"Shoot to kill", if required by the situation, has always been amongst the options open to the authorities. But if, as some here intend, it's to mean on-street executions then no, that's not right, it's not what we do and it's not even a militarily advantageous course of action.
Not because some bearded nut-job with an AK47 wants us to.
But that's not what the other bearded nut-job was saying, he was more or less saying he wants it revoking and that sets a dangerous precedent in what would be a situation of high stress and where a snap decision is needed, you would find yourself having to second guess your decision and the implications of opening fire, something that could cost lives.
The ROE were clear when I was serving and I doubt they have changed much in the meantime.
The sooner they get shot of him the better.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34840708