Homeland Security now "shoot to kill"?


PDA






shield20
August 4, 2005, 10:05 AM
Heard this on the radio this morning - that Dept of Homeland Security now has "shoot to kill"...'permission' for suspected terrorists. Mentioned how 'new policy changes lethal force doctrine from "shoot to stop"', 'properly placed head shot keeps the suicide bomber from triggering bomb'...

Anybody have more info on this?

If you enjoyed reading about "Homeland Security now "shoot to kill"?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
TMM
August 4, 2005, 10:26 AM
'properly placed head shot keeps the suicide bomber from triggering bomb'...

...and if he has a dead man switch?

~TMM

scbair
August 4, 2005, 11:21 AM
TMM, if he has a dead man's switch, and is set to become a martyr, it really won't much matter what you do; he's gonna go BOOM. The only consolation would be to drop him before he gets where he wants to detonate it!

WT
August 4, 2005, 11:24 AM
They are referring to the new guidelines issued by the International Association of Chiefs of Police.

johnmcl
August 4, 2005, 12:31 PM
Hi guys,

US Capitol PD, and not DHS at large, is the LEO with these new guidelines as of today. I'm sure more will switch.

John

obiwan1
August 4, 2005, 01:16 PM
Are you kidding :what: Homeland Security is too "Customer Service" oriented. They punnish immigration and customs inspectors if they're not nice to those trying to get in illegally or smuggle dope. They would disarm all Officers if they thought that they could get away with it. :mad:

CGofMP
August 4, 2005, 01:43 PM
Uhm,

"Shoot to Stop" vs "Shoot to kill" in a Law Enforcement situation seems to me to be two sides of the same coin. Shoot to stop has always meant center of mass and if that does not work try for a headshot right? Center of mass is kinda full of vital organs. In most cases it is unfortunate but shooting to stop IS shooting to kill even if that isnt the 'legal intention' or at least so they told us in the academy.

To me this is all just semantics. Any time you pull a firearm out of your holster you are getting ready to emply deadly force. Yes the INTENT may be to 'stop' someone but the best way to do that is going to likely result in placing shots into vital areas. With a 'shoot to kill' order you are likely to place the shots in those very same areas.

Legal semantics. This change of verbage will mean everything to the lawyers and nothing to the LEOs. The LEOs are still gonna line their sights up on the same places and they are still gonna shoot the same people. Articulating thier intent as being 'to kill' or 'to stop' will likely only come to mind when they write their report at the end of the day.

In general cops are not taught to shoot guns out of people's hands or make leg shots. Thats Hollywood.

Augustwest
August 4, 2005, 02:24 PM
Sure would like to know what the precise definition of "suspected terrorist" is in these guidelines... :confused:

OF
August 4, 2005, 02:28 PM
The people writing these 'guidelines' don't understand the basic concept in the first place. 'Shoot to stop' is still the appropriate action.

Now 'stop' requires a more immediate stop to the action, but it's still 'shooting to stop'.

If we wanted to "shoot to kill" we should poison the bullets....:rolleyes:

GEM
August 4, 2005, 03:06 PM
Sigh - the issue is how to stop any voluntary motor responses quickly, esp. of the hands and arms. We know that body or COM shots don't do that.

Only disrupting the brain stem mechanisms are instantly going to turn you off. Thus, the emphasis on head shots to stop motor responses.

Most comments here seemed to have missed this. Perhaps the phrasing is incorrect by the agencies but that is the purpose.

shield20
August 4, 2005, 03:09 PM
They were talking about a policy of making headshots instead of COM, and I imagine how to try to explain it to the...public is an issue. They are NOT shooting to stop, they are shooting to kill - instantly. The LE will definelty know what that means, AND will target heads of the BG, and be taught accordingly.

I thought the "suspected terrorist" comment was interesting too - I have to find a whol;e article to read to see how they are handling all this.

Smurfslayer
August 4, 2005, 03:42 PM
http://www.iacp.org/documents/index.cfm?fuseaction=document&document_type_id=1&document_id=708

The anti-rights international association of chiefs of police.

Rockstar
August 4, 2005, 04:45 PM
"lethal force/shoot to stop" is oxymoronic.

pcf
August 4, 2005, 05:07 PM
Hmm, from people who haven't used public mass transit, ever. Who doesn't fit their profile as a suicide bomber?

deanf
August 4, 2005, 05:10 PM
So is there a law enforcement agency called "Department of Homeland Security" or is it just a collection of other agencies with their own names?

Pilgrim
August 4, 2005, 05:36 PM
They were talking about a policy of making headshots instead of COM, and I imagine how to try to explain it to the...public is an issue. They are NOT shooting to stop, they are shooting to kill - instantly. The LE will definelty know what that means, AND will target heads of the BG, and be taught accordingly.
The theory is easy to teach. The mechanics of doing it quickly and accurately at anything other than contact distance is going to be more difficult.

Pilgrim

shield20
August 4, 2005, 05:39 PM
Agreed!
...and just how close would you get to a walking bomb to make that shot?? :eek:

And thanks John for the correction on the agency involved!

c_yeager
August 5, 2005, 04:57 AM
The idea here is that if you suspect that a person has a few pounds of explosives strapped to their chest that you dont want to shoot them center mass (i.e directly into the afore mentioned explosives). The change is that they are planning on taking headshots rather than COM shots in the event that they are shooting at someone that is believed to be a terrorist. This really isnt a change to use of force at all, just a change in where they are aiming.

RevDisk
August 5, 2005, 05:09 AM
Sure would like to know what the precise definition of "suspected terrorist" is in these guidelines

"Anything we say it is."

Glad it's just the Capital PD.


Thing is, if it becomes nation wide policy... What do you do when you think you're gonna get a summary execution, like that poor sod over the UK that got executed for merely looking suspicious. Well, fixing a fire alarm. But that's really suspicious behavior for an electrician! Ditto denim jackets.

Coronach
August 5, 2005, 08:45 AM
"lethal force/shoot to stop" is oxymoronic.No, it is not. They are distinct concepts.

In any event, this is still a "shoot to stop" scenario. The only difference is that in order to effectively stop a bomber, who only has to press a button to detonate his bomb, one needs something that makes it impossible for him to make any motion, and does it right away. The only thing that does that is a head shot. COM doesn't cut it.

The fact that this also pretty much terminates his godforsaken life is entirely coincidental. If we had a magic ray that would render him instantly and reliably immobile, I'm sure we'd use that. Heck, CIA/FBI/NSA/DHS would rather he was taken alive anyway.


Mike

316SS
August 5, 2005, 09:39 AM
Ha! Considering the typical news report following a deadly force incident ("Police records show that officers fired 647 shots before alleged perpetrator was killed by a ricochet ...") I'd feel safer if they were trying for a head shot! Good luck with that, guys!

316

OF
August 5, 2005, 01:53 PM
They are NOT shooting to stop, they are shooting to kill - instantly.Listen to Coronach. It's not just a semantic distinction. It's all about what the goal is. The goal is not, necessarily, to kill anyone. It's to stop them from doing whatever they were doing or about to do.

If they die, that's just tough. But that wasn't the point. The cops (and CCW'ers for that matter) are not executioners. They/we don't get to make decisions about who lives and dies. Lethal force can be used where applicable, but the point of the matter is not to kill the slime, it's to get them to cease.

This is why it's not legal for you to shoot someone, they fall and drop their weapon and then you walk up and put one in their head. That last shot = murder.

If the guy had dynamite strapped to his chest, it's another story. Is he still a threat?

I'm very surprised, actually, that anyone here who has a CCW or so much as owns a gun is not intimately familiar with the 'shoot to stop' concept and how it differs from 'shoot to kill'.

This is Self-Defense/Use of Lethal Force 101 stuff here, folks.

Derek Zeanah
August 5, 2005, 02:07 PM
The thing that gets me is that we'll have innocents shot in the head (oops!) while terrorists who plan on dying anyway will instead rig the wires to a clothes pin, arm the bomb, and know that as soon as they release the clothes pin it goes "bang."

Dead-man switch for $0.02 in wire and a common household item.

This is yet another step that does nothing to help the problem.

dustind
August 5, 2005, 10:54 PM
They could also just use a common NC (normally closed) button switch. Or use those clip on units that you see on jet skis and tread mills in case you fall off.

They could also have a button that if it was not pressed once every ten seconds or so would trigger the bomb, then hook it up to a pen clicker.

beerslurpy
August 5, 2005, 10:57 PM
edit, I'm a retard

This is a dumb policy though. It will not prevent suicide bombings (dead-man's switches), but it will result in innocent people getting shot.

Orthonym
August 6, 2005, 05:49 AM
I remember the thread here about the summary execution of that Brazilian electrician in London. I remember writing at the time to an autistic acquaintance that I hoped it wasn't an autie. Now with this profile, it seems that the wildest dreams of Cure Autism Now are being fulfilled. Those characteristics just about exhaustively define typical autistic behavior. Amanda Baggs, as usual, puts it better than anyone else: http://amanda.autistics.us/blog/index.php?title=police_chiefs_group_bolsters_policy_on_s&more=1&c=1&b=1&pb=1

Smurfslayer
August 6, 2005, 09:15 AM
It has some usefull info but also contains some other gems. For example you may have to execute a bomber to prevent the explosion, and it lays out where to place the barrel of the gun on the perps head to do this.

Initiallly, this is a bit offensive, but, honestly a suicide bomber is nothing more than a sub-human pile of camel manure deserving of not only death, but failure and eternal damnation. They're attempted mass murderers. Indiscriminate killers.

The report also detailed that if they do convince a bomber to give up pre-detonation, to compel them to strip naked before attempting to take into custody. No, it wouldn't play well in the media, but how else can you be sure? They discuss the possibility of 'cavity' bombs - if you saw Man on Fire, you know what they're talking about. A real bite in the butt :uhoh:

I think all in all that this report covers some topics that most folks don't want to think or talk about. I also think that implementation of this policy will spread. Jeez - If NY starts doing this, they're going to start spraying folks with lead for standing in their doorways... OH WAIT... they already do that.

Murderers come in all shapes and sizes I guess.

Reports like this convince me more and more that any form of public transportation is a risk that must be carefully measured...

Orthonym
August 6, 2005, 08:06 PM
to the site of yet another weird person: http://www.livejournal.com/users/moggymania/646718.html

I don't have a coffee can handy, and it's way too hot here and now to go out with more than minimally decent clothing, but I do have a yellow text highlighter. I betcha that could simulate nitrate stains on my hands pretty well.

Wait, the A/C is busted, both in the house and in the car! Whoops, I'll look *abnormal* from sweating if I go out, though sweating is what people do when the temp is 92F and the humidity 80-something percent.

I think I recall reading, can't remember where, that baby carriages were not mentioned as objects of suspicion. Some of the expensive 2-seater Yuppy-larva strollers I see around here could hold *lots* of explosives and frags.

Coronach
August 6, 2005, 08:23 PM
This is, obviously, a major concern. No one wants a suicide bomber to blow himself up in front of you, killing himself, possibly you, and probably everyone else around.

Likewise, no one wants to be the guy who puts five rounds into the head of an electrician from brazil who takes of running from you for no good reason.

The problem is that, assuming you have a good enough reason to consider shooting him in the first place, you have to assume that the former will happen if you don't drop the hammer on him. Reread that sentence again. Assuming that you have good, solid reasons to think that this guy is a bomber, you have to act to stop him or innocent people will die. As Neal Pert wrote, "if you chose not to decide, you still have made a choice." By letting him go on you place the lives of everyone else in the area at risk. By shooting him you place his life at risk. That's a crappy situation, but until we get issued Phasers with stun settings, it is what we have.

As to dead man switches, etc. Yes. That is a distinct possibility. However, I bet that dead man switches are not used that often for a couple of reasons:

1. No need. Thus far they've had a pretty high success rate with conventional triggering mechanisms.

2. Risk. One slip of a sweaty hand, one trip going down a stairwell, one loose connection and *BOOM* Silly as it may seem, they actually don't want that to happen. Suicide bombers are a fairly limited commodity, you don't want to waste your delivery system by having it blow up too early. Plus, it could happen as he is walking out of your apartment...even if you live I'm pretty sure the FBI/DHS/ATF/CIA guys are going to have a few questions for you.

Are they an option? Sure. Might we see them if we start successfully intercepting bombers and killing them? maybe. Here's a question: do we see them in Israel? They probably have the best success rate in dealing with these clowns of anyone.

Mike

Orthonym
August 6, 2005, 08:33 PM
I think the reason the Israelis are successful is that they *profile*! Unfortunately, I don't think anybody else could get away with it, that is, making fine distinctions among the various Semitic physiognomies. (Yes, for a multitude of reasons going back to Roman times, yer average Jew, these days, looks a lot less Semitic than a descendent of Arabs or Philistines who stayed in the region for the whole 2000-odd years.) Of course there are also the guys in Java, and Nigeria, and suchlike places...

Flame away.

Orthonym
August 6, 2005, 08:56 PM
for autie/aspie types. They tend to have a strong sense of justice, tend to zoom in on details, without being distracted by social silliness. Detail a "rocker" to go along with each "special squad"? He might notice that the wires don't go to the headphones, but to the pickle switch in the hand? He might know that he's seeing, not a kindred soul, but a Neurotypical monkey-man in the throes of social delusion, acting dangerously crazy?

RevDisk
August 6, 2005, 09:46 PM
Likewise, no one wants to be the guy who puts five rounds into the head of an electrician from brazil who takes of running from you for no good reason.

Hate to seem rude, but it was seven rounds into the head, one into the upper back. Eight rounds total.


Someone put forth an idea I would have scratched off as tin foil material, but these days... What if he saw something he wasn't supposed to see while he was working in the building? It'd explain why he ran from the cops, and it'd fit with two cops holding him down while a third put seven rounds into his head and one in his back.

He apparently was not acting suspicious, and he wasn't wearing a bulky jacket. He was wearing a regular denim jacket. Again, probably just tin foil material but it's an interesting theory.

Kurush
August 6, 2005, 09:59 PM
1. No need. Thus far they've had a pretty high success rate with conventional triggering mechanisms.Terrorists read the news just like everyone else and I'm sure they heard all about the Brazilian guy. It's a no brainer that they'll be taking that tactic into account for next time.

2. Risk. One slip of a sweaty hand, one trip going down a stairwell, one loose connection and *BOOM* Silly as it may seem, they actually don't want that to happen. Suicide bombers are a fairly limited commodity, you don't want to waste your delivery system by having it blow up too early. Plus, it could happen as he is walking out of your apartment...even if you live I'm pretty sure the FBI/DHS/ATF/CIA guys are going to have a few questions for you.I'm sure they can figure out a reliable way to do it. They messed up the explosives on 7/21, but it's a lot easier to dry-run with a switch than it is to test an explosive in a crowded city. In any case a cell-phone trigger works just as well, and al-Qaeda has lots of experience with those.

My assessment is that the "shoot the bomber in the brain" was a tactic, like the trojan horse, that can only be used once. It will be very unfortunate if more oddly behaving people are killed for a useless policy.

Orthonym
August 8, 2005, 08:55 PM
With photos, too! See http://autismdiva.blogspot.com/2005/08/open-season.html.

I have long maintained that "police brutality" is not near as bad a problem as "police stupidity", that is, some people's behavior really is improved by a lick or two upside the head, I've just been afraid the nice officer would mistake *me* for one of *them*.

That at least might be survivable. Getting shot in the head many times usually isn't, I believe, and is not something which can be undone. As a previous poster has mentioned, the terrorists will probably adapt their tactics to this new police tactical memo, and escape this kind of thing.

I predict, therefore, that the people who get shot in the head by policemen from now on will be mostly harmless weird folks.

wally
August 8, 2005, 09:52 PM
TMM, if he has a dead man's switch, and is set to become a martyr, it really won't much matter what you do; he's gonna go BOOM. The only consolation would be to drop him before he gets where he wants to detonate it!

OTOH, the crowd waiting to get searched before being allowed on the plane/bus/boat/train/whatever would be as good a place as any, most likely.

--wally.

Edit: As to viability as a tactic, it seems the Brits are: 0 killed terriosts, 1 killed scared tourist. -1 in the lives saved department so far it would seem.

kbheiner7
August 8, 2005, 10:23 PM
Great, now they have the policy and permission, just not the ability. :rolleyes:

Art Eatman
August 8, 2005, 10:34 PM
wally, I thought I read that thee guy had messed up and overstayed his visa. IOW, more than just a "scared tourist". While that's a trivial offense, it was serious enough in his mind that he tried to evade the cops, giving them the idea he was a terrorist. In attempting to escape from a minor problem, he created a greater one for himself.

Art

Jeff White
August 8, 2005, 11:17 PM
It seems that many here are viewing the fact that the police are thinking about how to deal with suicide bombers as a bigger threat to public safety then the bombers themselves.

What about CCW holders? It seems that in this thread over in Strategies and Tactics, a lot of members have come to the same conclusions the IACP did:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=146548

So who is the greater threat to public safety, the police officer who may have some intelligence pertaining to a possible attack or the armed citizen who may blow away an innocent person in a shopping mall because he felt compelled to act? :scrutiny:

Suicide bombers do fit a profile. DHS has been paying for classes to bring local officers up to date on this threat. Right now I don't think they could have enough operatives in CONUS to carry out very many attacks.

If you want to bring yourself up to speed on the suicide bomber threat, I suggest the following references:

Army of Roses by Barbara Victor
The New Terrorism by Walter Laqueur
Why Terrorism Works by Alan M Dershowitz
Unholy War by John L Esposito
The War Against America by Laurie Mylroie
American Jihad by Steven Emerson
My Life is a Weapon by Christoph Reuter
A Law Enforcement Guide to Understanding Islamist Terrorism by First Capitol Technologies

You can also find information at the following websites: (warning I can't guarantee that all of them are work or family friendly and some will contain graphic images of attacks)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno_Domini
http://www.pbase.com/igor01/chechnya
http://www.submission.org/hadith/
http://www.idf.il/newsite/english/main.stm
http://www.alkhilafah.info/massacres/palestine/index17.htm
http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/mfaarchive/2000_2009/2002/3/Palestinian%20Terrorism-%20Photos%20-%20Passover%202002
http://isc.temple.edu/pericles/warfare.htm
http://www.terrorismfiles.org/organizations/al_qaida.html

These are from the reference section of the manunal from the course I attended.

Jeff

Coronach
August 9, 2005, 02:13 AM
Oh, Coronach?

I think the reason the Israelis are successful is that they *profile*! Unfortunately, I don't think anybody else could get away with it, that is, making fine distinctions among the various Semitic physiognomies. (Yes, for a multitude of reasons going back to Roman times, yer average Jew, these days, looks a lot less Semitic than a descendent of Arabs or Philistines who stayed in the region for the whole 2000-odd years.) Of course there are also the guys in Java, and Nigeria, and suchlike places...

Flame away.Oh, I agree. But they're also really not opposed to ventilating someone's skull if they feel the need. We're talking more about what to do once you have ID'ed a probable bomber, rather than how that ID is obtained.1. No need. Thus far they've had a pretty high success rate with conventional triggering mechanisms.Terrorists read the news just like everyone else and I'm sure they heard all about the Brazilian guy. It's a no brainer that they'll be taking that tactic into account for next time.Yes and no. They've been bombing the heck out of Israel for years now, and the Israelis are pretty keyed in on how to stop them a lot of the time (alas, not all). One would think that with them doing the bombing and the Israelis shooting first when possible, that they would already be employing these dead man switches if feasible. I confess that I do not know for sure how prevalent they are, but my read is that they aren't. Probably for the reasons I stated.I'm sure they can figure out a reliable way to do it. They messed up the explosives on 7/21, but it's a lot easier to dry-run with a switch than it is to test an explosive in a crowded city. In any case a cell-phone trigger works just as well, and al-Qaeda has lots of experience with those.I doubt it, actually. Making it 'reliable' or 'safe' would obviate the whole purpose. It's designed to trigger if pressure is not maintained, or if something is not done constantly/routinely. This is inherently less stable/safe than a system that requires at least one (often several) deliberate steps to trigger.My assessment is that the "shoot the bomber in the brain" was a tactic, like the trojan horse, that can only be used once. It will be very unfortunate if more oddly behaving people are killed for a useless policy.Again, you presuppose that the US and the UK have just developed this revolutionary concept. We haven't. Israel has been doing this for a while now. Again, "they" don't seem to have made moves to counter this besides trying harder to blend in and not get caught. I admit to just using seat-of-the-pants logic on this though, as opposed to hard numbers.

I agree, however, that the potential for shooting innocent-but-odd people might outweigh the risks of just letting the potential bomber complete his mission. It is really not a scenario that I ever want to find myself in.

Mike

The Real Mad Max
August 9, 2005, 04:40 PM
Cool.... As it should be! Death to all terrorists! :D

Orthonym
August 9, 2005, 09:31 PM
"Death to Terrorists" is probably maybe mostly a good idea, but I thought this thread was about distinguishing terrorists from non-terrorists who might behave in superficially similar ways.

I think that the common law has always allowed one to use deadly force against someone about to do arson, and by rational extension, set off a bomb. The question is, how sure are you that the person in question really is about to set off a bomb?

beerslurpy
August 9, 2005, 09:34 PM
who takes of running from you for no good reason.

I think non-uniformed men with guns chasing me is a pretty good reason to run. Especially when you come from Brazil and are living in a country where the police dont carry guns.

Lone_Gunman
August 9, 2005, 09:47 PM
I think non-uniformed men with guns chasing me is a pretty good reason to run. Especially when you come from Brazil and are living in a country where the police dont carry guns.

Me too!

The Real Mad Max
August 9, 2005, 10:28 PM
Its kinda like porno or obscene material...you know it when you see it. As for the poor dude in England that ran and was killed for his efforts...its a shame. But thats what terrorism causes. And we either deal with it or give in to it.

Orthonym
August 9, 2005, 11:00 PM
but we deal with it by using our brains, at least as much as our instinctual reactions. The Brazilian electrician was allowed to get onto a bus while the cops on the scene consulted with higher authority over their radios. (A low-bandwidth system, for sure) He was tackled and shot dead because of verbal statements about what people thought they saw.

I *might* be less upset about this if one of the guys who shot him had said, "Yep, he looked like a dangerous suicide bomber to me, and I thought I had only a few seconds to decide what to do, certainly no time to consult anybody else!"

That was not the case.

The Real Mad Max
August 10, 2005, 10:43 AM
Actually, from the reports that I've read, that is precisely the case. While one innocent death resulting from police direct action is unfortunate, the thousands of deaths resulting from homicide bombers is far worse.

Even doctors make mistakes while performing surgery. This is no different. It "ain't" a perfect world.

The Real Mad Max
August 10, 2005, 10:50 AM
...and one other thing while we are at it...the only thing that makes this whole thing noteworthy is that the English are such hoplophobes, that when the police actually do shoot someone (even if its a clean shoot) it makes national news for quite a while. US police have basically always had a "license to kill" by any other name when it comes to dealing with turds wishing to do harm to innocents.

The irony is that the storied British James Bond has nothing on our US LEOs. The main difference being that US LEOs have to articulate the "why" in court...

Smurfslayer
August 11, 2005, 09:25 AM
they don't exactly have to articulate 'why' so much as they do have survive the attempt - if any - to prove gross negligence. Police are protected by sovereign immunity, so if they kill an innocent, or half a dozen innocents, as long as it cannot be proven in court that the individual officer's actions were grossly negligent, they get off scot free. Not careless, not accidental, not stupid, not belligerent, and not negligent - grossly negligent. Shot somebody by mistake or on purpose... shady circumstances - not gross negligence. Chasing down a guy for speeding 8 mph over the speed limit, exceeding the posted limit by 60 mph, blow an intersection, kill a family of 5 - nope, not gross negligence (Fairfax county, VA).

There's a "Monkey see, monkey do" phenomenon. Most of the time you see a cop it's on the highway. Chances are, they're speeding too. In fact, the only time I see them going the limit is when they are specifically looking to poach a speeder by pacing. When people see that kind of behavior, as well as hitting the lights so they don't have to wait at an intersection like everyone else, it breeds contempt. I think there's a similar "too quick to go to the gun" mentality among law enforcement these days - in general - I've not personally known an officer to behave that unprofessionally. Truth be told, my personal experience in VA lends me to believe they make great efforts to not behave that way. Still - Monkey see... monkey do. Some of the news reports, videos... Then there's the taser. Nope, now they can't shoot them until they've tried to taser them first. Yup. Let's taser folks for a traffic violation. I have a better idea - firing squad for cops who think tasering for a traffic violation is ok.

Of course, the other side of the coin is that while the individual, heck maybe even his whole department may be the pinnacle of professionalism, the neighboring departments may not be, and may behave irresponsibly in public. Monkey see, Monkey do.

As far as the IACP report and the head shots... Let's face it, that's the reality of the world we live in today. These martyr bombers are inhuman, and I'd much rather see them endure scores of years of agonizing torture as opposed to their instant deaths, but the former is not practical, the latter is.

Coronach
August 11, 2005, 06:56 PM
Still - Monkey see... monkey do. Some of the news reports, videos... Then there's the taser. Nope, now they can't shoot them until they've tried to taser them first. Yup. Let's taser folks for a traffic violation. I have a better idea - firing squad for cops who think tasering for a traffic violation is ok. Are...you...just on your own little tangent here? We're talking about shoot to kill orders for terrorism. You're talking Tasers and traffic violations? Whiskey tango foxtrot, over.

As a pure aside, any officer that thinks that it's OK to Taser someone merely for violating a traffic law needs to be, at least, heavily disciplined and retrained or, at most, fired and criminally prosecuted. However, you will discover that the vast, overwhelming majority of people tasered out of traffic stops were placed under arrest subsequent to that stop and resisted that arrest. 62 in a 55? Taser not an appropriate response. 62 in a 55 with no driver's license, placed under arrest and resisted arrest? Taser away. Especially since the alternative is an old school thumping or at the very least a macing, both of which have more long term effects than Tasering.

Mike

The Real Mad Max
August 15, 2005, 07:41 PM
Smurfslayer,
You contradict yourself nicely.

CARRY'IN
August 15, 2005, 08:19 PM
Way too many people getting blasted by police. We are conditioned to accept it by several decades of movies and television. Police get away with murder in this country, no doubt about it. Coronach, we know what you are; anybody else on the side of the cops when it comes to shooting unarmed people?

The Real Mad Max
August 17, 2005, 03:29 PM
Thats quite a stretch you just made...

If you enjoyed reading about "Homeland Security now "shoot to kill"?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!