The claim that a single officer fired five shots came from a witness who was obviously in a state of shock and near-panic.
Also, it is simply not possible, outside fiction, to reliably shoot someone in such away as to incapitate them without killing them, let alone spectacular things like shooting a gun/detonator out of someone's hand. As a result, in most democratic countries the philosophy in regard to police firing on people is:
(a) Don't shoot at anyone unless you are convinced that they pose an immediate threat to others that justifies killing them. (b) Given that, make sure that they are rapidly killed and don't have time to cause any harm before their demise.
To be honest, I don't regard myself in any way as a law'n'order punitive conservative, but I would say that I think an armed police officer faced with someone strongly suspected to be a suicide bomber would be justified in shooting them as many times as he/she had bullets.
Thanks, that's weirdly reassuring. I suppose I found it unerving partly for the reminder that this isn't a country where the police don't use guns and I know that intellectually but rarely see them. Also the fear that they might have got a wrong person since the last thing the situation needs is 'martyrs.' But with the level of information the police appear to have that seems unlikely.
This whole thing is very unsettling. I can't imagine they would have shot him without good reason, but I suppose we will have to wait to hear from the police. I think I'm more unsettled now than after the first attack.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Also, it is simply not possible, outside fiction, to reliably shoot someone in such away as to incapitate them without killing them, let alone spectacular things like shooting a gun/detonator out of someone's hand. As a result, in most democratic countries the philosophy in regard to police firing on people is:
(a) Don't shoot at anyone unless you are convinced that they pose an immediate threat to others that justifies killing them.
(b) Given that, make sure that they are rapidly killed and don't have time to cause any harm before their demise.
To be honest, I don't regard myself in any way as a law'n'order punitive conservative, but I would say that I think an armed police officer faced with someone strongly suspected to be a suicide bomber would be justified in shooting them as many times as he/she had bullets.
no subject
no subject
I'll second that F**K
Re: I'll second that F**K