Do you support killing people based on suspicions?

[lockdown]

I understand defensiveness on behalf of the police, they are under immense pressures and trying to do their job in extremely stressful circumstances. I don't envy them. I don't want to see the police directly involved made scapegoats either, though they probably will be, while the tactics that so badly let them down are defended. I also understand that sometimes a lethal response to a real and known threat is necessary.

That said, do people actually support the policy in place, shoot-to-kill units deployed based on suspicions alone? Surely the murder of Jean Charles de Menezes shows just how wrong and unacceptable such pre-emption is?

[Missy M]

1. I absolutely DO NOT support shoot to kill units deployed based on..

suspicions alone. That is an insane policy. What do they base suspicions on - looks, religion, clothing, mental instability? Half the population could be killed based on those suspicions.

[lockdown]

4. In this case, residence and colour, and daring to use the tube

Some will argue there are grey areas, where you can't be certain there's a threat but the evidence is compelling, and a decent case could be made for that. But I don't think there can be such grey areas, a clear line is needed. Without it, judgement calls lead to travesties like this where someone has been killed for outrageously flimsy reasons.

[mr blur]

2. No, I don't,

for the obvious reasons brought up by Mr Menezes' death. The shoot-to-kill policy was hidden away in Northern Ireland but only a fool would have believed any government stating that it wasn't policy. Who knows how many people there were killed by security forces? But now it's present on our streets and no-one is denying it. We now know what it can lead to. The police's suspicions in this case were entirely unfounded. An innocent man died from 8 gunshot wounds. Yes, he could have been carrying explosives. So could I, but I don't want to be shot because some policeman who could be mistaken for a mugger thinks my coat is too thick.

[lockdown]

5. They tried to spin it away,

first saying the policy remains "shoot to stop". In the case of suicide bombers that meant shoot in the head, but it was still shoot to stop not kill. Now we have "shoot-to-kill-to-protect" and variations, but for all their defence of the policy they seem to realise people won't accept it. In his press conference today, Blair claimed the shoot-to-kill plans never crossed his desk. He defended the policy, but passed the buck to the police.

[kevsand]

3. In a very direct way, the invasion of Iraq

was in fact "killing people based on suspicions." It has continued to be nearly every day since. And no, I don't support it, on either scale.

[lockdown]

6. Guess it's unanimous then...

One last ego kick and goodbye. Sorry to all for any difficulties I've created, but thanks too for all the laughs. Seriously. Got to laugh.

Whoever you all are, been quite a rollercoaster! On to other things though, may as well finish where it started.

No war but the class war. ;)

[Kipling]

7. As long as they're towelheads, yes. They're all terrorists anyway.

Or at least so goeth the Daily Mail's response. Personally, I don't mind killing on a fair, steady suspicion if lives could be at risk. It's killing "because he lives over there and he looks Arabic" that bothers me.

[Briar]

8. No

What I want to know is why so few politicians are prepared to say so.

[baby_mouse]

9. I was very vocal about the Menezes issue at the time

But the official story changed so much I think I may have to change position.

Even if a shoot to kill policy is supportable in the context of the original story being true (which it wasn't), it's not now, because it's been demonstrated to be abusable.