sir-roosio Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 More bad news from the capital Wanadoo News Seems like a much less concerted effort this time around. Thought I'd give you all a heads up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FullAuto Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 Just detonators eh? Clever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sir-roosio Posted July 21, 2005 Author Share Posted July 21, 2005 Seems to be more of a disruption exercise than a proper terror attack. If i find out that it was a 'journalist' 'exposing lapses in security in the wake of the bombing' I'm gonna f***ing kill someone! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kernel Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 That's what it sounds like to me... someone wanting to show that the London transport is still venerable. Although the guy who spoke on the radio earlier said he saw a persons bag explode and the person looked around with a surprised look on his face, drop the bag and run off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FullAuto Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 I can see the Sun headline now: "Terrorists suffer from premature detonation." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sir-roosio Posted July 22, 2005 Author Share Posted July 22, 2005 And yet more news from the big smoke. . . BBC News This is all getting a little serious! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FullAuto Posted July 22, 2005 Share Posted July 22, 2005 'Possible shoot-to-kill policy'.Does no one else ever notice how stupid the media is when it mentions this?What are you supposed to do? Shoot to wound?Morons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accounting Troll Posted July 22, 2005 Share Posted July 22, 2005 What concerns me is that the BBC report was saying that the man the police shot wasn't thought to be one of the suspects from yesterday. The police figured that he was bound to be guilty of something because he was running away. The police officers were in plain clothes, so I just hope the man didn't run away simply because he was frightened when he was challenged by a group of men with sub-machine guns Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivory Posted July 23, 2005 Share Posted July 23, 2005 ummm yes full auto-often shoot to wound (or incapacitate (i cant spell taht right) ) is issued. i think the recent round of attacks were VERY clever-loop holes in the system after the already tightened system. just shows up the flaws dont it!!! scary stuff. one woman at work today said 'ifwe just all come home from iraqu that woudl be the end of it' . . i nearly slapped her! (my friend was at teh airport once lookign for somewhere t park late at ngiht it was dark. a car was following her, every time she turned right he did, every time she sped up he did, every time she turned left he did, she was absolutly petrified....till he put his light outy onto the top of the car and pulled her over for drivving round too fast, and for too long. they let her go luckily understanding that she had no idea who the fuck was following her in an unmarked car!! -but it could have been worse. luckily it was a few years ago now. before all this ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FullAuto Posted July 23, 2005 Share Posted July 23, 2005 Umm, no Ivory, it's not. Shooting to wound is impossible and instituting such a policy would not only be incredibly foolish, it would result in more loss of life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solitaire Posted July 23, 2005 Share Posted July 23, 2005 Sorry to disagree full auto but the ammo sanctioned for use in UN assault rifles and police force MP5s and handguns is designed to pierce and run straight through the body causing as little damage as possible apart from hydrostatic shock which knocks the victim to the floor - wounding them without killing them. Other types of ammo (dum-dums for instance) are specifically designed to enter the body and fragment; damaging as much internal tissue and organs as possible and leaving lots of shards of metal in the hope that the victim will suffer crippling injuries or death. A shoot to wound policy was in effect for most Western police forces until suicide bombers came into the equation - there was even a discussion about this on one of the news shows a few days ago, in the last few days and weeks the UK Police chief constables organisation has secured a shoot to kill policy from the government, though really it's a precaution against shooting into the body which could lead to rounds hitting detonators and accidentally setting off a suicide bombers explosives.Even this is unlikely, since detonators are so small, usually able to fit into the palm of your hand - and there aren't many types of explosives that can be detonated simply by passing a bullet through them. Anyway, shoot to wound was until recently the standard order for police marksmen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FullAuto Posted July 23, 2005 Share Posted July 23, 2005 Well, if we're going to get technical... Sorry to disagree full auto but the ammo sanctioned for use in UN assault rifles and police force MP5s and handguns is designed to pierce and run straight through the body causing as little damage as possible apart from hydrostatic shock which knocks the victim to the floor - wounding them without killing them. UN assault rifles being 5.56mm, right? The 5.56mm round is well known for bending and then fragmenting once inside the body, 'tumbling', causing more damage. Police force MP5s use standard 9mm pistol ammunition, which does indeed have excellent penetration, you're right there. However, I doubt whether police use it, as the excellent penetration means it goes right through the target and hits the pregnant woman behind him.Hydrostatic shock has been thoroughly disproven. It is a myth, like knock-down power, energy dumping and all of that cack which followers of large calibre weapons love. Typical 5.56mm wound at bottom of page. Plenty of other info on that page too. Hydrostatic shock disproved. Other types of ammo (dum-dums for instance) are specifically designed to enter the body and fragment; damaging as much internal tissue and organs as possible and leaving lots of shards of metal in the hope that the victim will suffer crippling injuries or death. That's a perfect description of the standard NATO 5.56mm round. Hollow point bullets are illegal in warfare, but not in law enforcement use. Anyway, shoot to wound was until recently the standard order for police marksmen. No, it wasn't, nor ever was. Shooting to wound would be a disastrous thing to do. When armed police go to a situation, they shoot to kill. Shooting to wound, when the subject has a firearm or bomb, would be stupid. There is no 'safe' place to shoot a huiman being. Police and everyone else with a brain cell shoot for the heart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy Photon Posted July 23, 2005 Share Posted July 23, 2005 Shooting to wound is impossibleWell, the idea is to stun the enemy so you can capture them.... and that is useful and even necessary when you are playing X-COM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sir-roosio Posted July 23, 2005 Author Share Posted July 23, 2005 Ok, allow me to clear this argument up. The usual order for UK armed police is to aim for the torso. They say this is because it's thec vlargest area of the body, and usually results in at least an incapacitating wound. In the wake of the bombings the marksmen have been ordered to aim for a head shot on anyone suspected of being a bomber, as this is deemed the most likely way to kill them quickly preventing bombs being triggered. That was a paraphrase of a quote from the cjief commisoner on BBC news last night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FullAuto Posted July 23, 2005 Share Posted July 23, 2005 That at least makes sense. Whenever I've seen police MP5s, they're covered in scopes, tactical lights and aimpoint projectors, so if they corner a bomber they shouldn't find it too hard to headshoot if they can get him to stop running. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sir-roosio Posted July 23, 2005 Author Share Posted July 23, 2005 Don't start! It cracks me up when you see the armed police, and they've got such better guns than the Army! GRRRRRRRRR! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accounting Troll Posted July 23, 2005 Share Posted July 23, 2005 Ah yes, the infamous SA-80. I mean if British troops are going to be ordered to invade someone, they should at least be issued with weapons that actually work, and adequate supplies of toilet paper and boots. We were using 'liberated' Iraqi toilet paper and desert boots during the invasion But at least our troops found a use for all the paperwork the MOD gives them... I think with a suicide bomber, shoot to kill is the only option the police have. The trouble with trying to incapacitate him is that he might still be able to detonate his explosives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strong Bob Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 I agree with FullAuto. Regardless of whether or not "shoot-to-wound" was ever instated, it's an absurd concept. When you shoot, your goal is to get them down by whatever means necessary. Taking care just to hit the leg? They only do that in Hollywood. Normal officers, here in the States, shoot to minimize the amount of overall damage. Meaning, they'll kill that criminal until (s)he was dead if it meant stopping him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bomb Bloke Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 I gather shooting for the 'center of seen mass' has an advantage in that it gives better accuracy, but for maximum stopping power you go for the head. A shot to an arm would hurt, and it might stop a guy running, but a wounded bomber is more likely to blow himself up then a dead one. Or a live one, even - as they still have hope that they might get away. Kinda brutal though. It's not a concept that most people mull over, and having it introduced to you while your walking down the street tends to put most people on edge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kernel Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 The police officers were in plain clothes, so I just hope the man didn't run away simply because he was frightened when he was challenged by a group of men with sub-machine guns <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Apparently you were correct. He was a brazilian who came over here in 2000 to stay with his cousin and he had no links with the bombers at all. Rather ironic... coming from a country where the police are known for the aggresivness, to a country where the police are known for their understanding, only to be shot dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FullAuto Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 Seven times in the head, once in the shoulder. Lovely.Though, quite frankly, what he was thinking when he ran is totally beyond me. If I was in London and I heard someone shout "Police" I'd find the floor VERY interesting VERY quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kernel Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 Reports I've heard were that it was 5 times in the head. And what was he thinking? That's just it, he probably wasn't thinking anything. Most people would run in a situation like that, given what's been going on. Human instinct telling them to run and find a place to hide. As for you diving to the floor in that situation... How could you posibly know what you would do until you are placed in that situation yourself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KoMik Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 That Brazilian engineer was wearing thick (winter) jacket and he spend a night in house what was under polices observation. Should he have been naked and coming from his own house to not get killed? Sad. 5 shots to head from VERY close tells that those polices were under panic too. Humans in/of war... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kernel Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 It isn't unusual for someone from a hot climate like Brazil to wear thick clothes during the summer. I used to work with someone who used to wear a thick jumper AND a jacket during the summer when he went out. How he survived the British winters we never knew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accounting Troll Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 Since the police are now saying that they shot the wrong man, it is possible that he was in that house used by the terrorists because he erroneously thought they were his friends? After all, terrorists do try to pass themselves off as normal people, which requires them to have social interactions with the people they are plotting to harm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now