seamus wrote: » Giving armed officers the individual power to make an educated judgement call as to whether or not they should fire, is essential to the safe operation of an armed unit.
seamus wrote: » Requiring them to wait for an order or absolute 100% solid proof that the person is about to pull the trigger, endangers lives.
Pudders wrote: » Blair Peach Colin Roach Harry Stanley Charles de Menzes Ian Tomlinson these are all cases that the Met Police should answer about.
old hippy wrote: » You suggested that those of us who question deaths in custody or fatal shootings are somehow anti-law. Let's address that for starters.
ballsymchugh wrote: » These careful tactics have significantly reduced gun crime'
end of the road wrote: » i don't buy the idea that nobody who becomes a police marksman or a soldier doesn't want to kill somebody at some stage, why do those jobs then, you know that it could be part of the job description, i'd agree their odd people.
Mr.Micro wrote: » It's tragic when there's a loss of life. Duggan was armed with a gun just prior to his death. He had intent, there is no doubt about that. Was he worried about the law or rules of society? Not at all. The family are upset at the verdict, but they must accept he went out that day armed and paid the consequences. I do not like the fact that a person can be shot, even unarmed. What sort of person wants to be a police marksman, knowing that he/she will have to kill at some time on the future? Odd people IMO.
seamus wrote: » People are deliberately misinterpreting what was decided here.
seamus wrote: » Nobody is saying that he was shot with a gun in his hand.
seamus wrote: » The shooting was ruled lawful because the police officer(s) who fired were determined by a civilian jury to have had reasonable cause to believe that he was holding a gun at the time and was a real and imminent threat.
seamus wrote: » It doesn't actually matter whether he was holding the gun or not, and rightfully so.
seamus wrote: » What's missed is that the jury did find that the entire incident could have been avoided with better preparation by the force(s) involved. So the police haven't been found completely blameless, just that the firing of shots was legal and justifiable.
walrusgumble wrote: » Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of people.
walrusgumble wrote: » pure filth.
walrusgumble wrote: » society should shun them.
walrusgumble wrote: » no doubt on the social welfare.
walrusgumble wrote: » That man got everything he deserved.
end of the road wrote: » he didn't live by the sword, he was shot over a gun, 2 completely different things
catallus wrote: » Goddamit endoftheroad are you going to do this for the next 6 pages or are you going to make a coherent point after having read the thread?
Guy:Incognito wrote: » In the one where you'd swiftly change your tune if he got away because the police didn't want to appear heavy handy then ended up shooting a member of your family.
suicide_circus wrote: » Live by the sword...
Guy:Incognito wrote: » So when the police say "stop or we'll shoot you" what should happen next? They just keeping asking him nicely to stop till his manners kick in? Threats are pointless if you don't follow them up. The police were questioned. There was a whole inquest. Didn't you hear?
ShaunC wrote: » I'm not comparing the incidents but you can see why the police are ready too shoot first and ask questions later.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Keith_Blakelock
catallus wrote: » don't go running through a tube-station like a lunatic, hopping railings a few days after a major terrorist attack;
catallus wrote: » Any person who uses any of these events to criticise police need to just come out and say they are anti-law.
end of the road wrote: » a scumbag is no reason to shoot someone, at least not in this country or britain, you and others might like that to be the case, but not going to happen, actually their is a comparison, both men were unarmed at the time when shot maybe not, but thats irrelevant
Tigerbaby wrote: » no comparison at all in these cases. One was a scumbag, the other was a sorry victim of the panic sweeping London after the Tube bombings.
Tigerbaby wrote: » As for Mark Duggan and his ilk. He wont be missed from the gene pool.
Pudders wrote: » Blair Peach Colin Roach Harry Stanley Charles de Menzes Ian Tomlinson Now these are all cases that the Met Police should answer about.
end of the road wrote: » Gatling wrote: » Theres the issue nobody's 100% from the witness side what he had , Especially if you seen the low quality videos taken by witness/QUOTE] same could be said for the police, their intelligence was faulty at best Gatling wrote: » Intelligence says he was armed/QUOTE] it was wrong, he had no gun on him when shot so that makes the intelligence invalid Gatling wrote: » He was armed we know that/QUOTE] we don't, no gun was found on him Gatling wrote: » Now take the side of the firearms officer who fired the shots suspect known for violence confirmed as having a fire arm on his persons makes a sudden moved either raising a loaded weapon or supposed phone at you do you wait to be hit first or do you do your job and protect yourself and the public and take the person down/QUOTE] no weapon was raised, if it was then their wouldn't be an issue god love them, they get payed and don't get identified So specialist officers should be identified after a fatal shooting incident for what reason exactly
Gatling wrote: » Theres the issue nobody's 100% from the witness side what he had , Especially if you seen the low quality videos taken by witness/QUOTE] same could be said for the police, their intelligence was faulty at best Gatling wrote: » Intelligence says he was armed/QUOTE] it was wrong, he had no gun on him when shot so that makes the intelligence invalid Gatling wrote: » He was armed we know that/QUOTE] we don't, no gun was found on him Gatling wrote: » Now take the side of the firearms officer who fired the shots suspect known for violence confirmed as having a fire arm on his persons makes a sudden moved either raising a loaded weapon or supposed phone at you do you wait to be hit first or do you do your job and protect yourself and the public and take the person down/QUOTE] no weapon was raised, if it was then their wouldn't be an issue god love them, they get payed and don't get identified So specialist officers should be identified after a fatal shooting incident for what reason exactly
Gatling wrote: » Intelligence says he was armed/QUOTE] it was wrong, he had no gun on him when shot so that makes the intelligence invalid Gatling wrote: » He was armed we know that/QUOTE] we don't, no gun was found on him Gatling wrote: » Now take the side of the firearms officer who fired the shots suspect known for violence confirmed as having a fire arm on his persons makes a sudden moved either raising a loaded weapon or supposed phone at you do you wait to be hit first or do you do your job and protect yourself and the public and take the person down/QUOTE] no weapon was raised, if it was then their wouldn't be an issue god love them, they get payed and don't get identified So specialist officers should be identified after a fatal shooting incident for what reason exactly
Gatling wrote: » He was armed we know that/QUOTE] we don't, no gun was found on him Gatling wrote: » Now take the side of the firearms officer who fired the shots suspect known for violence confirmed as having a fire arm on his persons makes a sudden moved either raising a loaded weapon or supposed phone at you do you wait to be hit first or do you do your job and protect yourself and the public and take the person down/QUOTE] no weapon was raised, if it was then their wouldn't be an issue god love them, they get payed and don't get identified So specialist officers should be identified after a fatal shooting incident for what reason exactly
Gatling wrote: » Now take the side of the firearms officer who fired the shots suspect known for violence confirmed as having a fire arm on his persons makes a sudden moved either raising a loaded weapon or supposed phone at you do you wait to be hit first or do you do your job and protect yourself and the public and take the person down/QUOTE] no weapon was raised, if it was then their wouldn't be an issue god love them, they get payed and don't get identified
jimboblep wrote: » This guy was armed they did find a gun at the scene
jimboblep wrote: » He was also known to police from my reading of the situation he had thrown the gun or was in the process of it
jimboblep wrote: » The officer had to make a quick decision i dont think it was premeditated or a case of this is the only way we could get him
Carlos Roca wrote: » That's not what you said. You wrote this.. The fact remains that the police shot an unarmed man dead.
Mint Aero wrote: » This thread This thread...is like PC brigade jizz circle heaven. *Grabs popcorn* *Pulls up seat and drops pants*
catallus wrote: » then try to assert that an innocent such as myself would be conceivably the target of police violence.
catallus wrote: » The fact is is that the man killed by police was under surveillance.
Gatling wrote: » Theres the issue nobody's 100% from the witness side what he had , Especially if you seen the low quality videos taken by witnes[s/QUOTE] same could be said for the police, their intelligence was faulty at best Gatling wrote: » Intelligence says he was armed[s/QUOTE] it was wrong, he had no gun on him when shot so that makes the intelligence invalid Gatling wrote: » He was armed we know that[s/QUOTE] we don't, no gun was found on him Gatling wrote: » Now take the side of the firearms officer who fired the shots suspect known for violence confirmed as having a fire arm on his persons makes a sudden moved either raising a loaded weapon or supposed phone at you do you wait to be hit first or do you do your job and protect yourself and the public and take the person down[s/QUOTE] no weapon was raised, if it was then their wouldn't be an issue Gatling wrote: » Its a very fine line that some police officers have to take sometimes[s/QUOTE] god love them, they get payed and don't get identified
Gatling wrote: » Intelligence says he was armed[s/QUOTE] it was wrong, he had no gun on him when shot so that makes the intelligence invalid Gatling wrote: » He was armed we know that[s/QUOTE] we don't, no gun was found on him Gatling wrote: » Now take the side of the firearms officer who fired the shots suspect known for violence confirmed as having a fire arm on his persons makes a sudden moved either raising a loaded weapon or supposed phone at you do you wait to be hit first or do you do your job and protect yourself and the public and take the person down[s/QUOTE] no weapon was raised, if it was then their wouldn't be an issue Gatling wrote: » Its a very fine line that some police officers have to take sometimes[s/QUOTE] god love them, they get payed and don't get identified
Gatling wrote: » He was armed we know that[s/QUOTE] we don't, no gun was found on him Gatling wrote: » Now take the side of the firearms officer who fired the shots suspect known for violence confirmed as having a fire arm on his persons makes a sudden moved either raising a loaded weapon or supposed phone at you do you wait to be hit first or do you do your job and protect yourself and the public and take the person down[s/QUOTE] no weapon was raised, if it was then their wouldn't be an issue Gatling wrote: » Its a very fine line that some police officers have to take sometimes[s/QUOTE] god love them, they get payed and don't get identified
Gatling wrote: » Now take the side of the firearms officer who fired the shots suspect known for violence confirmed as having a fire arm on his persons makes a sudden moved either raising a loaded weapon or supposed phone at you do you wait to be hit first or do you do your job and protect yourself and the public and take the person down[s/QUOTE] no weapon was raised, if it was then their wouldn't be an issue Gatling wrote: » Its a very fine line that some police officers have to take sometimes[s/QUOTE] god love them, they get payed and don't get identified
Gatling wrote: » Its a very fine line that some police officers have to take sometimes[s/QUOTE] god love them, they get payed and don't get identified
catallus wrote: » If a policeman even has a scent of a rumour of information that someone is carrying a gun then they're fair game.
catallus wrote: » The idea that policemen should risk their lives on the off-chance that a scumbag will be magnanimous in arrest is deeply stupid.
catallus wrote: » Wasn't the information available to the police that he had a gun in the taxi? And when he saw the police he threw the gun out the window of the taxi?
