Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Shoot to kill – understanding police use of force in combatting suicide terrorism

  • Published:
Crime, Law and Social Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

More than a year after the killing of an innocent man, Jean Charles de Menezes, wrongly suspected by the Metropolitan Police of being a suicide bomber, the authors consider police accountability in combating terrorism. The authors argue that traditional policing styles in the UK are based on notions of reasonableness, compromise and respect for the individuals’ rights. A central tenet of our consent to be policed is the considered and rare use by police of coercive force, which is premised on a continuum ranging from negotiation at one extreme to lethal consequences at the other. Combating suicide terrorism in the UK using developed policies like Operation Kratos means that police are restricted to shooting to kill. Although there is undoubtedly a consensus that combating terrorism requires a robust and overt response, the authors ask whether it is ever possible to achieve a balance between liberty, security, and police accountability when dealing with difficult terrorist incidents. Police accountability is assessed in the context of operational policy-making and how that impacts on specialist police forces engaged in anti-terrorist operations. The authors conclude that since the introduction of Operation Kratos the nature of policing, and also its structure, is changing from being covert, understated and reasonable, to a zero tolerance, military, overt and oppressive style. In other words, traditional reactive policing styles have given way to a proactive military approach. Military styles of policing with overt displays of force tend to overlook civil rights and make more mistakes. We must be able to trust our police, because a trustworthy police is one which acknowledges our civil rights.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Thompson. E.P. (1980) Writing by Candlelight, Merlin Press Ltd, London, 230.

  2. Vincent H. (1924) The Police Code, Butterworths, London, pxiv.

  3. Lustgarten L. (1986) The Governance of Police, Sweet & Maxwell.

  4. Welch J. (2005) Lethal force and the law, Law Society Gazette, 4th August 2005, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/professional accessed on 23rd November 2006.

  5. Co-opted partners could include for example a Railway company who would be required to hand over CCTV footage as part of an investigation into terrorist activity. In some cases co-opted partners may be unwilling or even un-cooperative.

  6. Kratos is Greek for strength, might and power.

  7. Orr-Munro T. (2003) Police issued with guidance on dealing with suicide bombers, Police Review, Janes Information Group, London, 24th January 2003, 6.

  8. The bomber trigger is a person who is not a suicide bomber as such but has the means to trigger a device and intends to set off the explosive device by remote control.

  9. Marx, G. T. (1988) Under Cover : Police Surveillance in America. University of California Press, Berkley.

  10. Best, D and Quigley, A. (2003) ‘Shootings by the Police:What predicts when a firearms officer in England and Wales will pull the trigger’ Police Complaints Authority, London, 361.

  11. McKenzie I. (2000) Police Force: rules, hierarchies and consequences in Leishman F., Loveday B., Savage S. (eds) Core Issues in Policing, Longman, London.

  12. Marx, G. T. (1988) Under Cover : Police Surveillance in America. University of California Press, Berkley ,45.

  13. Marx, G. T. (1988) Under Cover Police Surveillance in America. University of California Press, Berkley ,45.

  14. Best, D and Quigley, A. (2003) ‘Shootings by the Police: What predicts when a firearms officer in England and Wales will pull the trigger’ Police Complaints Authority, London, 361.

  15. Savage S., Charman S., Cope S. (2000) The policy making context: who shapes policing policy in Leishman F., Loveday B., Savage S. (eds) Core Issues in Policing, Longman, London.

  16. Hollow point and soft-nosed bullets are so called ‘dum dum’ bullets which were designed by the British Army for use in India in the 1890’s. They are banned for use in warfare by the Hague Convention of 1899. http://www.firstworldwar.com accessed 13th June 2006.

  17. http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk accessed 3rd August 2005.

  18. Countdown to Killing, BBC Panorama Documentary (Reporter Peter Taylor) televised on 8th March 2006.

  19. Marx, G. T. (1988) Under Cover : Police Surveillance in America. University of California Press, Berkley, 143.

  20. Marx, G. T. (1988) Under Cover : Police Surveillance in America. University of California Press, Berkley, 83.

  21. Countdown to Killing, BBC Panorama Documentary (Reporter Peter Taylor) televised on 8th March 2006.

  22. Crawford A. (2003) The Pattern of Policing in the UK; policing beyond the police, in Newburn T. (ed) The Handbook of Policing, Willan, Cullumpton, 137.

  23. Mawby R. and Wright A. (2003) The Police Organisation, in Newburn T. (ed) The Handbook of Policing, Willan, Cullompton, 169–195.

  24. Ericsson R. and Haggerty K. (1997) Policing the Risk Society, Toronto, University of Toronto Press.

  25. Klockars, C. B. (1985) ‘The idea of Police’. Sage, London., 45.

  26. The ‘rules of engagement’ are a standard operating procedure specified on a yellow card issued to each soldier in the British Army.

  27. ACPO (1987) ‘Guidelines for the Police on the issue and use of Firearms’. Home Office, London (revised 2005).

  28. Glass, D. (2005) ‘Judgement call’ in Police Review 1st July 2005, 22–23.

  29. Northam, G. (1988) ‘Shooting in the Dark’ Faber and Faber, London, 153.

  30. Pate, A. M. and Fridell, L. A. (1993) ‘Police Use of Force: Official Reports, Citizen complaints and legal consequences’ The Police Foundation, Washington , 19.

  31. Pate, A. M. and Fridell, L. A. (1993) ‘Police Use of Force: Official Reports, Citizen complaints and legal consequences’ The Police Foundation, Washington and Alpert, G. P. and Dunham, R. G. (2004) ‘Understanding the Police Use of Force’, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

  32. McKenzie, I. (2000) ‘Police Force: rules, hierarchies and consequences’ in Leishman, F. Loveday, B. and Savage, S. (eds) Core issues in Policing. Longman, London.

  33. Geller, W. and Scott, M. (1992) ‘Deadly Force: What we know’. Police Executive Research Forum, Washington, DC.

  34. Alpert, G. P. and Dunham, R. G. (2004) ‘Understanding the Police Use of Force’, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 20.

  35. Reiner, R. (1992) ‘The Politics of the Police’ . Wheatsheaf, Brighton.

  36. Parsons, K. (1980) ‘Techniques of Vigilance’ Charles E. Tuttle, Cincinatti, OH and McKenzie, I. (2000) ‘Police Force: rules, hierarchies and consequences’ in Leishman, F. Loveday, B. and Savage, S. (eds) Core issues in Policing. Longman, London.

  37. Pate, A. M. and Fridell, L. A. (1993) ‘Police Use of Force: Official Reports, Citizen complaints and legal consequences’ The Police Foundation, Washington.

  38. Waddington, P. A. J. (2005) ‘Our Risk-averse society dislikes violence’ in Police Review 23rd September 2005 p14–15.

  39. Marx, G. T. (1988) Under Cover : Police Surveillance in America. University of California Press, Berkley ,12.

  40. Maguire, M and John, T. (1995) Intelligence, Surveillance and Informants: Integrated approaches, Police Research Group Crime Prevention series, Paper No. 64. Home Office, London.

  41. Urban M. (1992) Big Boys Rules, Faber and Faber, London, 73.

  42. Private Eye (1989) Rock Bottom, Pressdram Ltd, London, 2.

  43. Cobain I., Cowan R., Norton-Taylor R. (2005) Faces of the suspects: Police chase ends with man shot dead on tube’, Guardian, Guardian Newspapers Ltd, 23rd July 2005.

  44. Editorial, (2005) Shoot to kill policy could be expanded, Mail on Sunday, Associated News Media, London, 24th July 2005.

  45. The Times (1988).

  46. Supra, n.26 at 276.

  47. Home Affairs Select Committee (2005) Counter-Terrorism and Community Relations in the Aftermath of the London Bombings, uncorrected transcript of Oral Evidence taken on 13th September 2005, accessed via www.publications.parliament.uk.

  48. All England Law Reports 2, 937 at 946, 1976.

  49. Six, F. (2003) ‘The dynamics of trust and trouble’, in B. Nooteboom and F. Six (eds) The Trust Process in organisations, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 196–221.

  50. Braithwaite J. (1998) Institutionalising Distrust, Enculturating Trust in Braithwaite V., Levi M. (eds) Trust and Governance, Russell Sage, New York.

  51. Steele, J. (2006)’Met faces Health and Safety trial over de Menezes’. The Telegraph 18th July 2006.

  52. Hutton, G. Johnston, D. and Sampson, F (2005) Blackstones Police Investigators Manual. Oxford University, Press, Oxford.

  53. Feldman D. (2002) Civil Liberties and Human Rights in England and Wales, second edition, Oxford University Press, 188.

  54. Series A, No. 324, Judgement of 27 September 1995, 21 EHRR 97.

  55. Feldman D. (2002) Civil Liberties and Human Rights in England and Wales, second edition, Oxford University Press, 189.

  56. Marx, G. T. (1988) Under Cover : Police Surveillance in America. University of California Press, Berkley, 15.

  57. Woodward W. (2006) Police have no right to rush into action on dubious intelligence, Guardian Newspapers Ltd, London.

  58. http://www.met.police.uk/ attack on london accessed 18th April 2006.

  59. Goldsmith A. (2005) Police Reform and the problem of trust, Theoretical Criminology, Vol 9, no 4, 464.

  60. Supra, n36 at 463.

  61. Scraton P. (1987) Unreasonable Force: Policing, Punishment and Marginalisation in Scraton P. (ed) Law, Order and Authoritarian State, Open University Press, Milton Keynes.

  62. Cowell, A. (2006) ‘Britain and US lower threat levels’. New York Times 14th August.

  63. Manningham-Buller E. (2005) The International Terrorist Threat and the Dilemmas in Countering It, Speech given at the Ridderzaal, Binnenhof, The Hague, Netherlands, www.Mi5.gov.uk accessed 29th November 2005.

Acknowledgement

Acknowledgements and thanks must be given to Professor John Lea (Middlesex University) and Professor Peter Squires (University of Brighton) for their patience and advice in reviewing early drafts of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for the Study of Crime, Conflict and Control, Middlesex University, Middlesex, UK

    Peter Kennison

  2. Centre for Legal Research, Middlesex University, Middlesex, UK

    Amanda Loumansky

Authors
  1. Peter Kennison
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Amanda Loumansky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amanda Loumansky.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kennison, P., Loumansky, A. Shoot to kill – understanding police use of force in combatting suicide terrorism. Crime Law Soc Change 47, 151–168 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-007-9068-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-007-9068-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation