The United Kingdom has suffered two terrorist attacks within 12 days of each other. On May 22, a suicide bomber attacked Manchester Arena, where an Ariana Grande concert had ended. Twenty-two people were killed, mostly teenagers, with another 116 injured. The bomber, Salman Abedi, was a radical Islamic terrorist.
Then, on June 3, three Muslim radicals ran over pedestrians on London Bridge, crashed in nearby Borough Market, and proceeded to go on a stabbing spree. All three were shot and killed by police, but not before killing seven people and wounding 46 others. Police fired 50 shots at assailants during the June 3 attack to stop them. Two years ago, this shoot-to-kill protocol was found to be problematic for UK Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn (via Telegraph):
Jeremy Corbyn has said he is "not happy" with letting Britain's security services adopt a “shoot-to-kill policy” if terrorists were loose in the UK.
The Labour leader said he thought the policy could be “quite dangerous" and “counterproductive”, warning that it could lead to “war on the streets”.
The remarks come just days after the French military were deployed in Paris amid fears terrorists who had launched a series of attacks in the French capital were still at large.
Mr Corbyn is likely to come under pressure to explain how he would want the security services to take out terrorists if they were on the loose in Britain.
So, what are authorized firearm officers supposed to use? Strong language? Well, it appears Mr. Corbyn has done a 180-degree turn on this issue:
Mr Corbyn said in 2015 that he was "not happy" with the policy, which enabled the Metropolitan Police to kill the three terrorists just eight minutes after their rampage began on Saturday night.
He subsequently changed his stance, saying he would “support the use of whatever proportionate and strictly necessary force” was needed to save lives.
What should armed police do when they come across terrorists? That’s not a hard question to answer, sir.