Seemingly trivial things that intrigue you

womack

Perhaps they should have done a risk assessment and waited for a superior officer to run it past his superior who could have run it past MI5.

ballysmate

Stevo_666 said:

Better safe than sorry.

In a nutshell.

womack

Stevo_666 said:

Better safe than sorry.

Unless you are John Charles de Menezes!

pblakeney

Close enough to remove the have a go guy, but far enough away to miss?
Something doesn't add up. Probably my summary.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

Better safe than sorry.

If at close range trained firearms officers can get less than 50% of their shots on target and others ricocheting through nearby vehicles... I'm not sure how much they are helping.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

Better safe than sorry.

If at close range trained firearms officers can get less than 50% of their shots on target and others ricocheting through nearby vehicles... I'm not sure how much they are helping.

They may have been going for head shots and he may have been moving

orraloon

How does Duchess Kate get pinged by the 'world beating app' and have to isolate but Prince Billy gets to go to Wembalee? Close family members?

pblakeney

orraloon said:

How does Duchess Kate get pinged by the 'world beating app' and have to isolate but Prince Billy gets to go to Wembalee? Close family members?

Make up the rules to suit.

Pross

pblakeney said:

orraloon said:

How does Duchess Kate get pinged by the 'world beating app' and have to isolate but Prince Billy gets to go to Wembalee? Close family members?

Make up the rules to suit.

That's the rules for everyone. Only contacts of confirmed cases have to isolate, contacts of contacts don't so when I got pinged the other week the wife and daughter were still OK to carry on as normal

womack

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

Better safe than sorry.

If at close range trained firearms officers can get less than 50% of their shots on target and others ricocheting through nearby vehicles... I'm not sure how much they are helping.

They may have been going for head shots and he may have been moving

That's very inconsiderate of him trying to move out of the way of the bullets whilst the police were trying to do their job!

TheBigBean

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

Better safe than sorry.

If at close range trained firearms officers can get less than 50% of their shots on target and others ricocheting through nearby vehicles... I'm not sure how much they are helping.

They may have been going for head shots and he may have been moving

They were going for kill shots to the head. Was that the most sensible thing to do?

orraloon

Had a conversation in t'pub after kickball (playing not watching) with mate who was then an armed response officer. This was July 2005, the time of those multiple London bombings. He wasn't Met but relayed the instructions given (nationally?) that the method was double shots to the head. Double as in fire twice then if required again...

TheBigBean

Jean Charles de Menezes was shot 7 times in the head and once in the shoulder.

Pross

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

Better safe than sorry.

If at close range trained firearms officers can get less than 50% of their shots on target and others ricocheting through nearby vehicles... I'm not sure how much they are helping.

They may have been going for head shots and he may have been moving

They were going for kill shots to the head. Was that the most sensible thing to do?

I'd have though so if there was a risk he had a suicide vest.

TheBigBean

Pross said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

Better safe than sorry.

If at close range trained firearms officers can get less than 50% of their shots on target and others ricocheting through nearby vehicles... I'm not sure how much they are helping.

They may have been going for head shots and he may have been moving

They were going for kill shots to the head. Was that the most sensible thing to do?

I'd have though so if there was a risk he had a suicide vest.

Given the shooting accuracy - all of the head shots missed - he would have had ample time to deploy his suicide bomb. This is a guy who was previously restrained.

ballysmate

TheBigBean said:

Pross said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

Better safe than sorry.

If at close range trained firearms officers can get less than 50% of their shots on target and others ricocheting through nearby vehicles... I'm not sure how much they are helping.

They may have been going for head shots and he may have been moving

They were going for kill shots to the head. Was that the most sensible thing to do?

I'd have though so if there was a risk he had a suicide vest.

Given the shooting accuracy - all of the head shots missed - he would have had ample time to deploy his suicide bomb. This is a guy who was previously restrained.

By all means question the accuracy of the firearms officers but surely you can see the recklessness or foolishness of restraining a person you believed to be a suicide bomber. Or allowing a member of the public to continue to do so?
You wouldn't pick up a suspected bomb so why would you grab someone who you believe to be wearing one?

ballysmate

Pross said:

pblakeney said:

orraloon said:

How does Duchess Kate get pinged by the 'world beating app' and have to isolate but Prince Billy gets to go to Wembalee? Close family members?

Make up the rules to suit.

That's the rules for everyone. Only contacts of confirmed cases have to isolate, contacts of contacts don't so when I got pinged the other week the wife and daughter were still OK to carry on as normal

Aww you had to go and use facts to piddle on the William Wallace of the forum's chips didn't you.

First.Aspect

ballysmate said:

Pross said:

pblakeney said:

orraloon said:

How does Duchess Kate get pinged by the 'world beating app' and have to isolate but Prince Billy gets to go to Wembalee? Close family members?

Make up the rules to suit.

That's the rules for everyone. Only contacts of confirmed cases have to isolate, contacts of contacts don't so when I got pinged the other week the wife and daughter were still OK to carry on as normal

Aww you had to go and use facts to piddle on the William Wallace of the forum's chips didn't you.

David Beckham. He's the super spreader. Has to be.

jimbohorizontal

First.Aspect said:

ballysmate said:

Pross said:

pblakeney said:

orraloon said:

How does Duchess Kate get pinged by the 'world beating app' and have to isolate but Prince Billy gets to go to Wembalee? Close family members?

Make up the rules to suit.

That's the rules for everyone. Only contacts of confirmed cases have to isolate, contacts of contacts don't so when I got pinged the other week the wife and daughter were still OK to carry on as normal

Aww you had to go and use facts to piddle on the William Wallace of the forum's chips didn't you.

David Beckham. He's the super spreader. Has to be.

I think that's what Posh Spice calls him.

orraloon

ballysmate said:

Pross said:

pblakeney said:

orraloon said:

How does Duchess Kate get pinged by the 'world beating app' and have to isolate but Prince Billy gets to go to Wembalee? Close family members?

Make up the rules to suit.

That's the rules for everyone. Only contacts of confirmed cases have to isolate, contacts of contacts don't so when I got pinged the other week the wife and daughter were still OK to carry on as normal

Aww you had to go and use facts to piddle on the William Wallace of the forum's chips didn't you.

Oh hello, Tory fanboi is back. How is Spaffer's d1ck tasting today?

Anyway. This was a genuine 'intrigue'. Came up in conversation today - a Scotsman, an Englishman and a German were in the woods working - and none of us knew da roolz. Whichever version of da roolz is current. And I don't eat chips much. So sorry.

pblakeney

ballysmate said:

TheBigBean said:

Pross said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

Better safe than sorry.

If at close range trained firearms officers can get less than 50% of their shots on target and others ricocheting through nearby vehicles... I'm not sure how much they are helping.

They may have been going for head shots and he may have been moving

They were going for kill shots to the head. Was that the most sensible thing to do?

I'd have though so if there was a risk he had a suicide vest.

Given the shooting accuracy - all of the head shots missed - he would have had ample time to deploy his suicide bomb. This is a guy who was previously restrained.

By all means question the accuracy of the firearms officers but surely you can see the recklessness or foolishness of restraining a person you believed to be a suicide bomber. Or allowing a member of the public to continue to do so?
You wouldn't pick up a suspected bomb so why would you grab someone who you believe to be wearing one?

I'd have shot him in the head while he was restrained.
But that's just me.

womack

TheBigBean said:

Jean Charles de Menezes was shot 7 times in the head and once in the shoulder.

Seems a bit harsh for overstaying your work permit.

ballysmate

pblakeney said:

ballysmate said:

TheBigBean said:

Pross said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

Better safe than sorry.

If at close range trained firearms officers can get less than 50% of their shots on target and others ricocheting through nearby vehicles... I'm not sure how much they are helping.

They may have been going for head shots and he may have been moving

They were going for kill shots to the head. Was that the most sensible thing to do?

I'd have though so if there was a risk he had a suicide vest.

Given the shooting accuracy - all of the head shots missed - he would have had ample time to deploy his suicide bomb. This is a guy who was previously restrained.

By all means question the accuracy of the firearms officers but surely you can see the recklessness or foolishness of restraining a person you believed to be a suicide bomber. Or allowing a member of the public to continue to do so?
You wouldn't pick up a suspected bomb so why would you grab someone who you believe to be wearing one?

I'd have shot him in the head while he was restrained.
But that's just me.

The police pulled the have a go man away and shot Khan twice. They thought he was dead.
Eight minutes later, he unexpectedly sat up and the six(?) officers at the scene fired another 18 shots because they thought he was going to detonate a suicide bomb, which actually turned out to be fake, although there was no way of knowing this at the time.

pangolin

Seems you guys are commending the officers for being better safe than sorry and unloading their guns at the chap. When actually this is a case study in not doing that, leaving him alive and giving him an opportunity to detonate a bomb, had there been one.

pangolin

The reporting actually says he "continued moving for 8 minutes" rather than playing dead for 8 minutes then suddenly sitting up. Weird course of events.

ballysmate

pangolin said:

Seems you guys are commending the officers for being better safe than sorry and unloading their guns at the chap. When actually this is a case study in not doing that, leaving him alive and giving him an opportunity to detonate a bomb, had there been one.

Maybe an option if you are in the Nevada desert and can set up a cordon of a couple of hundred metre radius, but in the middle of a city?

ROFL.

pangolin

ballysmate said:

pangolin said:

Seems you guys are commending the officers for being better safe than sorry and unloading their guns at the chap. When actually this is a case study in not doing that, leaving him alive and giving him an opportunity to detonate a bomb, had there been one.

Maybe an option if you are in the Nevada desert and can set up a cordon of a couple of hundred metre radius, but in the middle of a city?

ROFL.

You've misunderstood.

ballysmate

pangolin said:

ballysmate said:

pangolin said:

Seems you guys are commending the officers for being better safe than sorry and unloading their guns at the chap. When actually this is a case study in not doing that, leaving him alive and giving him an opportunity to detonate a bomb, had there been one.

Maybe an option if you are in the Nevada desert and can set up a cordon of a couple of hundred metre radius, but in the middle of a city?

ROFL.

You've misunderstood.

In what way? You suggested that giving him the opportunity to detonate his bomb was an option. I said that was nonsense.

ballysmate

pangolin said:

The reporting actually says he "continued moving for 8 minutes" rather than playing dead for 8 minutes then suddenly sitting up. Weird course of events.

Been back and read the report. His sitting up was apparently his first seemingly voluntary movement for 8 minutes. Prior to that he appeared to be in no way capable of action to detonate any device. The threat appeared to be neutralised. Any further shots could have been deemed excessive use of force as he was no longer a threat. The killing could then be found to be unlawful.

pangolin

ballysmate said:

pangolin said:

ballysmate said:

pangolin said:

Seems you guys are commending the officers for being better safe than sorry and unloading their guns at the chap. When actually this is a case study in not doing that, leaving him alive and giving him an opportunity to detonate a bomb, had there been one.

Maybe an option if you are in the Nevada desert and can set up a cordon of a couple of hundred metre radius, but in the middle of a city?

ROFL.

You've misunderstood.

In what way? You suggested that giving him the opportunity to detonate his bomb was an option. I said that was nonsense.

I'm not saying they should have done that. I'm saying they did do that.

My point is that him being alive for another 8 minutes goes against the kudos the police were getting for shooting him 12 (?) times to really make sure of things.