No alternative to 'shoot to kill' practice

The unfortunate death of Jean Charles de Menezes has not highlighted, as many suggest in these days, the failure of the shoot to death policy employed by the police when it comes to stopping suicide bombers.

Rather it has shown how delicate and fragile the human decision making process works - especially situations with a high level of stress. Mistakes have been made because the human element failed to act in rational ways - and humans will continue to fail in those situations.

Granted, for the family and also the shocked public the de Menezes incident might be hard to believe - but it merely emphasizes how important it is to continue a high level intelligence operation to collect as much information as possible on potential terrorist threats.

It emphasizes that we cannot construct a perfect protection and that security always is an illusion. However, using this tragic case of human failure to build a case against the shoot to kill practice would be a major mistake.

Shoot to kill might be the only way to stop a person - determined to kill himself and others - from detonating a device in a crowded area. Certainly - it is the last resort, but without this option - what should we tell the police men who are pursuing a man who might have the power to kill them at will? Why should we care about protection at all?

So whom to blame for the de Menezes death? The officers that fired the bullet? Not if they really believed that Menezes was a suicide bomber. The intelligent officers who provided the wrong information? No - because the same argument applies for them. The police, who issued the shoot to kill order in general? Certainly not!

So whom - in my opinion there is only one answer - the terrorists who attacked and tried to attack London.

Guardian: Police rethink shoot to kill policy