The shoot-to-kill policy has been the subject of considerable discussion after the killing of a man of "South Asian origin" who fled from British police and was later found to be an innocent Brazillian electrician.

The pro-policy arguments include the claims that, practically speaking, a suicide bomber cannot be "disabled and prevented from triggering the device, other than by shots to the head," and that such drastic measures are, in any case, justified because of the unusual times in which the British find themselves - in a state of war. As a British politician stated, "The new terrorist threat requires new responses."

With respect to the first justification, some may contend that the more humane use of the taser should be used in most circumstances so as to avoid the unnecessary killing of innocent people - the danger of over-inclusive police measures (profiling?) is minimized. On the other hand, respected police commissioner Sir Ian Blair stated that "a Taser could actually set off a [suicide] device."

While dealing with suicide bombers is not something Americans, or more correctly American authorities, have had to deal with, Americans are familiar with the second justification, both in terms of the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act and the suspension of the writ of habeas (see, All the Laws but One : Civil Liberties in Wartime), for example. At least one American publication has weighed in on the particular subject of the shoot-to-kill policy, which Americans may unfortunately have to grapple with: the editors of the Daily Reporter-Herald (Colorado) argue, "a civilized society cannot assume a foreign-looking man in a bulky coat is a terrorist and shoot first and ask questions later."