UK MPs criticise Jeremy Corbyn over shoot-to-kill

[partington]

Look, a "shoot-to-kill" policy does NOT mean, in the middle of a terrorist attack like the one in Paris, that you don't try to kill the perpetrators, instead try to wound them! This is just crazy!

Only an idiot or a member of the right wing press would suggest that this is what Corbyn meant.

A "shoot-to-kill" policy means that rather than trying to arrest terrorist suspects, for example when challenged on the street or at a road block, you just shoot them. This means that when there is a possibility of arrest of people who are suspected of being terrorists, you shoot them instead. This happened in Gibraltar during the troubles with the IRA when suspected IRA terrorists who were being followed by special forces were just shot down, although not engaged in terrorist activity, or even armed.

It was also suspected that the RUC (Royal Ulster Constabulary) carried out this policy by shooting occupants of cars stopped at road blocks rather than take them into custody.

It is, and was, an immensely controversial policy, and so was always denied. Of necessity it means execution without trial, by agents of law enforcement who are not empowered to be judges, and represents a serious removal of judicial safeguards and individual rights, and so it was always denied that this policy was ever in force.

To emphasise again: this does NOT mean trying not to kill terrorists in the course of an attack, it means deciding that a suspect is a terrorist and pre-emptively shooting him in case he does something.

Many people who hate terrorism have extreme doubts about this sort of policy, and Corbyn is just stating what , even in the height of the IRA's campaign in the UK was the majority, and balanced, view.

[Jonmarleesco]

Not his words. you've got to be pretty dumb to accept right wing tory media headlines.

Lets not forget the last time the UK had shoot to kill a young man, Jean Charles da Silva e de Menezes, was shot to death for no other reason than being in London.

Exactly! Shoot-to-kill can easily mean shoot-in-panic.

[vogie]

Not his words. you've got to be pretty dumb to accept right wing tory media headlines.

Lets not forget the last time the UK had shoot to kill a young man, Jean Charles da Silva e de Menezes, was shot to death for no other reason than being in London.

So whose words were they?

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-34840708

If you listen to the interview you see they were Laura Kuenssberg's words.

She asked a hypothetical generalised question

"if you were prime minster would you be happy to order Shoot to Kill on Britain's streets"

"I'm not happy with a shoot to kill policy in general".

And I'd not be happy, either.. what happened last time we had a shoot to kill : Menezes was murdered in cold blood.. before that Operation Flavius?

- who wants a shoot to kill policy on the streets of the UK? would you? and when your brothers\sisters\daughters\ get shot dead by a policeman doing his job, you'd be happy?

Come on, clearly Corbyn is being played by the media.

He's being played by the media because previously he has made statement about never deploying British forces; not supporting a nuclear deterrent; and supporting extreme Muslin terror groups (as well as some nearer to home).

He would quiet happily neuter Britain's defense capabilities and hog tie the police. The public has a right to know his views given he could be PM one day.

He was avoiding answering direct questions as he knows large numbers of his own party, MPs and the public at large disagree with his views.

The police forces in the UK make very few shooting mistakes. Any would be regrettable but maybe we should think about protecting the victims of terrorism too.

Would you be happy if some terrorist beheaded or blew up your brother/sister/son/daughter because the police weren't allowed to shoot him when he was attacking them for fear they might not just wound him?

In the same breath, would you be happy if they shot your brother/sister/son/daughter because they thought they were carrying a bomb?

[cooked]

I'm all for a shoot to cause extreme pain and prolonged disability, preferably involving the reproductive organs. Many Muslims believe that they won't get their 72 virgins if the go to paradise minus their family jewels.

[Jonmarleesco]

Look, a "shoot-to-kill" policy does NOT mean, in the middle of a terrorist attack like the one in Paris, that you don't try to kill the perpetrators, instead try to wound them! This is just crazy!

Only an idiot or a member of the right wing press would suggest that this is what Corbyn meant.

A "shoot-to-kill" policy means that rather than trying to arrest terrorist suspects, for example when challenged on the street or at a road block, you just shoot them. This means that when there is a possibility of arrest of people who are suspected of being terrorists, you shoot them instead. This happened in Gibraltar during the troubles with the IRA when suspected IRA terrorists who were being followed by special forces were just shot down, although not engaged in terrorist activity, or even armed.

It was also suspected that the RUC (Royal Ulster Constabulary) carried out this policy by shooting occupants of cars stopped at road blocks rather than take them into custody.

It is, and was, an immensely controversial policy, and so was always denied. Of necessity it means execution without trial, by agents of law enforcement who are not empowered to be judges, and represents a serious removal of judicial safeguards and individual rights, and so it was always denied that this policy was ever in force.

To emphasise again: this does NOT mean trying not to kill terrorists in the course of an attack, it means deciding that a suspect is a terrorist and pre-emptively shooting him in case he does something.

Many people who hate terrorism have extreme doubts about this sort of policy, and Corbyn is just stating what , even in the height of the IRA's campaign in the UK was the majority, and balanced, view.

'... although not engaged in terrorist activity ...' It was never suggested that they were not engaged in terrorist activity. Put three known terrorists in a location that has the potential for a terrorist attack; track them towards the Spanish border on foot, a car having been left parked in a Rock car park; locate hidden explosives in Marbella; added up, it all looks suspiciously like a terrorist plot had been afoot.

[MrTee]

Look, a "shoot-to-kill" policy does NOT mean, in the middle of a terrorist attack like the one in Paris, that you don't try to kill the perpetrators, instead try to wound them! This is just crazy!

Only an idiot or a member of the right wing press would suggest that this is what Corbyn meant.

A "shoot-to-kill" policy means that rather than trying to arrest terrorist suspects, for example when challenged on the street or at a road block, you just shoot them. This means that when there is a possibility of arrest of people who are suspected of being terrorists, you shoot them instead. This happened in Gibraltar during the troubles with the IRA when suspected IRA terrorists who were being followed by special forces were just shot down, although not engaged in terrorist activity, or even armed.

It was also suspected that the RUC (Royal Ulster Constabulary) carried out this policy by shooting occupants of cars stopped at road blocks rather than take them into custody.

It is, and was, an immensely controversial policy, and so was always denied. Of necessity it means execution without trial, by agents of law enforcement who are not empowered to be judges, and represents a serious removal of judicial safeguards and individual rights, and so it was always denied that this policy was ever in force.

To emphasise again: this does NOT mean trying not to kill terrorists in the course of an attack, it means deciding that a suspect is a terrorist and pre-emptively shooting him in case he does something.

Many people who hate terrorism have extreme doubts about this sort of policy, and Corbyn is just stating what , even in the height of the IRA's campaign in the UK was the majority, and balanced, view.

'... although not engaged in terrorist activity ...' It was never suggested that they were not engaged in terrorist activity. Put three known terrorists in a location that has the potential for a terrorist attack; track them towards the Spanish border on foot, a car having been left parked in a Rock car park; locate hidden explosives in Marbella; added up, it all looks suspiciously like a terrorist plot had been afoot.

My understanding is no bombs were found in the vicinity - a vehicle found days later 50 miles away had an outrageous of Semtex - but that may well have been a plant.

We cannot condone extra-judicial extermination of people..

If we do we are no better than the Daesh..

The UK is built on Law and Order.. Lets keep it like that.

More scary is Hameron saying Daesh don't respect Syria's borders why should we.. err, call-me-Dave, we are a civilised sovereign nation not some backwards guerilla outfit that wants to kill and maim everyone that thinks different to us.

How about selling Hameron arms to the Saudis and getting an award for services to the Saudi regime.. did ya see how low he bowed his head to the Saudi king?

For the economy?

Stuff the economy if it means getting in bed with the abhorrent Saudi regime.. 9/11, public beheading, financial support of ISIS and every other terrorist organisation none to mankind, let alone their treatment of women.

[partington]

Look, a "shoot-to-kill" policy does NOT mean, in the middle of a terrorist attack like the one in Paris, that you don't try to kill the perpetrators, instead try to wound them! This is just crazy!

Only an idiot or a member of the right wing press would suggest that this is what Corbyn meant.

A "shoot-to-kill" policy means that rather than trying to arrest terrorist suspects, for example when challenged on the street or at a road block, you just shoot them. This means that when there is a possibility of arrest of people who are suspected of being terrorists, you shoot them instead. This happened in Gibraltar during the troubles with the IRA when suspected IRA terrorists who were being followed by special forces were just shot down, although not engaged in terrorist activity, or even armed.

It was also suspected that the RUC (Royal Ulster Constabulary) carried out this policy by shooting occupants of cars stopped at road blocks rather than take them into custody.

It is, and was, an immensely controversial policy, and so was always denied. Of necessity it means execution without trial, by agents of law enforcement who are not empowered to be judges, and represents a serious removal of judicial safeguards and individual rights, and so it was always denied that this policy was ever in force.

To emphasise again: this does NOT mean trying not to kill terrorists in the course of an attack, it means deciding that a suspect is a terrorist and pre-emptively shooting him in case he does something.

Many people who hate terrorism have extreme doubts about this sort of policy, and Corbyn is just stating what , even in the height of the IRA's campaign in the UK was the majority, and balanced, view.

'... although not engaged in terrorist activity ...' It was never suggested that they were not engaged in terrorist activity. Put three known terrorists in a location that has the potential for a terrorist attack; track them towards the Spanish border on foot, a car having been left parked in a Rock car park; locate hidden explosives in Marbella; added up, it all looks suspiciously like a terrorist plot had been afoot.

In case you are genuinely misunderstanding me, I meant that at the moment they were shot they were not in the process of committing a terrorist act, that would make their shooting at that moment necessary to prevent death or injury. This is what distinguishes "shoot to kill" from lawful response to actual commission of an act, as happened in Paris.

To justify the killings the SAS claimed they thought the suspects were at that moment reaching for a detonator to trigger a nearby bomb (though there was no indication that this was the case and after the shooting no bomb or detonating apparatus was found on them or nearby).

Again this is the difference between lawful response, and pre-emptive killing. The possibility that those individuals might have committed a terrorist act days or weeks in the future does not permit their pre-emptive execution, even if true.

[Mot Dang]

It was reported on Australian TV tonight, that Sydney Police are to shoot-to-kill in terrorist situations. Police are not to wait for negotiators.

[Chicog]

It was reported on Australian TV tonight, that Sydney Police are to shoot-to-kill in terrorist situations. Police are not to wait for negotiators.

Well after that Sydney CBD f-up, I can't say that I'm surprised.

[jesimps]

Not his words. you've got to be pretty dumb to accept right wing tory media headlines.

Lets not forget the last time the UK had shoot to kill a young man, Jean Charles da Silva e de Menezes, was shot to death for no other reason than being in London.

He's not only against shoot to kill, this traitor just wants to "reason" with them. Like trying to reason with a pitbull.

This is the same guy who after a cop had been almost decapitated during riots in London gleefully told the press that the rioters had given the police 'a good hiding'.

[jesimps]

Not his words. you've got to be pretty dumb to accept right wing tory media headlines.

Lets not forget the last time the UK had shoot to kill a young man, Jean Charles da Silva e de Menezes, was shot to death for no other reason than being in London.

The young man could have easily stayed alive if he hadn't run into a tube station when challenged, and continued to run to a train while repeatedly being told to stop by armed anti-terrorist operatives at a time when terrorists were attempting to bomb public transport (and had already done so).

THAT'S why he was shot to death.

Not for being in London.

So please don't spout such disingenuous garbage.

Gotcha - it own was his fault..

Undoubtedly a mistake in hindsight but he should have obeyed the police commands. Dozens of innocent people had just been blown to smithereens. Innocents do sometimes suffer in times of conflict, wish the murderers took this on board. Of course you're one of the lefties who think the police should throw flowers instead of bullets.

[Linky]

Not his words. you've got to be pretty dumb to accept right wing tory media headlines.

Lets not forget the last time the UK had shoot to kill a young man, Jean Charles da Silva e de Menezes, was shot to death for no other reason than being in London.

The young man could have easily stayed alive if he hadn't run into a tube station when challenged, and continued to run to a train while repeatedly being told to stop by armed anti-terrorist operatives at a time when terrorists were attempting to bomb public transport (and had already done so).

THAT'S why he was shot to death.

Not for being in London.

So please don't spout such disingenuous garbage.

Great, you run to catch a train because you are late, you hear a challenge and as it is behind you and you have done nothing wrong you think, with reason, it cannot be aimed at you. You hear the call of stop, but you think it is not you as hundreds of people there and you are doing nothing but trying to catch your train.

You get your train, sit and relax to catch your breath and get blasted by bullets so much that as you are laying strugglng to stay alve a guy in uniform goes up and pumps a final bullet into you.

Yep, how dare he be late for a train. No blame at all on police having the wrong man.

How much did the court give his family for him being in the wrong?

[jesimps]

Not his words. you've got to be pretty dumb to accept right wing tory media headlines.

Lets not forget the last time the UK had shoot to kill a young man, Jean Charles da Silva e de Menezes, was shot to death for no other reason than being in London.

The young man could have easily stayed alive if he hadn't run into a tube station when challenged, and continued to run to a train while repeatedly being told to stop by armed anti-terrorist operatives at a time when terrorists were attempting to bomb public transport (and had already done so).

THAT'S why he was shot to death.

Not for being in London.

So please don't spout such disingenuous garbage.

This fictitious account made up by the police to hide their guilt and incompetence was completely disproved by the independent investigation.

What you have said is repeating a complete pack of lies. Go back, do your research and you will find the truth was very, very different from the utter garbage, Chicog, that you have posted. Absolute <deleted>.

Oh so easy to judge people in situations of extreme danger from the comfort of your armchair.

[MrTee]

Not his words. you've got to be pretty dumb to accept right wing tory media headlines.

Lets not forget the last time the UK had shoot to kill a young man, Jean Charles da Silva e de Menezes, was shot to death for no other reason than being in London.

The young man could have easily stayed alive if he hadn't run into a tube station when challenged, and continued to run to a train while repeatedly being told to stop by armed anti-terrorist operatives at a time when terrorists were attempting to bomb public transport (and had already done so).

THAT'S why he was shot to death.

Not for being in London.

So please don't spout such disingenuous garbage.

Gotcha - it own was his fault..

Undoubtedly a mistake in hindsight but he should have obeyed the police commands. Dozens of innocent people had just been blown to smithereens. Innocents do sometimes suffer in times of conflict, wish the murderers took this on board. Of course you're one of the lefties who think the police should throw flowers instead of bullets.

no - read the account of what happened, he was not ordered to obey anything, he walked in and used his oyster card..

"Menezes entered the Tube station at about 10:00am, stopping to pick up a free newspaper. He used his Oyster card to pay the fare, walked through the barriers, and descended the escalator slowly. He then ran across the platform to board the newly arrived train. Menezes boarded the train and found one of the first available seats.

Three surveillance officers, codenamed Hotel 1, Hotel 3 and Hotel 9, followed Menezes onto the train. According to Hotel 3, Menezes sat down with a glass panel to his right about two seats in. Hotel 3 then took a seat on the left with about two or three passengers between Menezes and himself. When the firearms officers arrived on the platform, Hotel 3 moved to the door, blocked it from closing with his left foot, and shouted 'He's here!' to identify the suspect's location."

But if you hadn't been so keen to spout off your half baked rejoinder, you would have have read that I, and others had already posted the information. but I guess you'd rather believe he, in some way, deserved to die.

It would appear you are overly keen to blame the victim. would you also blame a women for being raped or do you save your 'blaming' for those foreigner with funny sounds names and dark skin?

You never heard me say anything about throwing flowers, cupcake. I bet you'd churn-out-a-brick faced with real danger.

Edited November 17, 2015 by MrTee

[hugh2121]

Not his words. you've got to be pretty dumb to accept right wing tory media headlines.

Lets not forget the last time the UK had shoot to kill a young man, Jean Charles da Silva e de Menezes, was shot to death for no other reason than being in London.

So whose words were they?

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-34840708

If you listen to the interview you see they were Laura Kuenssberg's words.

She asked a hypothetical generalised question

"if you were prime minster would you be happy to order Shoot to Kill on Britain's streets"

"I'm not happy with a shoot to kill policy in general".

And I'd not be happy, either.. what happened last time we had a shoot to kill : Menezes was murdered in cold blood.. before that Operation Flavius?

- who wants a shoot to kill policy on the streets of the UK? would you? and when your brothers\sisters\daughters\ get shot dead by a policeman doing his job, you'd be happy?

Come on, clearly Corbyn is being played by the media.

He was asked a valid and straightforward question.

His words from your very own keyboard

"I'm not happy with a shoot to kill policy in general".

[Steely Dan]

Thank you for the education gentlemen.

Points all noted.

But I still don't blame the officers that actually killed him, if they genuinely believed he was packing a suicide bomb, they did the right thing.

Wrong place and definitely the wrong time.

It's not often I agree with you.

http://mirror-us-ga1.gallery.hd.org/_exhibits/bizarre/_more2005/_more07/blunt-but-wise-advice-at-Notting-Hill-Tube-station-London-England-after-innocent-man-mistaken-and-shot-as-potential-bomber-some-days-earlier-after-running-from-police-into-Stockwell-Tube-station-ANON.jpg

Edited November 18, 2015 by Steely Dan