Are we at war? EDL reckon we are.

[Fox From The Hudd]

I'll do no such thing, as if like, unless somebody can show me evidence that there is such a thing as a 'shoot-to-kill' policy that exists. My contention is that it doesn't, but I'm happy for you to prove me wrong.

These are highly trained marksmen - if they wanted to kill these guys they surely would have...

As they didn't maybe you can deduce that the orders were only to wound and incapacitate...

I would agree that there is no guarantee that this wouldn't result in a fatal injury...

 

[Mawsley]

If I got shot in the finger I'd probably survive.

Not if you'd just wet it with your tongue and were slowly circling your nipples. You clearly haven't considered this option, friend.

 

[spionfox]

Not if you'd just wet it with your tongue and were slowly circling your nipples.

There's a fine line between twisted and erotic Maws :icon_wink

 

[Durham Fox]

These 2 ****s were shot at point blank range with hand guns. Police marksmen have a very different remit and a very clear one in terms of where on a targets body to aim for depending on the desired outcome.

 

[Durham Fox]

These are highly trained marksmen - if they wanted to kill these guys they surely would have...

As they didn't maybe you can deduce that the orders were only to wound and incapacitate...

I would agree that there is no guarantee that this wouldn't result in a fatal injury...

no they weren't.

 

[Macky]

After the killing of Jean Charles Menezes in 2005 Sir Ian Blair said that "shoot-to-kill in order to protect" would continue.

So, he wasn't referring to an actual 'policy', he was just talking in soundbites within the meme?

Three years later when he was defending the killing of solicitor Mark Saunders, he said that "the idea of being able to shoot to wound is fictional".

Which is precisely my point, the notion that there are distinct policies of 'shoot to kill' or 'shoot to wound' is ****ing absurd, in my mind.

What makes this case different?

I don't think there is anything different in this case, purely fortune.

 

[Macky]

These are highly trained marksmen - if they wanted to kill these guys they surely would have...

As they didn't maybe you can deduce that the orders were only to wound and incapacitate...

Or perhaps you could deduce that the cops did exactly as they were trained and just dropped the two nutcases without any concern over whether they survived and it was their good fortune that they weren't killed.

There is no magical spot on the human body that you can shoot at to incapacitate somebody without killing them, it doesn't exist and it doesn't matter how highly trained they are, they don't possess some esoteric knowledge that nobody else does.

 

[Fox From The Hudd]

no they weren't.

you don't think they were highly trained?

 

[Lako42]

I think one thing that we can all take away from this is that Macky is indeed wrong.

 

[Durham Fox]

you don't think they were highly trained?

No, I don't think they were marksmen. They were carrying hand guns.

 

[Lako42]

you don't think they were highly trained?

Were they ****, they were just 2 community support officers who had just found the guns down a back alley.

Why would anyone permitted to carry a weapon be trained, seems an utterly farcical assumption to me.

 

[Fox From The Hudd]

Or perhaps you could deduce that the cops did exactly as they were trained and just dropped the two nutcases without any concern over whether they survived and it was their good fortune that they weren't killed.

There is no magical spot on the human body that you can shoot at to incapacitate somebody without killing them, it doesn't exist and it doesn't matter how highly trained they are, they don't possess some esoteric knowledge that nobody else does.

My point is this...

If they were told to kill them they would have shot them in the head and achieved that objective - my belief is they had the opportunity and ability to do that - I may be wrong on that score...
The fact that they didn't do that was proof that they had other orders - if you shoot someone in the leg the chance of them dieing instantly is slim I would again guess...

 

[Macky]

I think one thing that we can all take away from this is that Macky is indeed wrong.

Your dislike of me is betraying your stubborn ignorance. Don't just declare me wrong, demonstrate that I'm wrong or it makes you look like a prick.

 

[Fox From The Hudd]

No, I don't think they were marksmen. They were carrying hand guns.

I thought they were armed response who I believe have a fairly high degree of competence

 

[Macky]

My point is this...

If they were told to kill them they would have shot them in the head and achieved that objective - my belief is they had the opportunity and ability to do that - I may be wrong on that score...

I think that you are wrong on that score. They are armed response officers, they respond to incidents, they don't wait around to be told whether or not they should 'kill' somebody. Their job is to remove the threat.

The fact that they didn't do that was proof that they had other orders

It isn't "proof" of any such thing

if you shoot someone in the leg the chance of them dieing instantly is slim I would again guess...

The chance of them shooting back at you or at a member of the public is also particularly high as well

 

[Macky]

I thought they were armed response who I believe have a fairly high degree of competence

Yes, but they're not "marksmen"

 

[Lako42]

Your dislike of me is betraying your stubborn ignorance. Don't just declare me wrong, demonstrate that I'm wrong or it makes you look like a prick.

Now now Macky, It's a bit of fun me ode fruit.

I don't dislike you at all, it's absured to think so, I don't even know you. If you want stone proof that you are wrong then I suggest you pop round for a Vodka and we can watch some films where people shoot other people in the knee for fun, although I don't want you getting any ideas you angry little rascal.

 

[Lako42]

So, he wasn't referring to an actual 'policy', he was just talking in soundbites within the meme?

An article with the word policy planted in it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4713199.stm

 

[Durham Fox]

I thought they were armed response who I believe have a fairly high degree of competence

Indeed they were armed response and I'm sure they are competent but they weren't marksmen. Marksmen carry riffles not handguns.

 

[M17TT C]

Your dislike of me is betraying your stubborn ignorance. Don't just declare me wrong, demonstrate that I'm wrong or it makes you look like a prick.

As resulting to name calling strengthens your argument ten fold.

Calm down dear, this is only an Internet forum.