the two are vastly different.

 

[MegaSteve]

Which is fair, but it is most likely a racially motivated attack as the police don't often hint that it is without proof.

Either way there's been countless non-white victims over the past few years (as there has been white victims). There was the Indian student in Manchester, Anuj Bidve and countless previous to that - involving many different backgrounds (black/white/indian/christian/muslim etc).

I just think at times the media are to quick to lump it in with terrorism, which in turn causes nationwide outrage; instead of looking at, and chastising, the individuals responsible.

Don't believe the colour of the victim's skin, in London, has anything to do with him being targeted... It would seem the reason that led to him being targeted was that he was a British serviceman...

 

[jimbob.someroo]

Don't believe the colour of the victim's skin, in London, has anything to do with him being targeted... It would seem the reason that led to him being targeted was that he was a British serviceman...

Which is true, but it is the colour of the murderers skin and his beliefs which had classed it as a terrorist attack. The white bloke in Manchester killing the Indian guy because he didn't want Indian people in Manchester is an equally preposterous view but as a nation we didn't jump on it quite so heavily.

By jumping on it in this manner, we end up with the inevitable hatred for everyone remotely associated with the same religion as the murderers which IMO isn't right.

 

[Five&One]

Was your experience ex-Army or ex-Police? Because I think you'll find the underlying policies between the two are vastly different.

Not really wanting to go into that too deeply because it attracts unwanted attention. The army generally operate under 'rules of engagement' and hardly ever in a civilian environment since the peace process. Police response policies are built around the doctrine of 'reasonable force' although there were guidelines that have to be followed and a standard you had to achieve, basically the response in a lethal situation is entirely the responsibility of the individual officer. Whilst I have had the training and carried firearms (way back when)I have never been in a situation where I had to take a life and death decision to pull or not pull the trigger. That is an off the radar high pressure place to put yourself as you can probably imagine.

 

[JustOne]

Perhaps she (I understand it was a female officer ) thought she didn't have time to re position and take the deadly shot, doubly difficult considering she had two lethally dangerous targets to try and eliminate immediately.

Male or female they did a great job. Made a decision and did the deed. Two in the morgue would have been preferable, but even so... it wasn't a decision to take lightly... hats off to someone with some balls. Hopefully there won't be recriminations.

I do believe the police policy is shoot to kill (as you say), I'm sure they would have had more bullets if they had remained a threat.

 

[Fish]

Male or female they did a great job. Made a decision and did the deed. Two in the morgue would have been preferable, but even so... it wasn't a decision to take lightly... hats off to someone with some balls. Hopefully there won't be recriminations.

I do believe the police policy is shoot to kill (as you say), I'm sure they would have had more bullets if they had remained a threat.

The decision would have been quite an easy one TBH and with information, although fragmented, known to them prior to arriving at the scene, they would have been mindset to some degree that an exchange of fire was imminent.

There is a similarity between HM Forces and civilian officers rules of engagement, the common denominator in this would have been, there was an immediate threat where an individual or more who was about to course, or had coursed, or could course more loss of life and was not surrendering their (visible) weapons and were still acting in an uncontrolled and aggressive manner. A short warning would be given, more a case of announcing yourself and then its 2 shots to the "mass", that being the torso. At less than 50m this should be affective to bring the target down, remove and make safe any weapons. It is very negligible that it will become a lethal shot/s. You do not shoot to wound, ie legs or arms and how ever skilled, there is no head shot. There is no walking up to the body and popping another couple into them either ala "Ultimate Force"!

There is no "shoot to kill" policy in any engagement ruling and I have been attached to civilian services possibly more recent than Five&One and I have been in situations within both agencies, but, using a 9mm at anything greater than 30m and under such conditions with adrenalin pumping, is very much a hard shot getting 2 to the mass to bring them down and I commend the female officer, especially if she took both men down with 2 shots to both adjusting her position and no doubt with them moving also and all with the public in view. That's a very professional engagement.

A higher velocity round cannot be used in such circumstances as a miss or even a shot straight through the threats body could travel on and still take out innocent people nearby. I have seen them (police) carry Hecklers or similar before, and may still do so but, there are various velocity's (models) which again have an effective range of between 70 and over 300m's which gives you more control and assurance that you'll bring your threat down quickly and effectively.

My only criticism of watching the situation when there were "normal" police on hand for some time waiting for the armed response team was, that they didn't cordon off properly and get the general public away and around blind corners isolating the area better, this removes the miss shot or through shot from harming anyone not associated to the situation directly behind your targets.

All in all, it was professionally brought to a close but, had the 2 murderers gone on more of a rampage, I was slightly concerned at the time they were allowed to roam and parade themselves, that time could have led to more loss of lives. It may be worth considering a reaction team that could be despatched from a barracks guard room for incidents in the immediate vicinity?

The victim was a soft serviceman target, the murderer was a known activist and self proclaimed preacher, it was a political statement from the murderer which I won't call a terrorist but by his own statement to the camera, his intention and message was clear and the victim was chosen IMO.

 

[Liverbirdie]

Not really wanting to go into that too deeply because it attracts unwanted attention. The army generally operate under 'rules of engagement' and hardly ever in a civilian environment since the peace process. Police response policies are built around the doctrine of 'reasonable force' although there were guidelines that have to be followed and a standard you had to achieve, basically the response in a lethal situation is entirely the responsibility of the individual officer. Whilst I have had the training and carried firearms (way back when)I have never been in a situation where I had to take a life and death decision to pull or not pull the trigger. That is an off the radar high pressure place to put yourself as you can probably imagine.

5+1=6 MI6? Do I win a prize?

 

[Five&One]

5+1=6 MI6? Do I win a prize?

Yes I am a spy but I am normally really good at keeping it a secret

 

[Fish]

Yes I am a spy but I am normally really good at keeping it a secret

:rofl:

I was so waiting for that :thup:

 

[Liverbirdie]

:rofl:

I was so waiting for that :thup:

Me too, but the good ones are brazen and like to give a little clue.

 

[Five&One]

Me too, but the good ones are brazen and like to give a little clue.

Or its a double bluff. I have told you to your face that I am a spy, therefore you think that I couldn't possibly be one or I wouldn't have told you. That's what your supposed to think. Now you haven't got a clue whether I am a spy or not. That's top level MI6 training for you.