[NFS]

Originally Posted by silverbmwz3

If they knew someone was about to carry out a suicide attack? How do you know that for sure? I'm sure they don't advertise it - surely the only way to find someone about to carry out a suicide attack is when they have something strapped to them and are about to detonate it ? Anything else and you are catching them with bags of fertiliser in their bathroom surely?

I can't agree that shoot to kill is a bad idea. If I was on a tube and a guy walks on with a bomb I want someone to shoot him dead. It seems you are confusing/clouding it with the intelligence being poor. Perhaps the intelligence will always be poor, but to be fair they knew this guys neighbour was a terrorist. What if it had been him?

Excuse me Mr Terrorist NFS would like you to disarm that bomb you are wearing but he wouldn't like me to shoot you so if you'd like to escort me to the station .....

I'm sure these guys didn't dream this policy up for the good of their careers - I think they've proved that already, they dreamt it up for a reason.

I'm going to start of by apologising. Normally I enjoy a debate, but frankly this particular issue makes me so angry that I don't want to debate it. I won't be happy until that evil arrogant sadistic moron has been booted out of his job.

The role of the police is to protect the public.

If they suspect that someone is going to blow themselves and other people up, the police should stop them - immediately. The law already permits the use of lethal force where that force is reasonable.

They should not wait until the bomb is about to be detonated. They should arrest them - when the bags of fertiliser are still in their bedroom - not when people are at risk of being killed.

I am absolutely in favour of shooting terrorists. The problem is that I can't identify terrorists by sight and neither can the police. The killing of De Menezes proves this as does the verdict in this recent trial.

Operation Kratos says that terrorists should be shot in the head. The reason it is completely and utterly stupid, dangerous and abhorent is that no thought at all has been given as to the basis on which the officer in question decides that the target is a terrorist.

The police are not entitled to randomly kill people in the street, this wasn't an 'accident', the police didn't protect anyone in this situation. They followed an innocent man and they murdered him without warning and in cold blood.

The underlined line sums things up for me .. the intelligence WILL always be poor. This tragic incident confirms that. De Menezes did nothing wrong. I don't know what my neighbours do, but I sure as hell don't want to live in a country where the people I pay to enforce the law might shoot me seven times in the head without any warning 'by accident'.

[silverbmwz3]

I think your anger is tainting your description of what actually happened. I think we are in agreement that there doesn't seem to be sufficient hurdles, but I don't think this Kratos allows any officer to go round shooting just anyone based on 'sight' - there has to be background information - as there was in this case, so it isn't based on identifying terrorists by sight at all. It just so happens it was cocked up in this case and the background and the visual identification weren't linked. It doesn't mean they didn't have background intelligence suggesting he was a terrorist.

The police are stuck between a rock and a hard place. If your wife had been on that tube and the guy had been (as they genuinely thought he was) a suicide bomber you would have wanted him 'shot to kill' - are you seriously saying otherwise? Don't answer that because if you say you wouldn't don't believe you.

I think giving 'warnings' to suicide bombers sounds like a bit of a no-no doesn't it? Won't they then detonate whatever it is they have. You have to consider that apart from the fact we know this guy wasn't - if he was you don't want to be warning him as a policy? What they SHOULD have done IMHO is to identify an area in which they could shoot him somewhere that wouldn't kill him, with minimal other people in the area, and then tackle him. They may have saved his life then. Perhaps this wasn't possible, particularly as the firearms guys turned up late by the sound of it. That isn't the fault of this policy, it is an error, a mistake.

I agree with your last paragraph but I don't think telling the police to go softly softly on suspected suicide bombers is the answer. If they had done, and this guy was a terrorist there'd be a whole lot more dead innocent people today.

Now...to this "I don't want to debate business"....if that's the case you really should've left it at that!!!! I suspect we are possibly both people who like to have the last word as we've debated like this before but I haven't heard anything that has changed my mind thus far, perhaps I should feel guilty but I enjoy these discussions. Shall we agree to disagree ?

[NFS]

I hope you aren't offended by anything I've written and I'm happy to agree to disagree.

[Dave_3]

NFS: At the risk of starting this again. I'm not against any improvement but I don't see you putting forward an alternative ? An alternative that would work better, through a shocked chain of command, when bombs start going off on trains and buses. An alternative that you can stand behind, and would resign if it didn't work.

I am perfectly happy that they defaulted to shooting.

Tragic though the loss of an innocent life is, getting it wrong the other way is much worse. And in the fog of war with bombs going off around you - all that theoretical, nice and cosey office planning has to improvised upon.

Terrorists don't always do things that are defined in your manual. What then ? Let them blow up a train because your plan doesn't have it covered ?

Absolutely NO war/confict situation will run step-by-step according to your expectations. Mistakes are absolutely INEVITABLE. One innocent life is better than a whole train load of dead, maimed and torn apart families.

Pretty sure there were other operatives operating that day that were tasked with taking out any suspect target, regardless of Health and Safety rules. And I am glad we have that. And glad the terrorists KNOW it too.

It would be a farcical state of affairs if terrorists can target the UK, because we have a Health and Safety led policy that prevents us shooting them too harshly.

I will also agree to disagree with you

D.

[NFS]

Originally Posted by Dave_3

NFS: At the risk of starting this again. I'm not against any improvement but I don't see you putting forward an alternative ? An alternative that would work better, through a shocked chain of command, when bombs start going off on trains and buses. An alternative that you can stand behind, and would resign if it didn't work.

I am perfectly happy that they defaulted to shooting.

Tragic though the loss of an innocent life is, getting it wrong the other way is much worse. And in the fog of war with bombs going off around you - all that theoretical, nice and cosey office planning has to improvised upon.

Terrorists don't always do things that are defined in your manual. What then ? Let them blow up a train because your plan doesn't have it covered ?

Absolutely NO war/confict situation will run step-by-step according to your expectations. Mistakes are absolutely INEVITABLE. One innocent life is better than a whole train load of dead, maimed and torn apart families.

Pretty sure there were other operatives operating that day that were tasked with taking out any suspect target, regardless of Health and Safety rules. And I am glad we have that. And glad the terrorists KNOW it too.

It would be a farcical state of affairs if terrorists can target the UK, because we have a Health and Safety led policy that prevents us shooting them too harshly.

I will also agree to disagree with you

D.

I think you have misunderstood the point's I have made in earlier posts.

The Police were found guilty of endangering the Health and Safety of the general public, not the Health and Safety of terrorists. The statements you have made suggest that you may not fully understand the verdict.

They placed people in danger in two ways:

1. By allowing a suspected terrorist to enter the tube

2. By implementing a shoot to kill policy, without having considered if the target was a criminal, a danger to others or an innocent man.

The police surveilance team were not certain that De Menezes was the man they were looking for. If they had been certain I am sure that they would have arrested him before they entered the tube.

The firearms officers were instructed to stop De Menezes, not kill him. The Kratos codewords were not used, but they implemented Kratos anyway, without any information about the identity of the target.

This operation didn't make us any safer. It didn't fight terror. It achieved nothing more than the death of an innocent man.

I've not criticised the police force, they did their best. The problem is the Kratos policy and the man who created it.

The police can use reasonable force to stop a criminal. This can include lethal force. What this case demonstrates is that any policy which skips thought and goes directly to lethal force endangers all of us, is illegal and will result in the death of innocent people.

In a non Kratos world, they would not have had the 'execution' option in this case, they would have handled the situation differently and De Menezes would still be alive.

How many times since has this approach been used to fight terrorists?

What intrigues me about your response is that it doesn't address any of the points I have actually made. It's vague. I'm not being vague. I am being very very specific about what went wrong, why and the person to blame.

[Dave_3]

Originally Posted by needforspeed

1. By allowing a suspected terrorist to enter the tube

That's false. They shot him when he entered the train.

Originally Posted by needforspeed

The police surveilance team were not certain that De Menezes was the man they were looking for. If they had been certain I am sure that they would have arrested him before they entered the tube.

No, you would follow him. You don't eliminate your lead, until he gets into a position to blow up a train.

It is exactly the same with the other monitored groups. You don't just arrest them when they buy large amounts of fertiliser. You follow their aquaintances and methods. Using your criteria we throw away that opportunity and arrest them, making them all bolt, go into hiding and lie low ?

Mistakes will happen, in the following scenario almost anybody in charge would make the same decision when asked to act :

2 trains and 1 bus explode, others at large.
1. Uncertain Target: if wrong - 1 man
2. Filled Train : if wrong - 50+ people

It is pure logic.

I can't be any more specific because, like you, I don't know the minutae and real truth of the case. I am more than happy with the present situation. I am glad we have proven we will act decisively.

You criticise Kratos and the chain of command yet you still haven't proposed an alternative ? What would you suggest ?

D.

[silverbmwz3]

Originally Posted by needforspeed

I hope you aren't offended by anything I've written and I'm happy to agree to disagree.

Offended? NO way.... why would I be? Or did I miss the bit that was meant to cause offence ?

[NFS]

Originally Posted by Dave_3

That's false. They shot him when he entered the train.

The 'train' is known as 'the tube'

No, you would follow him. You don't eliminate your lead, until he gets into a position to blow up a train.

I think this is absolutely wrong, protection of the public is paramount. This approach would be utterly reckless.

It is exactly the same with the other monitored groups. You don't just arrest them when they buy large amounts of fertiliser. You follow their aquaintances and methods. Using your criteria we throw away that opportunity and arrest them, making them all bolt, go into hiding and lie low ?

If they are arrested, or lying low they are not blowing things up. Trying to catch a suicide bomber in the act is beyond stupid.

Mistakes will happen, in the following scenario almost anybody in charge would make the same decision when asked to act :

2 trains and 1 bus explode, others at large.
1. Uncertain Target: if wrong - 1 man
2. Filled Train : if wrong - 50+ people

It is pure logic.

No it's not logic, it's a massive over-simplification and a pretty inhumane one at that.

Obviously you don't randomly shoot people in case they are terrorists.

When assesing risk you look at the level of damage and likelihood.

The damage of a bomb on the tube is severe the likelihood that the 'uncertain target' would detonate one was extraordinarily low. He was not wearing a big coat, he had been followed onto 2 buses which he didn't blow up, he was not acting suspiciously, he was not carrying anything and he had not been positively identified as a the suspect they were looking for.

The risk was actually very low, but in any event the correct response to risk is to mitigate it. In this situation the 2 mitigation options were:

1. Stop him entering the public transport network
2. Let him enter the station, get on a train and then execute him with 7 hollow point rounds to the head.

The first option would have been a great deal more effective. The police have been found guilty because they went for the second. This was a breach of law and the person responsible should be sacked.

I can't be any more specific because, like you, I don't know the minutae and real truth of the case. I am more than happy with the present situation. I am glad we have proven we will act decisively.

I have a very good level of understanding about this incident. Certainly enough to understand the problem.

You criticise Kratos and the chain of command yet you still haven't proposed an alternative ? What would you suggest ?

D.

That they should arrest people before they put others in danger, that they should be free to use lethal force, as allowed by law, when and if necessary, that they should not ignore the health and safety of the public and that they should make bloody sure that they have the right man before they shoot him in the head 7 times.

This wasn't an 'accident'. This man did nothing wrong, there was no risk, the police were chasing shadows, it could have been anyone of us that they killed. I'm thankful it wasn't one of my family.

[Dave_3]

We could go on and on ... I'm not going to counterpoint.

We don't see eye to eye, and by the looks of your statements that isn't going to change.

As I said earlier, we can agree to differ.

D.

[NFS]

Originally Posted by Dave_3

We could go on and on ... I'm not going to counterpoint.

We don't see eye to eye, and by the looks of your statements that isn't going to change.

As I said earlier, we can agree to differ.

D.

Fair enough .. If we all agreed life would be pretty dull.