Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

Why was Nicholas Salvador not shot instantly?

74 replies

FujimotosElixir · 23/06/2015 22:26

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-33239870 he murdered an elderlery woman horrifically and was inches away from children brandishing a weapon,an imminent threat, why wasn't he shot quickly? Now he's been contained indefinitely costing 1000s a year no doubt, being a huge danger for every staff member who goes near him and never being safe for release ever. Who does that benefit ?

OP posts:
FujimotosElixir · 25/06/2015 19:15

fred west was well known to have had 2 brain injuries and brain damage.

OP posts:
Doyouthinktheysaurus · 25/06/2015 20:39

A brain injury is not the same as psychosis or any other kind of mental illness. Fred West was deemed to be clinically sane by Forensic Psychiatrists and faced trial as such.

SabrinnaOfDystopia · 26/06/2015 01:23

I have to admit that I found the footage of him rampaging through gardens, and on the other side of a fence to where children were playing, truly chilling.

The police present were not armed - a call was out for the armed police. I think, had the armed police been there, he may have been shot, because there was a very real risk to life - he entered a house which had people in it, and as the police said, they were acting 'to save life' and he had already killed a woman.

I'm glad he was apprehended alive, though, and I'm glad our police do not routinely carry guns. I'm not sure armed police being present earlier would have been able to save the woman he killed? but I don't know the full details.

FujimotosElixir · 26/06/2015 12:27

Thankyou for your post Sabrihna

OP posts:
firesidechat · 26/06/2015 15:44

I live in Britain and I don't want anyone being shot if it can be avoided and it was avoided with no harm done, apart from the harm that he had already caused the victim. No way do I want this country to turn into the US.

firesidechat · 26/06/2015 15:47

Ah, jumped in too soon and thought this was about this:

www.itv.com/news/wales/2015-06-25/white-supremisist-xxx-of-attempted-murder-of-dentist/

My comment still stands though. If someone can be captured alive then that is what should happen.

firesidechat · 26/06/2015 15:52

Can you imagine the horror of being so unwell and delusional and committing an atrocity like that then becoming better and aware of what you had actually done?

Too true RJnomore. I watched a programme recently about what makes a murderer. They interviewed a young lad who had killed his mother when in the grip of a schizophrenic episode. He was obviously sent to prison, but also got treatment. His anguish was terrible to see.

firesidechat · 26/06/2015 15:57

Surely the mental illness aspect of this is also a bit of a red herring. I don't think he should have been shot even if he was perfectly well and just happened to be "evil", whatever that means. Thankfully we don't have the death penalty here and deadly force is, and should always be, a last resort.

OOAOML · 26/06/2015 16:16

The killers of Lee Rigby were shot when they ran towards the police with clear murderous intent. Fred West killed himself in a prison cell. I'm not really seeing the link here.

Do you want lots more armed police on the streets in case something like this happens again? How many armed police will we need? Which areas will they cover?

Yes, it is chilling to see how close he was to those children. As far as I could see from the reports the police were monitoring him and trying to clear people out of his way, whilst getting officers into position to apprehend him. I'd hate to be in their situation, knowing that at any point there could be loss of life. Knowing that your primary aim is to capture him alive so that he can be tried, and then punished/treated as appropriate, and knowing that every second you have to decide whether the risk to other people is now too great and you have to kill someone.

RepeatAdNauseum · 26/06/2015 16:25

Fujimotos We don't, as a rule, use lethal force. We don't shoot people unless they are presenting a genuine threat to life at that moment. Salvador was not doing that when he was being apprehended.

In America, they shoot people far more loosely, but they also allow the population to be armed with guns. The two are closely linked.

Had he posed a risk to life, someone would have had to make a horrid assessment on whether it was worth discharging a weapon near to children. Even the best shot can get it wrong, it could have horrendous consequences.

As it is, Salvador is unwell, and he should get treatment. When he's treated, the knowledge of what he has done will probably be enough punishment, but his freedom is also severely limited.

Your personal opinion of Broadmoor and similar institutions is of no real relevance, but they certainly don't breed their own type of insanity. That's ridiculous. Have you been inside one, or is your opinion based on third-hand knowledge? I've visited a few people inside similar places, and the staff are trained to help people integrate, and to turn people around. To treat those who the rest of us wouldn't want to be near.

Being institutionalised is always a risk when you take away someone's freedom and keep them in a prison-like environment, but that's necessary under these circumstances. It isn't insanity.

FujimotosElixir · 26/06/2015 22:45

actually one of my parents was sectioned once, it seemed that the lack of stimulation made patients worse, it wasnt broadmoor though. could they not have shot him in the leg or something? slow him down? he just bulldozed the fences down.

OP posts:
Pagwatch · 26/06/2015 22:59
Hmm Yeah, you have really focussed on this to great effect. Well done.
SabrinnaOfDystopia · 26/06/2015 23:06

I may be wrong - but I don't think they do that. Too imprecise, and they usually only shoot people that they think are armed with a gun. A person with a gun who is shot in the leg can still shoot.

I remember reading ages ago that the armed police are trained that, when they do shoot somebody they aim for the centre of the chest - the only time they fire on someone is when there is a direct threat to life, and that's the best way to incapacitate kill someone. They don't do it lightly.

FujimotosElixir · 26/06/2015 23:21

pagwatch?

OP posts:
Pagwatch · 26/06/2015 23:22

Yes?

FujimotosElixir · 26/06/2015 23:24

whats with the arsy post?

OP posts:
Pagwatch · 26/06/2015 23:25

I have a child with learning difficulties, my parents both worked at a psychiatric hospital near where I grew up.
Your thread is 'lets shoot them, why don't we shoot them, let's protect proper people'

And you are questioning arsy posts?

FujimotosElixir · 26/06/2015 23:28

well no its not unless youre illiterate, i have an asd child youre point being? youre just posting ridiculously arsy shit and being deliberately obtuse go and chew on some ankles elsewhere.

OP posts:
RagingJellyBean · 26/06/2015 23:28

He wasn't shot instantly because we aren't in America, and I like to think the UK police force have more respect for life than the U.S. do.

Regardless of his actions, he is a human being and no human being deserves death at the hands of another.

Pagwatch · 26/06/2015 23:31

God yes, you posting 'shoot them why not shoot them, shoot them in the leg, shoot them a bit, why not shot them' is definitely the sensible line of discourse.

FujimotosElixir · 26/06/2015 23:36

whos them?

OP posts:
firesidechat · 27/06/2015 07:30

Well why don't you tell us who "they" are then Fuji. You started the thread.

You appear to have a worrying degree of bloodlust that most of us don't share and an equally worrying lack of knowledge about how policing and justice and mental health works in this country.

Also good for you that a pil has been sectioned. I have a pil that has been sectioned on numerous occasions and has been seriously mentally ill for 4 decades. Do I win?

meditrina · 27/06/2015 07:56

"could they not have shot him in the leg or something? slow him down? he just bulldozed the fences down."

No.

Really, no. If you are shooting, you shoot to kill because that is the whole damned point.

You just cannot make a leg shot. You need to shoot into the torso, both for maximum stopping power and so you can be reasonable sure that you'll hit the target. Legs etc are just too mobile to be sure if a hit, and even if hit there it does not necessarily mean you have stopped the target.

If you want to use non-lethal force, you use a taser.

Which they did.

mamadoc · 27/06/2015 09:59

Jean Charles de Menezes

His case is a pretty good reason to go with non-lethal force wouldn't you say?

One of the main reasons I am glad I live in the UK and not the US is that over here people are not walking around toting guns and that includes the police.

If all police were armed then all criminals would soon be too and before you know it you are getting a gun pulled on you for a traffic offence.

I'm sure that the police had called the armed response unit and considered trying to evacuate the area but it was all happening too fast and unpredictably for them to get there. Unless you are advocating all police having guns then I feel they did the best they could.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page