But John Stalker, former Deputy Chief Constable of Greater Manchester says that, despite the wrong man tragedy at Stockwell tube station, the new tactics are absolutely necessary in the face of ruthless terrorism.
Shoot-to-kill is an emotive expression when used to describe tactics adopted by the forces of law and order.
It hits the same raw nerve as capital punishment.
Just 20 years ago, in the wake of the killing of several IRA men in Northern Ireland, claims that the security services had adopted such a policy was enough to prompt an official investigation led by the then Deputy Chief Constable of Greater Manchester, John Stalker.
Amid allegations from which he was later completely exonerated, Stalker was removed from the investigation, suspended, reinstated, and then resigned. Whatever the truth he was about to uncover, it was plainly going to be unpalatable to senior politicians on both sides of the Irish Sea.
In the wake of the suicide bombings in London on 07/07, however, such political sensitivities have been cast aside - even after the shooting dead of a man wrongly identified as connected with the failed follow-up attack on the capital’s transport system last Thursday afternoon.
Bullets
It would, in any case, have been impossible to describe that shocking event, witnessed by many traumatised Underground passengers - when a man lying prone had five bullets pumped into his head by a police officer - as anything else but a deliberate killing.
Stalker says: "My heart goes out to that poor young man. He is just as much a victim of the suicide bombers as the tube and bus passengers killed a fortnight ago.
"Can you imagine being in Rio de Janeiro [the man was a Brazilian national] and being approached by three men in plain clothes brandishing guns and calling out in a language you might not understand? You might, thinking you were caught in the middle of gang warfare, do exactly what he did and run away. My heart bleeds for him."
Yet Stalker is adamant that the change in police tactics is wholly justified in the face of the terror now threatening Britain’s big cities.
"There’s no need to investigate, as I did, whether a shoot-to-kill policy exists," he says. "It’s been admitted. It’s an emotive label to attach to operational tactics but there can be no shoot-to-do-anything-else-but-kill in the situation that officers found themselves the other day… or if the same circumstances happened again this afternoon."
He adds: "How could things be different when the alternative might be that a whole carriage load of passengers could be blown up because of hesitation by a firearms officer?
"The rules of engagement were drawn up 20-odd years ago - in fact I had a hand in that - and primarily related to circumstances involving armed criminals in siege situations where it might be possible to anticipate what they might do with a gun, sword or other weapon and where there was the opportunity for negotiation."
Circumstances
Everything changed on 07/07, when fanatical suicide bombers, willing to sacrifice their own lives in the process of taking as many others as possible, struck for the first time in Europe, killing more than 50 commuters.
"In such circumstances the old rules of engagement can no longer apply," says Stalker. "Firearms officers have to pull the trigger a lot sooner than they might want to. What was always a split second decision has become even more knife-edge. The difference between living and dying could rest on which way you turn."
It had already emerged that new operational tactics developed by the Association of Chief Police Officers’ terrorism committee entailed police marksmen targeting suspected suicide bombers’ heads rather than the body, as in the past, for fear of triggering explosives.
The switch, it was suggested, amounts to a shoot-to-kill policy which is bound to attract criticism following the mistake at Stockwell.
But, insists Stalker, the police have little choice. "Police officers here have had to learn from the Israelis, who have been facing determined suicide attacks for some time. No other police service in Europe or America - not even the FBI - have had any experience of dealing with suicide bombers.
"Everyone is having to learn as they go along and tragic mistakes will happen. It also has to be realised that the police officer who actually pulls the trigger is only as good as the information he’s receiving from others through his ear-piece, right or wrong.
"It’s absolutely crucial in these frightening new circumstances that the intelligence regarding potential suspects and targets is as good as it possibly can be.
"Firearms officers finding themselves in circumstances for which they’ve had no training, seeking to defend the lives of scores, perhaps hundreds of innocent people from suicide bombers, have to act instantly upon the information they’re given … or the consequences can be absolutely appalling."
Is shoot to kill the only option? Have your say.
Tweet
Comments
Login or Register to comment
Without a doubt shoot to kill is the correct procedure - the suicide bomber has to be killed instantly to avoid the bomb going off - however in the incident involving the brazillian - why was he not stopped when leaving his flat?before he got on the bus, after he got off the bus - if they were taing him why were uniformed officers not on the scene. It seems whover was in charge made some plain as your face errors in dealing with the incident.
Surely if it is possible to arrest the person, as it must have been with the guy who was shot last week, then an arrest must be made. Only when there is an immediate danger to the public should someone be shot ie. when they have a gun. In the case of thinking they have the bomb then if they are shot the bomb can still go off so arrest would surely be a better option. Killing someone gives them an easy way out of their crimes as they do not suffer for the pain and misery they cause others
Of course shoot to kill is the only option. If the police have good reason to believe that someone is carrying explosives and going to blow themselves up along with a large number of innocent civilians what option do they have? It is of course horrible that an innocent man has been killed - but not many would condemn their actions had this man blown up himself and a large number of innocent commuters. He also didn't stop when ordered to so what were the police to believe at that second? They didn't have the option of waiting and seeing.
Now is the time to think of arming our police with the highest possible calibre shotguns loaded with cartridges of the highest bore available, then they can take suspected terrorists heads straight off in one shot instead of risking their lives firing numerous pistol shots to be certain of killing them as they strive to protect the public.
Blue Dave, they will have had to follow him to try and lead him to other people. That's why they put surveillence on the flat instead of just going in. The proof of evidence is that much in this country that they need to catch these people when they're just about to commit and act so they have the evidence when it goes to court.
He could have been leaving to meet other terrorists, so they police were using him as bait, until they thought he was going to set off a bomb. They gave him warnings, he ignored them, so the police had to shoot to kill.
No need for agonising over this mans death. Nobody runs from the police if they are innocent. Doesn't matter if it was only a visa matter or similar. In this climate of terrorist activity people had better be squeaky clean or say their prayers. Good luck to the officers involved in the killing. Our so called society will crucify you for doing what you were charged with doing. We really need more of this to stop terrorism.
Being new to this site I'm not sure whether BigK is a character who exists purely to make idiotic comments, but his comment below certainly can be filed under that heading. The police were plainclothes, and according to witnesses did not shout a warning, so put yourself in the situation of being chased by men with guns and then decide whether or not you'd run. Also imagine if it was your brother. Would you be so carefree with your brainless opinion? And even if the police had been in uniform, last time I checked running from police was not a capital offence.
Of course the policy is correct although not totally infallible. People who continue to whine should just consider this:- no police officer is forced to carry a firearm and is free at any time to hand back his/her firearms authority. If individual Officers continue to get unjust criticism we may find we have a police service with a shortage of such officers and then where would that leave us.
This shoot to kill policy is extremely sick. If an innocent man would have been gunned down in the US I can guarantee you there would have been mass outrage and protesting. What if they have the wrong person again? I would be scared to live in your country! Over here we have a trial before executions.
Everyone must realize that the next victim of this policy could be you or someone you love. This man had no chance. The police were not uniformed, but armed; of course he ran, who wouldn't? Letting the police have to right to kill anyone they deem suspicious is very dangerous. Does no one see the coming police state? Can no one see the future these police tactics will bring? Has no one read 1984? Liberty and freedom are more important than security, when that changes the terrorists have already won by destroying our way of life.
This Brazilian man was LYING PRONE when officers fired five bullets into his head. Lets all hope that the people commenting here aren't wearing "padded clothing" the next time they are stopped for a traffic violation. You idiots sound just like the Republican swine in the US. I expected better from "enlightened" Europeans.
I would hope all average citizens also take this approach as well as the police. Shoot to kill anyone you think might be a terrorist. If someone is sweating, clenching their fist, running, carrying a bag, wearing a shirt or pants, etc., shoot them dead, they just might be a terrorist, unless they are wearing a badge, then they are OK. And always pump shots into any baby stroller you see; that's the most clever way to bring a bomb into a public setting.
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."
I understand that Great Britain has very, very strong feelings about gun use in general, even in the hands of their highly-trained officers. And, we in the States do have a running list of gross misapplications of police force in our own cities, often criticized around the world as the result of a "gun happy" society.
However, I have not heard a practical, actionable alternative in which the police report would not conclude "...and then the suspect activated an unknown device, killing X number of citizens, including officers, and wounding Y others." Shoot him in the leg, he hits the button. Shoot him in the stomach, either he hits the button or -the officer- has just hit the button inadvertently. "Tasers" or stun guns are just as likely to cause the suspect to sqeeze the trigger, or activate a device, as to incapacitate him.
Therefore, until military intelligence can infiltrate these networks, until they can find these people in their homes, watching TV and making the bombs the day before, what can the officer on the scene do?
Time's up.
Is lethal force really the only way a man can be incapacitated? I would think severe tazering could also work. Why is it that people can only relate to the incapacitation of someone on a lethal level. Its quite simple, you tazer the suspect, apprehend him/her. If the suspect is guilty, he is incarcerated, if he wasn't, he walks away. Simple. I realize that tazering someone can only be done at certain range, but in the case of last week's fatal shooting, they pumped 5 bullets into that man's head at point blank range. Just saying.
Shoot to kill is an appropriate use of force when talking about suicide bombers. The only way to keep that bomb from going off is to terminate the "Trigger". In these cases it's the suicide bombers who are to detonate the device once they have reached the desired target.
Quote: Nobody runs from the police if they are innocent.
And men in plain clothes approach with guns? *I* would run like hell. And if they expect me to believe they're police, they'd better be doing something better than a quick flash of a driver's license or a kiddie junior cop badge first!
So, somebody needs to shoot Tony Blair! And shoot to kill! He is a terrorist-machine! Bye England, your destiny is to lose!Poor country, poor and ignorant people, look around, the world is big! Little dog of USA! Brazilian people hates your police and your governement!
I am appalled by our European counterparts. I have always looked up to British police because they do not carry firearms. Now that this is no longer the case and now that they shoot innocent citizens while they're down is just downright scary. Not that I am the worldwide traveler/tourist, you can be damned sure that I will never visit your horrible country.
I'm betting that the score will even itself, sooner, rather than later.
There is no justification for the government sponsored killing of an innocent. When we begin to start thinking that way, how many 'mistakes' does it take before the means outweigh the gain?
Give it up. The real terrorists are us. These perps are simply mirrors reflecting our own brutality back on us. 'Interesting times' ahead for noble whiteman, I suspect. If things get really hot, I hope you don't think that China is going to weigh in on OUR side....
Ex Cop:
"If individual Officers continue to get unjust criticism ..."
Unjust criticism, eh? So, if five non-officers shot the guy the same way, you wouldn't allow anyone to call it murder, as that would be "unjust criticism"? My error, you need a badge to commit murder and not receive "unjust criticism." Right O!
Everyone in favor seems to be assuming that suicide bombers will not figure out dead-man's switches that will activate automatically once the bomber is shot and killed. The only way to stop terrorism is to address the root cause. Policy such as this only hurts the innocent.
You english give up all your rights to terrorism. You have no more rights.
If they were plain clothes police, how do you know they are police.
Above all the bombing story makes no sense at all.
I find it ridiculous to believe the stories of your government.
I honestly feel that this policy is the only viable option for you all to adopt. It is not pleasant, but it is infinitely more pleasant that the images I have seen from the recent bombings. We KNOW the terrorists want to kill us, and we KNOW they will keep trying. No officer can be asked to risk the lives of those whom he or she protects, in order to make sure they never err. The risk is too great, and the evil that we, again, KNOW is out there somewhere, does not allow for such gentleness.