Reading every other day about some new aspect of the debate in the this whole "shoot to kill" policy the police do or don't have (depending on who is being asked), I realised it's a lot of fuss about the wrong thing. "Shoot to kill" makes for great headline material and is bound to get the greater unwashed up in arms (ha ha pun), but it's really meaningless. Coming from a country where guns are prevalent, you learn two facts pretty early on
- You don't draw a gun, unless you are willing to use it.
- Guns are used to kill people
That's a lot to do with why I never want to own one. So a shoot to kill policy, is irrelevant if you have armed offices. Either you arm your officers or you don't. But if you do, arm them, then their is a reasonable expectation that when used in the line of duty, people will be killed. What other policy could their really be? "Shoot to maim", "Shoot to threaten", "Shoot wildly in the air", "Wave the gun around threateningly?". Even the concept of "Shoot to incapacitate" is more an nicer sounding way of getting on with the same thing. But tell me an officer who thinks he or members of the public's lives may be in danger, is going to do anything but "Shooting to kill". That's cause, that's what guns are for.
I'm all for armed officers being well trained, and having detailed instructions on what situations to draw a weapon in. I'm all for officers not pulling the trigger unless they feel they have no other choice. However once that gun is drawn, the officer must be authorised to be able to fire it, and firing it means trying to kill someone.
Debate if you want armed officers or not all you want (I'm in favour of them, UK style, not USA style). But talking about "Shoot to kill" is completely off target.
1. Destructor
However once that gun is drawn, the officer must be authorised to be able to fire it, and firing it means trying to kill someone.
That is completely untrue. Less than 10% of all gunshot wounds are fatal. Officers can be, and are, trained to wound (legshots, armshots). Officers can be, and are, trained to use guns to disarm. Officers can be, and are, trained to use warning shots, to great effect. And yes, just pointing a weapon can have a great effect. Guns, once drawn, are not always used to kill. Sayingthat the only two alternatives are officers with guns who can shoot to kill, or officers without guns is facile.
Having armed police does not mean having a shoot-to-kill policy. Getting in Israeli security consultants to instruct your officers on how to take headshots is a shoot-to-kill policy.
2. Adrian
Less than 10% of gunshot wounds are fatal? Can you back that stat up?
Getting Israeli security consultants in was to ask how is the most effective way to disarm or immobilise a suicide bomber. The answer was “shoot them more than 4 times in the head”. The answer was not have a shoot to kill policy.
Guns can be a deterrent I agree. But only because they can be used to kill. They’re less of a deterrent when you don’t think you might get shot and die. If you draw a gun, you must be prepared to fire it, else do not draw it. If you are prepared to fire it, you must be prepared to kill.
3. Destructor
Can you back that stat up?
Yes. May I recommend the excellent ‘HANDGUN WOUNDING FACTORS AND EFFECTIVENESS’ by Special Agent Urey W. Patrick? Quote: “Physiologically, no caliber or bullet is certain to incapacitate any individual unless the brain is hit.”
If you draw a gun, you must be prepared to fire it, else do not draw it. If you are prepared to fire it, you must be prepared to kill.
That statement does NOT mean you have a shoot to kill policy. Shoot-to-kill means that, when you fire, your objective is to kill the target (headshots). Most police forces in the first world, including America, aim to wound (legshots and chestshots).
For example, getting your target down on the ground and shooting him ten times in the back of the head is a shoot-to-kill policy. Pointing your gun at a target and saying: “Remain on the ground or I will open fire!” is a deterrent policy. To say it’s all or nothing is the equivalent of saying what is the point in posessing nuclear weapons if we don’t intend to use them.
4. Adrian
You still have to be willing to open fire. Shoot to kill doesn’t necessarily mean shooting without giving the target a chance to surrender.
Would the deterrent of nuclear weapons have been have great if it wasn’t for Hiroshima or Nagasaki?
5. Destructor
Shoot to kill doesn’t necessarily mean shooting without giving the target a chance to surrender.
There is a clue in the words ‘shoot-to-kill’ that you can use to determine what the policy means. Shoot-to-kill means: When you fire, your intention is to kill the target. Shoot-to-wound means: When you fire, your intention is to wound the target.
Would the deterrent of nuclear weapons have been have great if it wasn’t for Hiroshima or Nagasaki?
So your actual argument is: In order for guns to be effective, the populace has to believe that the Police have the right to execute them. Like many of your legal arguments (ID cards, reducing the burden of proof for sexual assaults), this ignores, or at least misunderstands the relationship between the Police and the Public. The bottom line is: The Police cannot do their job without popular support. They are not an army. Maintaining the public trust is very important. Knowing that Police are executing innocent people erodes the public trust. When the public trust evaporates, society collapses on itself. The StK policy also advocates escalation, that being that criminals, knowing that the Police are being told to respond with deadly force, would sooner kill a Policeman than attempt to evade them.
Guns are required for certain situations. Being open to, and prepared for, the possibility of an officer accidentally killing a target is also required for any modern Police force. I am not saying that a shoot-to-kill policy is a bad thing- I am saying that your argument- that people who debate it are ‘missing the point’- is based on a false premise (that a gun’s only purpose is to kill, when it’s demonstrably true that they can be used to disarm, wound and deter), and is therefore false.
6. Adrian
My actual argument was, talking about shoot to kill is irrelevenant because the purpose of a gun is to kill. I base this on coming from a country with lots of guns and lots of dead people.
My argument is that talking about shoot to kill is the wrong discussion. Because it’s headline grabbing and missing the point. Because guns kill, thats what they do.
This has nothing to do with my arguments on id cards and on rape. That was a cheap shot. Pun intended.
7. Destructor
My actual argument was, talking about shoot to kill is irrelevenant because the purpose of a gun is to kill.
And as I’ve stated, that argument is false, because in the hands of a trained officer a gun can be used to wound, disarm, or deter. This isn’t an opinion, this is a fact. Therefore, your argument is false. Pointing out that the Shoot-to-Kill policy has been a disastrous failure in South Africa does nothing to further your premise.
If you’re trying to say that Police should not have access to guns because guns kill, that’s an admirable position, but not a tenable one. But I don’t think that’s what you’re saying: I think you’re saying Police should shoot to kill.
We are at a very interesting moment in British history because the threat of suicide bombers means that a shoot-to-kill policy may be a necessity. May be. It needs to be discussed. It’s an incredibly important discussion. To dismiss it as a non-argument is foolish.
This has nothing to do with my arguments on id cards and on rape.
I’m saying you have a tendency to support policies to give Police unchecked power to enforce the law, and I think that consistently fails to recognize the numerous historical lessons of when such power led to unchecked corruption, which leads to the destruction of the public trust and the overthrow of law and order.
8. Adrian
I’m saying you have a tendency to support policies to give Police unchecked power to enforce the law
Absolute and categorical bullshit.
In ID cards I said, I would like an easy and more secure way to prove who I am instead of fucking utilities bills.
With rape, I said there is a big fucking problem here, and the problem is men and men need to start taking a bit of responsibility for the situations they place themselves in.
Read what I say, not what you think my political position is.
If I didn’t know you better I would be I insulted. Actually I think I am insulted.
9. Destructor
Read what I say, not what you think my political position is.
You advocated ID cards- that’s a position on policy. You advocated lowering the burden of proof for sexual assault- that’s a position on policy. Two’s a coincidence- three’s a trend.
If I didn’t know you better I would be I insulted. Actually I think I am insulted.
Then you need to learn to separate debate from personal attack. Where is the insult here- am I not allowed to disagree with you?
10. Lyle
Fight! Fight! Fight!
grin
11. Adrian
I advocated ID cards, because they have do have pros as well as cons, and I do not believe that they give police unchecked power to enforce the law. I believe that the gives police a more efficient way of gaining the data they can currently gain. I’m a bit dubious that the cost/benefit of implementing them has really been thought out properly, but I do believe that carrying around scraps of paper is archaic and we need to move forward. Their is plenty of debate around them, but just because I’m in support of the principle of being able to identify myself, doesn’t mean I am in support of the the ideology of a big brother state. I do not believe that ID cards will create this environment. Whilst you may disagree with me, that doesn’t mean I am necessarily wrong, and doesn’t mean I am in support of giving police unchecked power. You’re putting words in my mouth. I never once said that, so please don’t tell me I did.
On rape, I never actually advocated lowering the burden of proof. Those were your words. I advocated change, and did say I didn’t quite know what the solution was, but the status quo wasn’t an answer, especially where girls are getting raped by men who do not think what they are doing is rape. Again you put words in mouth.
However I don’t want to rehash the details of those debates in this debate.
Neither of these arguments did I once advocate giving the police unchecked power.
Much like this argument. I have not once said police need unchecked power. I have however said that police with guns may have to kill people. Because guns do kill. That’s their purpose. They weren’t designed to would, they were designed to kill. Sure you can wound, but do not for get that guns kill.
And that was the essences of what I was saying. Is that guns kill, and arming your police should come with the expectation of people being killed. Cause if you don’t expect that, then you are going to have big problems when people do get killed. Sorry ma’am, we had a shoot to maim policy, but we missed and killed your husband. Humble apologies
There is no coincidence here because the three items are unrelated
You are allowed to disagree with me all your want. When you start putting words in my mouth and tell me what I’m saying when I’m not I get insulted. You make me out to be some right wing Nazi who wants a Judge Dredd style community. Which is not once what I have said. Ever.
I’ve said “guns kill”. I never said “police should go around shooting everyone they suspect of anything as they wish”
12. Adrian
I will not be commenting again on this post.
However if anyone else wishes to comment, please feel free. I’ve said my bit. Interpret it as you wish.
13. Destructor
However I don’t want to rehash the details of those debates in this debate.
Nor do I- it was an aside.
You make me out to be some right wing Nazi who wants a Judge Dredd style community.
Well for starters a Judge Dredd style community would be awesome. But I think you’re reading a little too much into things. I said you have missed the implications of over-powering the police by giving them a license to kill- that’s hardly accusing you of being a Nazi!
However now that you’ve bought it up, even Judge Dredd used his gun to deter, wound and disarm- if he could get the perps into the cubes without killing them, he would. I would hold our Police to at least that standard.
I am, obviously, vehemently opposed to a ‘standing’ StK policy, even if I recognize there are certain circumstances where an officer must StK. However I also feel a reasoned debate over a shoot-to-kill policy is a worthy and important one. I guess I must be part of the greater unwashed.
14. Adrian
Were I am saying the the debate should be about how the police respond in the community, and how the police are trained to deal with and handle situations and how we train and arm policemen. Not on a single headline grabbing aspect.
Were I am saying the public needs to understand that armed police offices can be called on to kill suspects, and this is a result of their training.
I’m saying that the concept of a ‘standing’ StK policy is a misnomer, and that it just part of the extensive training that should be given to armed offices when dealing with what situations a gun should be drawn and how it should be used in those situations. I’m saying that ‘shooting’ and ‘killing’ are part and parcel of ‘arming’, and that that the public needs to come to terms with this rather than running around in a panic, sponsored by the press, who like panic as it sells more public to their advertisers.
I know I said I wouldn’t comment, but old habits, like when to shut up die hard.
And just to point out, I never once suggested over powering the police. Not once I have I suggested giving them a license to kill without due cause. I did mention that giving them a gun, does however give them the ability to kill, and you interpreted this as me advocating thing overpowering the police.
I relaly need to shut up when I say I will.
15. Destructor
Yeah, I wish the unwashed masses would quit being up in arms about the killing of innocents, I mean, you play with fire, you get burned! We shouldn’t try and prevent automobile death because automobiles kill people! That’s what happens when you put people in cars! Instead of endlessly debating speed cameras, can we please focus on the real issue here?
A StK policy is not a misnomer. There’s a big difference between shooting to kill and shooting to wound. In paintball you are not allowed to make headshots. If you make a headshot, you leave the game. And guess what? Even UNTRAINED people with wildly inaccurate weapons can avoid making headshots. It’s not that hard to target specific body parts.
Now, there is currently a very important debate ongoing about whether the Police should shoot to kill or shoot to wound. Headshots or body shots. For you say this debate is being soley generated by the press to sell papers, or is unimportant because guns have the capability to kill, or to even argue that a StK policy is a misnomer is simplistic on one hand and outright wrong on the other.
16. Adrian
Automobiles aren’t designed to kill people. Their primary use is not to kill people.
People can die from being shot elsewhere besides the head.
So what happens when we have a shoot to wound policy and people still die.
I’m saying “Shoot to kill” is a more exciting headline than “Police get specific training on how to react when armed.” And no matter what the policy is, the police will also be trained how to stop a suspect from possibly injuring others, and sometimes this training will include incapacitating them. Not having this as part of the weapons training is insane.
Because if the training expressly forbids headshots, then all hell is going to break loose when an officer next kills someone. And I guarantee that will happen. This isn’t me asking to give the police powers to do what they wish, but the reality from having armed officers.
So whilst there is nothing wrong with discussing the sections of training covering how an officer is expected to handle his weapon and in what situations he should react with what level of force, there has always in effect been a shoot to kill policy, as some section of the training must cover these scenarios. Just because they have recently come to light with the specifics of detailing with a suspected terrorist doesn’t mean all that much has changed. The moment you give your officers guns, and training, there is training covering when an officer should disable a suspect by killing them.
This is nothing new. It has always been part of the training.
17. jamesd
I agree. With whatever he said. You don’t like it - so shoot me (but please don’t kill me - just a flesh wound would suffice).
18. Simon
found this on the British police web site referring to firearms which i thought might contribute to the debate
Article 2 – Right to life “1. Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.
a. in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
b. in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained; c. in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.â€
As someone who knows people who have been trained to use firearms I can say that you aren’t told to go for the kill but to incapacitate first.
Of course, there will always be deaths and mistakes made and these result in investigations and reports but we are sadly moving to a society where we have to accept these consequences but an official shoot to kill policy is most definitely a public relations disaster.
What i find far more worrying is the report i heard today which implied that standards of admittance into our police forces are now so low that many entrants are only slightly more responsible and reliable than many a criminal.
19. Fer
The reason that this policy has hit the news is because it relates to the problem of how to deal with suicide bombers.
Before this terrorist tactic became widespread there was a fundamental presumption in policing policy, that a criminal would value his (or her) life more than his wish to commit a crime. This means that police could use the threat of reasonable force to subdue a suspect.
This equation changes, however, if the criminal has already decided to kill himself in achieving his aim. In this circumstance there is very little that can be done to stop him - threats to his person are pointless, shooting to disable is likely to be ineffective (depending on circumstances of course), and other threats (e.g. to his family) are both morally unacceptable to most of us, and also impractical at short notice (a general policy of imposing punishment on the family of a bomber, even if it were possible to implement in a liberal democracy, would only serve to up the stakes rather than to deter).
That is the key to the distinction here - i.e. that the police have been trained in these circumstances to shoot someone if they have a sufficient suspicion that the person is likely to set off a bomb (which may be hidden). This IS a change of policy because it gives rise to a situation where a policeman would deliberately shoot to kill even where there is an option of either shooting to disable or of not shooting at all.
Of course ultimately the technology might make even the “shoot to kill” tactic ineffective (for example a bomb could be set to go off based on a heart rate monitor as well as the main trigger - so that shooting the terrorist dead would inevitably set off the bomb.
In my view it’s a very difficult problem given the number of innocent lives at stake, but on balance I would rather there were a risk of further attacks (with no effort being spared on dealing with the root causes of the disaffection which leads to people becoming suicide bombers, and on gathering intelligence to prevent attacks) than that we live in a state where someone can be shot dead by police on flimsy grounds.
20. Destructor
Boo-yah! pwn3d