Reply to: We come in peace or shoot to kill.

[NibblyPig]

Ok, to sum up, it's not ok to shoot some scumbag carrying an AK just in case it harms his human rights to shoot people?

No, it's ok to shoot someone carrying an AK, but if you see a shifty looking guy on the bus you can't marmalise his face with your sidearm because he looks like a muslim while shouting 'he's coming right for us'

[d000hg]

I was under the impression TV overemphasises the miraculous properties of vests - if you hit by a rifle bullet you're down even with one on, certainly you're not going to shrug it off and shoot back right away?

[d000hg]

No, but aim for the torso not the head. Then there's a fairly decent chance they will survive and can be detained/questioned.

[MicrosoftBob]

You can shoot them, but don't aim to kill them just take them down?

Ah so you mean an Arnie knee capping like in Terminator 2 ?

[d000hg]

Ok, to sum up, it's not ok to shoot some scumbag carrying an AK just in case it harms his human rights to shoot people?

You can shoot them, but don't aim to kill them just take them down?

[jbond007]

Ok, to sum up, it's not ok to shoot some scumbag carrying an AK just in case it harms his human rights to shoot people?

...and his human rights to have a family life, his human rights to live a productive life and make important contribution to the society ...

[darmstadt]

Sounds like they've taken him out of context to me.

I would interpret his comment to say that if there's a terror attack, police shouldn't go in and mow everyone down with gunfire at the slightest provocation just because it's a terror attack.

But everything he says gets taken out of context and torn apart so I am not surprised.

Yep, up to a point:

“I’m not happy with the shoot-to-kill policy in general – I think that is quite dangerous and I think can often be counterproductive. I think you have to have security that prevents people firing off weapons, where they can. There are various degrees of doing things as we know … but the idea you end up with a war on the streets is not a good thing. Surely you have to work to try and prevent these things happening, that’s got to be the priority.”

So he's not happy with it and I think many other people have the same opinion but he's not stating that he's against it.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Not Brazilian, so don't care.

[LucidDementia]

Someone who wants to be a political leader is not fit to be a political leader.

FTFY

[xoggoth]

Successful politicians need to lie much more convincingly!

[EternalOptimist]

As many as that?

heh heh.

it's meltdown at the top in that there loyal opposition party.

rats in a sack.

[xoggoth]

But everything he says gets taken out of context and torn apart so I am not surprised

Maybe, a very gung-ho attitude by armed police would be dangerous to us all, but if that is what he meant you would think, as a major party leader, he could make his position clear. Saw him on TV and he just said quite simply that he wasn't in favour of a shoot to kill policy.

Similarly with his comments about it being a shame that "Jihadi John" was not brought to justice. Did he just mean "it was a pity but" ? or was he seriously suggesting that Western troops should have been put at enormous risk to arrest him? Someone who cannot be clearer about what he means is not fit to be a political leader.

[NotAllThere]

I'm no fan of Jezzbollah, but I couldn't help thinking he meant something different. Like shooting Brazillians on trains...

As many as that?

[NibblyPig]

Sounds like they've taken him out of context to me.

I would interpret his comment to say that if there's a terror attack, police shouldn't go in and mow everyone down with gunfire at the slightest provocation just because it's a terror attack.

But everything he says gets taken out of context and torn apart so I am not surprised.

[EternalOptimist]

Armed police shoot to prevent the target endangering anyone else. That means usually shooting to kill. Why would the SAS be any different? Using guns is using deadly force. It's always "shoot to kill". How is "shoot to kill" a new policy?

I'm no fan of Jezzbollah, but I couldn't help thinking he meant something different. Like shooting Brazillians on trains

even if he did mean that though, his timing and his message stinks