Police firearms is a job I wouldn't want but no one is above the law (if you fuck up then you should pay the consequences, isn't that what the authorities tell US?)
There's plenty of anecdotal evidence of Plod getting it wrong then lying to cover up (Hillsborough/Orgreave immediately come to mind, I'm all for getting rid of baddies and I won't lose any sleepover this lad but it will be interesting to hear what happened. Go watch The Mark Duggan programme if you haven't seen it.... and to say Menezes was unlucky coz London was on high alert....well...lets just hope one of your family is never unlucky
BTW the cars cannot be moved as its a crime scene
fire never sleeps
Quote:7 shots to the head and 11 shots fired in all.
An innocent man, who posed no threat whatsoever, was executed by the police. And the police told lie after lie trying to cover up what happened.
(05-01-17, 03:03 PM)maddog04 link Wrote: Police firearms is a job I wouldn't want but no one is above the law (if you fuck up then you should pay the consequences, isn't that what the authorities tell US?)
There's plenty of anecdotal evidence of Plod getting it wrong then lying to cover up (Hillsborough/Orgreave immediately come to mind, I'm all for getting rid of baddies and I won't lose any sleepover this lad but it will be interesting to hear what happened. Go watch The Mark Duggan programme if you haven't seen it.... and to say Menezes was unlucky coz London was on high alert....well...lets just hope one of your family is never unlucky
BTW the cars cannot be moved as its a crime scene Mad Dog What happened to Menezes as I stated in my post was disgraceful, why bring my family into it?? Coming from N Ireland I have seen my fair share of gun crime and violence, yes mistakes are made and sadly they cannot be in made. If the police are found out to lie they should be hung out to dry. Those lying bastards at Hillsborough being one group that springs to mind, justice for the 96.
MT-09 Tracer for those who no longer can handle a BIG boy Fazer
(05-01-17, 11:19 AM)mtread link Wrote: Support Police shoot to kill? Be very careful what you wish for. The IPCC investigation will probably find (again) that the victim posed no threat at the time. Of course the police make mistakes. What they are not good at is admitting them.
You know what, the IPCC will probably remove this known-criminal from blame, but quite frankly if there was a gun about his person or in the vehicle (I believe there was) then I am with plod. People who carry guns and get into all sorts of very illegal activity are probably on borrowed time anyway. Here in Bristol there are frequent drug-gang related killings, often the stiff is implicated in all sorts of crime. I want all these selfish, parasitic, dangerous scumbags off of the streets. They have waived their right to liberty and if shot whilst gun-toting tough luck.
05-01-17, 07:48 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-01-17, 07:50 PM by mtread.)
Quote:You know what, the IPCC will probably remove this known-criminal from blame, but quite frankly if there was a gun about his person or in the vehicle (I believe there was) then I am with plod. People who carry guns and get into all sorts of very illegal activity are probably on borrowed time anyway. Here in Bristol there are frequent drug-gang related killings, often the stiff is implicated in all sorts of crime. I want all these selfish, parasitic, dangerous scumbags off of the streets. They have waived their right to liberty and if shot whilst gun-toting tough luck.
The IPCC can only work on the evidence provided. Forensics plus witness statements, and thereby lies the problem. The police themselves are witnesses, and they conspire not to tell the truth. Mark Duggan had threw his gun over a fence, but was shot twice. First wounded then killed.
The police have very specific rules before they can fire. Somebody's life must be in danger. For instance they must believe the victim is about to draw their gun and shoot someone. Believing they have a gun in the car isn't enough.
Yes drug gangs are scum, and they shoot each other. But shooting to kill criminals just to get rid of them isn't right. Otherwise where do you stop? Who decides who it is right to kill, and where do you draw the line? Speeding at 100mph+ is a criminal offense and is putting lives in danger. Perhaps they should be shot?
05-01-17, 08:43 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-01-17, 08:44 PM by pilninggas.)
(05-01-17, 07:48 PM)mtread link Wrote: Quote:You know what, the IPCC will probably remove this known-criminal from blame, but quite frankly if there was a gun about his person or in the vehicle (I believe there was) then I am with plod. People who carry guns and get into all sorts of very illegal activity are probably on borrowed time anyway. Here in Bristol there are frequent drug-gang related killings, often the stiff is implicated in all sorts of crime. I want all these selfish, parasitic, dangerous scumbags off of the streets. They have waived their right to liberty and if shot whilst gun-toting tough luck.
The IPCC can only work on the evidence provided. Forensics plus witness statements, and thereby lies the problem. The police themselves are witnesses, and they conspire not to tell the truth. Mark Duggan had threw his gun over a fence, but was shot twice. First wounded then killed.
The police have very specific rules before they can fire. Somebody's life must be in danger. For instance they must believe the victim is about to draw their gun and shoot someone. Believing they have a gun in the car isn't enough.
Yes drug gangs are scum, and they shoot each other. But shooting to kill criminals just to get rid of them isn't right. Otherwise where do you stop? Who decides who it is right to kill, and where do you draw the line? Speeding at 100mph+ is a criminal offense and is putting lives in danger. Perhaps they should be shot?
I don't trust the IPCC's judgement on these high profile cases (part of my wider view that I do not trust the judiciary or justice quangos to make judgements without a jury of my peers having the final decision). So I think it should be judged by an unbiased 'jury' with no affiliation to anyone. Did Mark Duggan really cover his face? Unless it's caught on CCTV we'll never know. What we do know is that Mark Duggan was a criminal who died with a gun on his person (beyond refute). Part of the problem is calling this dead guy in Yorkshire 'a victim', sadly he was not, he wasn't minding his own business in a law abiding manner, he had a prolific criminal who had a gun with him. Those of us with a lawful mindset who don't sell drugs or carry guns cannot imagine how he acted or moved in that moment. I really don't think either case was an example of summary execution, plod just followed a procedure and [not] sadly a destroyer of lives got his taken away. If I was an armed copper, and following years of high quality training, a known armed criminal (with presumably no weapons training) failed to do as commanded and then acted in an immediately threatening or unpredictable manner I'd probably pull the trigger too....
As far as I am aware traffic police do not carry guns, and armed police cannot remove their weapons from the vehicle's safe if stopping someone for a traffic offence. I can't see that being americanised any time soon.
Drugs should be legalized. For all the 18+ adults. Mafia stays out of business, plus addicts don't do loads of small crimes they otherwise do to get the money for heroin.
As far as police shooting goes, it depends what kind of society you want. Even then, there are several ways to get there, depending on the starting point. I mean, imagine working as a cop. Would you prefer:
a) being allowed to shoot anyone that tries anything suspicious (reaching for glove box, or under arm, or belt...).
b) knowing that the law gives automatic death sentence to anyone that tries to shoot (or stab) a cop, and knowing that the criminals know that you are not allowed to shoot until they shoot first at someone (so they won't panic and shoot you in fear of you shooting them).
One thing's certain - shooting someone can't be taken back. Once they're shot, they're shot. The others live with it, for better or worse.
Most things done in a hurry need to be done again - patiently.
No Mark Duggan didn't die with a gun on his person. He'd already thrown it away when he was shot. That was the evidence provided and the decision of the coroner and the jury. Now if you don't want to believe or trust the IPCC, coroner or jury then that's your right. Fortunately we have law.
All you people attacking the police about this and other shootings know nothing at all about what really happened, you were not present at any of them. I would love to see how some of you would react when put in the same position as these police are, no matter how much training they recieve the real thing must be terrifying.
How many police have lost their lives in the line of duty, doing a thankless job for an ungrateful population?
Quote:All you people attacking the police about this and other shootings know nothing at all about what really happened, you were not present at any of them.
Indeed it took over 25 years to get the truth on Hillsbourgh.
Still no inquiry on Orgreve. The police destroyed many men's lives during the miners stike. They acted like a private army.
Perhaps if people don't trust the police, then maybe, just maybe it's down the the many many times they have operated outside of the law.
Aye as if they are the biggest gang in town.
05-01-17, 10:07 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-01-17, 10:08 PM by mtread.)
Slappy did you watch the Mark Duggan documentary? If you had you would know what really happened. No I wouldn't want to do the police's job. But police marksmen are all volunteers, and they are highly trained. They have to follow rules, but then again they are human and make mistakes. What they mustn't do is lie about it.
(05-01-17, 10:06 PM)VNA link Wrote: Quote:All you people attacking the police about this and other shootings know nothing at all about what really happened, you were not present at any of them.
Indeed it took over 25 years to get the truth on Hillsbourgh.
Still no inquiry on Orgreve. The police destroyed many men's lives during the miners stike. They acted like a private army.
Perhaps if people don't trust the police, then maybe, just maybe it's down the the many many times they have operated outside of the law.
Aye as if they are the biggest gang in town.
The flipside is all the coppers killed or maimed in the line of duty off of the top of my head Ronan Kerr, Keith Blakelock, Yvonne Fletcher, Fiona Bone, Ian Broadhurst, Chris Roberts and Stephen Jones (driven over by a thug near here). It's easy to call them a private army, but it's a tough job and they are at the front line of what can be quite a challenging boundary between order and lawlessness. Those poor coppers shot in Greater Manchester weren't a gang they were just 2 WPCs trying to keep their community safe. I'll always side with the old-bill, most of us know a copper or two and they are putting themselves on offer everyday they work.
(05-01-17, 08:55 PM)mtread link Wrote: No Mark Duggan didn't die with a gun on his person. He'd already thrown it away when he was shot. That was the evidence provided and the decision of the coroner and the jury. Now if you don't want to believe or trust the IPCC, coroner or jury then that's your right. Fortunately we have law.
'He'd already thrown it away' and in the heat of the moment, how did the old-bill not know if he had another one up his sleeve or in his belt? I'm glad i'm unlikely to ever be in that position, but if I was I probably take no chances. If he'd never got involved in illegal firearms he may well still be alive. Just thank goodness he was never yours or my nextdoor neighbour.
Quote:It's easy to call them a private army, but it's a tough job and they are at the front line of what can be quite a challenging boundary between order and lawlessness.
I did not call the police a private army. But they did appear often during the miners strike to be acting as a private army, inciting violence and acting against the ordinary people they are supposed to serve. They destoryed a great many innocent people's lives during that dispute.
Indeed I don't know what happened in this instance, and I do hope the police got it right.
But unfortunately for the police, and very much so for the many good and proffesional officers etc within the service, is that the history of the force and it's often poor decisions, wrongful actions and charges inevitably undermines public trust in the force as a whole.
Quote:I'll always side with the old-bill
I believe in justice, not blind alligence. The police like all of us, should (generally) abide by the law.
(05-01-17, 10:55 PM)pilninggas link Wrote: [quote author=mtread link=topic=21619.msg249103#msg249103 date=1483646123]
No Mark Duggan didn't die with a gun on his person. He'd already thrown it away when he was shot. That was the evidence provided and the decision of the coroner and the jury. Now if you don't want to believe or trust the IPCC, coroner or jury then that's your right. Fortunately we have law.
'He'd already thrown it away' and in the heat of the moment, how did the old-bill not know if he had another one up his sleeve or in his belt? I'm glad i'm unlikely to ever be in that position, but if I was I probably take no chances. If he'd never got involved in illegal firearms he may well still be alive. Just thank goodness he was never yours or my n ext door neighbour
[/quote]
You would not want to borrow his torque wrench and forget to return it. :eek
Quote:how did the old-bill not know if he had another one up his sleeve or in his belt?
They didn't. But their intelligence said that he was transporting one gun on behalf of another criminal, and it must have been seen to have been thrown away. The video and other evidence in the documentary showed that. Anyway, if they were allowed to shoot everybody who 'might have a gun', there would be dead bodies all over the place.
Anyway, to make my point again, I'm not suggesting that this latest one or the previous fatalities were shot on purpose without reason. What the police must do is follow their own clear rules of engagement and not lie to cover up when they don't.
05-01-17, 11:38 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-01-17, 11:48 PM by pilninggas.)
Quote:I'll always side with the old-bill
I believe in justice, not blind alligence. The police like all of us, should (generally) abide by the law.
I'd side with the old-bill, it's not allegiance. I'd side with Arsenal if they are playing Chelsea, but my allegiances lie elsewhere. Most coppers have scrupples, must smack dealers don't even have basic morality.
05-01-17, 11:48 PM
(This post was last modified: 06-01-17, 07:55 AM by pilninggas.)
(05-01-17, 11:34 PM)mtread link Wrote: Quote:[size=1em]how did the old-bill not know if he had another one up his sleeve or in his belt?[/size]
They didn't. But their intelligence said that he was transporting one gun on behalf of another criminal, and it must have been seen to have been thrown away. The video and other evidence in the documentary showed that. Anyway, if they were allowed to shoot everybody who 'might have a gun', there would be dead bodies all over the place.
Anyway, to make my point again, I'm not suggesting that this latest one or the previous fatalities were shot on purpose without reason. What the police must do is follow their own clear rules of engagement and not lie to cover up when they don't.
I can't imagine any operational briefing where plod are given intel that they consider cast-iron. As I said put in that position with no idea if there is another gun about his person, any false moves might be very definitive.
I can't excuse the deceit, seeing as plod is now under massive scrutiny perhaps instead of changing facts they stick to the exact details. I hope that they don't get hung out to dry by the judiciary though.
To be fair, I don't think 'the police' do themselves any favours. Apparently there were no cameras in any of the cars or on any of the policemen. They really don't like being filmed during these operations do they.
-suck-squeeze-bang-blow-
|
