The idea of a ‘shoot-to-kill’ policy is kinda ridiculous. If you’re going to shoot someone, you’re gonna be prepared to kill them—after all, that’s why it’s called ‘deadly force’. Also, aiming for the head doesn’t increase the odds that the target is going to go down; it simply increases (dramatically) the odds that you’re going to miss the target entirely and hit something else (in a crowded subway station, most likely someone else).
Um, if the guy was being watched and believed to be a threat, why did they let him get to the tube station in the first place? I’m no counter-terrorism expert, but it seems to me that interdicting suspects before they reach the target zone would be a good idea.
It also seems to me that the smart terrorist would build their bomb with two switches: an arming switch and then a dead-man’s switch. Fortunately for us, these terrorists are pretty stupid: they couldn’t even build a bomb that works (and building bombs is really pretty easy—actually, too easy: just ask the Weather Underground).
1. They're shooting for the head, we're told, because if you shoot would-be suicide bombers in their explosives-laden midsections, they might blow up. The point about missing the target is entirely apt, though.
However, from reading various reports of the incident, I have the impression that the London cops already had the guy on the ground when they shot him. Not a pretty picture.
2. Good question. I suppose a threat is not really a threat until it does something threatening, like attempt to enter a tube station. Before that, it's just a subject of interest.
3. Didn't the Weathermen, like, blow up their own house?
3. Yup. You can see the rebuilt townhouse on W. 11th Street between 5th and 6th.