> Carl forwarded:
>
>>> Mr Winner, chairman of the Police Memorial Trust, went
>>> further than that. He told Times Online: "I think the police
>>> shooting the terrorist was absolutely right.
>
> More like Mr Loser today :-)
Something else in that article bugged me and it's been promulgated (but not overtly supported) on lbo as well:
>>> Terrorism experts said that the South London shooting was an unavoidable use
>>> of lethal force, the first result of new rules of engagement given to the
>>> security forces to deal with the threat of suicide bombers: shoot for the
>>> head, not for the body, in case you detonate explosives on the suspect's
>>> body. If officers thought the man was carrying explosives, they had no
>>> choice.
This is a joke, and not even a good one. Does a suicide bomber really care if they go boom in a subway station or on the street surrounded by hordes of security? So they only get 6 virgins to play with...
It definitely feeds the cowboy seal delta macho jamesbondnovel crowd.
The whole "head shot" thing annoys me because it's a patently ineffectual tactic against, specifically, a suicide bomber. Anyone who's ever been in the locomotive of a train or ...subway, operated dangerous or moving machinery has seen a deadman... You need to hold the grip squeezed down or the train does a very rude emergency stop. Extrapolate electrically. There's more ways to trigger a bomb than there are ways to prevent it. period. Someone WATCHING the police chase the person could do it with a 10 dollar radio shack CB walkie-talkie.
On The OTHER Hand:
The "head shot" concept insinuates to the general population: "When dealing with the police, cooperate... because, according to the new rules, if you resist you will die. No chance to ask a court WTF *THAT* was all about. Just dead. Resistance if futile.
Comments on the psych/sociology/semantics of this?
Leigh www.leighm.net