Should armed police shoot with the intention to kill?: Peter Bleksley slams 'ludicrous' laws
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 вер 2024
- Former Scotland Yard Detective and Firearms Officer, Peter Bleksley, gives his views on the role of firearms officers and the way they can be persecuted by the law.
#armedpolice #metpolice #peterbleksley #shooting
Keep up to date with the latest news at www.gbnews.com
Join us today and unlock your members-only benefits: gbnews.com/support
Twitter: / gbnews
Facebook: / gbnewsonline
Download the GB News app! You can watch GB News on all of your favourite devices and keep up to date with the latest news, analysis, opinion and more.
www.gbnews.com...
As ex-military we were taught that if lethal force is justified within the rules of engagment then the force should be lethal, warning shots and shooting to injure were not permitted.
There's no such thing as shoot to injure.
I bet there is, but it takes experience n coolness under pressure which i doubt anyone in uk has anymore imo.
@petersmith5915 anyone who has had firearms training knows that when you fire a weapon at any target you aim at the centre of the target. Ultimately the goal is to neutralise the threat. Again, i suggest that there is no such thing as " shoot to injure ".
@@keithgoodrick-meech3921 thats pretty basic tho, how youd teach a gun phobic person whos never fired a gun how to shoot in like a 6 week training, uk firearms officers should be elite level gun handlers, it might save some lives but maybe im too idealistic, my views are formed by some shocking videos ive seen in the past, imo.
@petersmith5915 I get your point however, if you think how quickly you can point and fire a weapon there is no way you have Time to fanny about and pick a particular place to fire at. I'm a former firearms instructor and I can guarantee that the is no and never has been a shoot to injure policy.
@@keithgoodrick-meech3921 cos of that i will take your word for it, but why am i always so unlucky i run into experts all the time in the comments lol its uncanny, anyway thank u for setting me straight.
As a former soldier and police firearms officer this notion of shoot to "wound" is bordering on insane. Officers are trained to shoot at the centre of the body which contains all of the bodies vital organs, it's next to impossible to aim at a targets moving legs or arms and hit them with any accuracy, that's Hollywood BS! If a terrorist or criminal is trying to shoot someone, it is with the intention of killing them and therefore he/she is a danger to society. I'm not sure who comes up with these notions but, it is obviously someone who has never served in the military or as a police officer oe been on a two way shooting range!!
Your the divs who fight for the GOVERNMENT ?
You are a government soldier ?
Failed at school. Only option. You had Was to join the ARMY. TO MURDER PEOPLE ?
Did you learn anything. From. This ?
You invaded other peoples land. Because. You was following ORDERS. 😂
@stevenshaw6766 First of all thank you for your service . would you agree then, this officer was extremely Unlucky to exit a vehicle make a split second decision to take the shot , take aim fire and miss the body / TORSO completely and kill with a
headshot . or was it a good clean kill of an unarmed male . I agree with you're version of procedure . yet so many uk firearms incidents end in shots to the head .also , when inquiries lead to trial they invariably end in acquittal.
Fascism is rising
@@njoyingtube1 Head shots happened frequently in training scenarios. The reason being you are often involved in negotiation to avoid a shooting. Think about it this way: you shoot where you are looking, we look at a person's face when communicating - searching for visual cues as much as anything else - situations change in an instant. And in certain hostage scenarios the head was the only viable target.
@@djdoolittle1315 Where, How?
Khan is wats wrong with the police system and and the home office!! Get him out I'm sure we will see a change and his lap dog Mark rowley needs to go aswell
Absolutely SPOT ON 👌
ah he knows with the shit that london is full of now and the way islam is showing itself will prob be the ones recieving the bullets says it all
In a situation where an armed person is running towards you with intent to causing you harm, it is ridicules to expect the the armed officer to shoot them in the foot of arm! they are taught to aim for the largest target, the torso.
They did it with Lee Rigbys killer
I look at these two and I completely understand why England is doomed.
simple answer Yes...!! Armed officers are there for a reason not to be soft cuddly teddy bears
@oldshiny3012 EXACTLY, and if they happen to kill an innocent or unarmed human. That is ok with you is it , even if it was your loved one who happened to be mistaken for the pursued target . Oops well I've still got other loved ones
Must support the FLAW.. EVENING ALL ! ...
@@njoyingtube1
Go play with your lego todler.
@@njoyingtube1 oh let me guess you would be perfectly okay with a violent criminal getting away because he wasn't stopped promptly and went onto kill or injure one of your loved ones . No you would be screaming blue murder that the police didn't stop them when they had the chance
@@njoyingtube1go see a few police firearms training videos. Then your see why such things happen. There’s one where someone with your viewpoint undergoes a few scenarios. They change there view afterwards
Exactly
If they are a threat to the uk, blooming yes
If they're shouting Alan's snackbar yes
As an ex squaddie you are taught to aim for centre mass as it’s the largest area, you can’t aim for arms and legs you are likely to miss and may hit innocent bystanders.
With their blatant two tier policing recently this is a dangerously complex issue
armed police vs a unarmed nation seems fair
What's fair got to do with it?
Apply for a firearms licence. You'll be amazed at what you can own in England.
welsh @@andrewbayram765
Long before I was retired, i was at a hospital and was questioned why we didn’t shoot guns out of hands. Hell, he said, they do it in Hollywood films. I told him we actually aim at the second joint of the trigger finger and sometimes miss and hit the largest target, the body.
God save us from human rights lawyers, all of whom only represent certain sections of the community!!
And how!!!
What a dumb comment. Unsurprising though coming from folk who get their information from gb news.
No one should shoot to wound! A wounded person is a dangerous person. Every time a Police Officer discharges their weapon they are treated like a criminal, why do the job? They have no protection in Law in this Country. We want them but we don’t want them to do their job! Crazy.
They don’t want impartiality. They investigate themselves.
Sadly we do live in times where thugs have no regard to life and no effective justice system so if officers need to protect the public as well as themselves albeit by the use of guns.
Anyone saying this sort of things should go on a police firearms course. Then they will then have a little background to how hard it must be to
Where's the deterrent of a warning shot?
Too many politicians and solicitors have watched too many westerns.
Yes! Providing it’s NOT Guy Fawkes😂
Anyone asking this question has no idea about firearms.
If they are called to the scene then let them do their job. And not penalize for doing what they were trained for.
Yes!
So now the police are being held to the same standards as soldiers in Northern Ireland ? I hope they will be held to the same standard and prosecuted with the same vigour .
The reason why it's a danger in the states is because anyone they stop could have a gun, very different to what criminals here typically carry. A lot of U.S officers are even warned on their comms if they're stopping someone with firearm offenses prior. They're obviously going to be more trigger happy and strict with their stop commands.
You shoot at the biggest target most likely to neutralise the threat which is centre mass. That also happens to be quite deadly. Shooting to wound would not neutralise the threat and would be very difficult under duress, also potentially causing more missed shots which could hit bystanders. The idea of shooting to wound was made up by someone who’s never shot a gun in their life.
It’s mad. Do you think they should only aim to take toe nails off ? Ffs. It’s mental.
Yes the Lawyer doesn't understand what a gun is. It is not and had never been a defensive weapon. It's a lethal weapon and if you discharge the gun then you're trying to kill the threat.
Yes, they dont have the intention to shoot-to-tickle
You cannot use a firearm with the Intention of only wounding someone. A firearm is the last resort. It is always deadly force when you shoot someone. The problem is that in life it is all about statistics. A police officer attends much more problem situations than a average person. There chance of making a mistake is much greater. They are also human. As tragic as it is, you have to take that into account.
Yep .
You can't shoot to injure.....🤔
That is exactly what they should be doing its one of the basics of firearms safety dont point it at anything you are not willing to destroy. if that officer is drawing his service pistol or rifle he has deemed the situation severe enough to cover this part of the basics
They already do theyre poorly trained...
Couzens....
Anybody who has shot a firearm, KNOWS it is impossible to shoot to wound.
To prove this point go to a Clayshooting day! It is hard to hit a fast moving clay with a shotgun at 50 m or less. Trying to hit an arm or a leg at 20 m with a 9 mm pistol round is much harder. AND that assumes the Police Officer has a clear shot at an arm or a leg AND the bullet does not sever an artery or vein. AND if the police officer or civilian is being shot at, or charged with an axe or machette or butcher's knife the attacker has to be stopped. That means a centre mass and, probably, what in the USA is called a "double tap" anything else will lead to more people dying.
Even then there are MANY people who have survived several bullet wounds.
Consider:
"Berserkers were those who were said to have fought in a trance-like fury". Result they fought with wounds that would normally kill people. Some collapsed and died after the battle when the Adrenaline left their body.
This is similar to the mind set of those who commit mass killings these people will fight until unconcious or dead and even seek death!
Anybody who does not understand this has been watching too many Hollywood Westerns!
If you actually support true gun ownership/want to learn about firearm handling don’t go to a clay shooting field, you won’t learn a thing. Don’t give British Fudds any money, go to the USA or Eastern Europe and visit a real range with practical firearms, not dreadful sporting guns.
Yes …Obviously.
You think the Police officers intentions are worth anything at all?
The Armed officer follows his training, he shoots at centre mass of the targets body, you know the bit where all the vital life sustaining organs are. He doesn't get to choose what he hits. Every shot he takes is a kill shot, because the potential of hitting a vital organ is guaranteed. His only decision, the only one he can be judged on, is "was the shot justified", ie did he have grounds to pull the trigger. If he did that decision was made in a split second, he didn't get any chance to wonder if it might kill the target, let alone what organ he might hit. That wasn't his job, his job was to decide if he had to shoot. And it's very important he is focused on that one job, if he isn't other people WILL die.
Why do people who've never stood in such circumstances think there are 3 minutes of time for police officers or soldiers to ponder the outcome? There aren't. Get over it.
Oh and never put yourself in a position where an armed officer is looking down a barrel at you, making that decision. As an ex-soldier I will always stand with the cop, trust me no sane human makes that decision lightly.
If the police are allowed guns what about lesbian Nana 🤔 had a gun that would be scary as especially with the women having guns or pepper spray 🤔
If the police had done there jobs , the only guns left in the country are shot guns , owned by Lords ,MPs , Judges , seniour police , Farmers and Game keepers . How many Innocent woman . children and serving police have been murdered in the past 25 years when hand guns were banned with not 1 word to ban shot guns , if police had done there job there would not need Assault rifles and multi round pistols
Guns shouldn’t have been banned to the level they are in the UK. Sure have background checks and mandatory training/interviews with local law enforcement, but what is a broad, dynamic and potentially life saving skill in the USA is a niche, elitist, boring pastime for Fudds in the UK.
There should be nuances like with any power, they need to be trained n experienced enough to not always shoot to kill unless necessary, n i know itd be hard but yeah its not a job for everyone imo.
Jean Charles del Menezes? Remember him?
Do we want policing American-style?
NO THANK YOU
You mean just after a major terrorist attack. I bet you would have walked upto them calmly and checked if they were wearing an explosive vest or not first. I don’t think so.
@@MrMarcusWWW One atrocious act doesn't justify another. The police lied about him from the moment he entered Stockwell Tube station till the moment he had 7 bullets fired into his head.
The inquest jury were not allowed the verdict of unlawful killing and had no option other than to record an open verdict.
Why bother with the facade of justice if a judge can refuse your right to choose the verdict you believe in.?
That was the call of the then Gold commander, Cressida Dickhead. Inexperienced and utterly useless, only kept on as she was a lesbian!🤬
Rose tinted liberal fluffy bunny land. Beam me up Scotty.
So why did nobody actually answer the question asked.
Should All Armed Police go for full re-assessment knowing who recruited them under which commissioner and has Anything changed since Wayne Cousins ..
The government should lead by example and disarm their protectors if they think the citizens shouldn’t be allowed to defend themselves.
Yes they should, I imagine it is very easy for a well trained and highly efficient officer to shoot individual hair follicles on a moving target whilst dodging incoming bullets. It is a little barbaric to train them to shoot centre mass and hurt the poor armed robber or terrorist more than is required.............................................What idiot thought otherwise.
@neildraycott5272 The irony you using idiot to emphasize your thoughts, the dead guy in question here was as many are UNARMED, AND DEAD FROM HEADSHOTS , please try to pay attention. Wouldn't want anyone to consider you an IDIOT . ORIFICER !
Less lethal? What like .177 air pistols and 410 shot guns with rock salt cartridges.
That's the only reason firearms designed for.....and no ifs or buts afterwards.
If a public authority entrusts an officer with the use of firearms then they must without question entrust them to use those firearms according to the circumstances presented to them .
1st rule of fire arm training you dont point your weapon at something you dont want to destroy plus any hesitation when your dealing with possible armed suspects is putting the officers life at more risk rather them be able to do the job without having to second guess just follow the commands given and you will be okay 99% of the time as for shoot to wound your putting other mebers of the public at most risk of being hit only a idiot woulld suggest that
As a retired LEO in the US, I can say that firearms training is that if a weapon is used,k you shoot to stop the adverse action that required the use of firearms. You do not shoot to 'wound', you do not shoot to 'kill'. As noted, there needs to be a independent, competent and trained civilian investigation when shootings do happen. These boards must be completely free of political influence from both the government and police to have any validity. They must have broad authority to cross organizational lines as well.
One point to be made regarding the US, even though, perhaps because we have a armed population ( new officers frequently are already trained to a degree and proficient with firearms before entering the various academies). Officers actually discharging weapons is a somewhat rare occurrence. It makes the news because it is a rare, out of the normal occurrence. I drew my weapon many times and never fired it. On the other hand, I used chemical weapons (mace, pepper spray), impact weapons (batons, PR-24s, ASPs and Kubotons) many, many times. US police use of firearms is greatly exaggerated in Europe and rarely takes into account our 320M population or the size of the country. It is not logical to compare one against another.
The police shoot at centre mass not to kill….
Good job they didnt give Nana a gun
Thats what they are trained for
Yes
YES
Yes.
I wonder if the GB studio is protected by armed security?
Probably not.
As it’s against the law for public to defend themselves with firearms then. No. Police should only be allowed to use the same level of force the criminal is using
yes the idea is to take out the threat conceal cary laws should also apply in uk with the state of the country