Some people are making a big deal about the order for London police to shoot to kill suspected bombers, particularly in the wake of last week's horrendous wrongful shooting.
LONDON (AFX) - British police remain under orders to shoot suspected suicide bombers in the head if necessary, London's police chief Ian Blair said, despite having mistakenly killed an innocent man.When asked by Sky Television if the police had shoot-to-kill instructions in such cases, Blair replied: 'They have to be that. Because there's no point in shooting at somebody's chest because that's where the bomb is likely to be.'
He added: 'There's no point in shooting anywhere else because if they fall down they detonate it. It is drawn on the experience from other countries including Sri Lanka.'
To the best of my knowledge, all American police forces shoot to kill when they have to shoot, so this policy shouldn't be particularly startling to us Yanks. The only problem I have with shooting bombers in the head is that heads are hard targets to hit and most London cops don't have much weapons training. Shooting explosives could set them off, depending on the type, so the policy does make sense.
The headshot is because the biggest danger is that the bomber will set of the explosives, not the bullet, so you have to have instant and total incapacitation. Wrecking the brainpan does that, and is about the only reliable shot that does it. (No one is going to try to sever the spine with a 9mm bullet.) If he can move his hand, he can kill everyone.
Headshots are becoming more common as "Plan B" training with police, especially as body armor incidents become more common. Thunder Ranch (a leading tactical school) has always trained "Plan A-Plan B." Plan A: two shots to the center mass (torso). Plan B: If he is still upright, one shot to the brain; if still upright, go to Plan A.
"Shoot to kill" is appropriate for firing squads, but for any other situation, "shoot to neutralize" makes a lot more sense.