end of the road wrote: » he didn't live by the sword, he was shot over a gun, 2 completely different things
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.
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.
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.
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.
ballsymchugh wrote: » These careful tactics have significantly reduced gun crime'
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.
Pudders wrote: » Blair Peach Colin Roach Harry Stanley Charles de Menzes Ian Tomlinson these are all cases that the Met Police should answer about.
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.
end of the road wrote: » not at all
their lives most likely, its what their payed for
kuntboy wrote: » Scumbag lived by the sword.
kuntboy wrote: » How many people did he terrorise and brutalise with his gun previously? I am sick to death of scumbag wannabe "gangsta" knob-jockeys and their thug gangsta "culture" that is all over the place nowadays. Prancing around thinking they are hard with their guns and pitbulls trying to intimidate everyone, and with their stupid souped-up hotrods with spoilers blasting out dubstep. If they only knew how ridiculous they looked, they all think they're in a US rap video, its pathetic.
kuntboy wrote: » de Menzes should have stopped when told to by the cops, instead he ran onto a train chased by them a few days after an attack- what an idiot, what did he expect would happen?
Jonny7 wrote: » there was a huge amount of criticism for the tame, hands-off approach by the UK police to the subsequent riots
Fratton Fred wrote: » Honestly, to judge the policemen that shot JC De Menezes you had to be living or working in London at the time. Two attacks on the tube in the space of a week and the atmosphere in the city could be cut with a knife. My heart goes out to his family, but I also have a lot of sympathy for the policemen involved as well. As far as they were concerned, he was a suicide bomber.
Santa Cruz wrote: » Better to be tried by twelve than carried by six. If in doubt take him out
catallus wrote: » I mentioned nothing about deaths in custody so stop your lying sidetracking right there. Those of you who so blindly defend dangerous criminals, who would gladly kill both police and citizens, in such a mock-innocent manner are to be despised. You don't "question", you endlessly needle and cajole those who strive for justice and protection against the lying murdering thieving raping scum you so disgustingly defend. You need to pick a side; the fact is is that your comments here reveal you to be a moral coward who would defend a criminal against a policeman. And none of this bullshít about "oh but some police are corrupt!!" Of course corruption exists, deal with it like an adult and let justice take its course in the courts.
end of the road wrote: » not at all their lives most likely, its what their payed for
Pug160 wrote: » Do you mind if I ask what age you are? Because it seems as though you don't quite understand the reality of these situations. These are not computer games, this is real life where people get hurt or even killed, and all in the blink of an eye. These people are violent criminals who have very little regard for human life, so you have to bear that in mind and step into a police officer's shoes. From reading your posts it just seems as though you're some kid who has lived a life wrapped in cotton wool or something.
end of the road wrote: » a fire arms officer is payed to put his life on the line and risk his life, its what he is payed for, his job
Zambia wrote: » This statement is utter stupidity and does not reflect well on you.
end of the road wrote: » so be it, i'm still sticking to the statement and i still agree with it hense writing it
Skylinehead wrote: » You're wrong though. Why would somebody be employed to risk their life? What's the point in that?
end of the road wrote: » ehh, to save others?
you think a soldier or a fire fighter isn't payed to risk their lives? no their just payed to stand there doing nothing i suppose
