• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • General Discussion Forums
  • General Discussion
M62 Police Shooting
<<
<
10 of 36
>>
>
TeeGee
04-01-2017
Could I suggest that those who wish to carry on with the Duggan case resurrect the original thread. In the meantime I have found two new additions to my New Year Ignore List.
Deep Purple
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by TeeGee:
“Could I suggest that those who wish to carry on with the Duggan case resurrect the original thread. In the meantime I have found two new additions to my New Year Ignore List.”

Well said.
EvieJ
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by Deep Purple:
“The Inquest went on for ages, and an decision was made at the end, which I believe was correct.

Anyone with experience of investigating anything, never mind an event of this scale will know that rarely does everything tie up nicely to make a complete picture.

If everything is nice and neat, it arouses my suspicions more than when people see the same event, but with a different perception.”

Yeah DP, it was just different perceptions. You should speak to the IPCC, clear that up for them.
skp20040
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by Deep Purple:
“ Have you ever witnessed a major incident, or tried to interview witnesses?

What people think they saw often varies from what happened, which is a difficulty, and due to how the human mind works, and not to do with lying.

Of course people do lie, but tunnel vision is a normal thing at a time of stress, and things that should be obvious are often not seen.”

The thing is with eye witnesses ( no connection with this mans previous case as I do not know whether that witness was mistaken, confused, lying or what ) but in general when you get a group of dispersed independent eye witnesses you end up looking for a short , tall , black, white multicoloured dwarf. As we have seen in other cases eye witnesses can often see something and misinterpret it (not on purpose) and then sadly often the media run with it only for it to be wrong at the end
TerraCanis
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by eggchen:
“There is no shoot to kill policy, there is no shoot to wound policy. Officers will fire when they perceive the immediate threat to be severe enough, and they aim for the largest mass of a person, in order to stop them. Some people who get shot will live, some will die. The police aim is to get the best possible result out of a situation, which is to minimise any further injury or loss of life. There are no guarantees though.”

And a major imperative is to not miss the target. Because bullets that don't hit their intended target have to go somewhere.
EvieJ
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by Deep Purple:
“Well said.”

Its a police shooting. You were the first poster to use specifics of that case in this thread. Sorry it hasn't gone the way you might have been hoping.
Deep Purple
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by EvieJ:
“ Its a police shooting. You were the first poster to use specifics of that case in this thread. Sorry it hasn't gone the way you might have been hoping.”

No, the OP stated there would likely be comparisons with the Duggan case. I said there shouldn't be.

Before I said that, you said you almost started a thread making the same points.

If you cant get that right, no wonder you are so way off the mark with this subject.
Deep Purple
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by TerraCanis:
“And a major imperative is to not miss the target. Because bullets that don't hit their intended target have to go somewhere.”

There is no force in the world that will guarantee a 100% accuracy rate, nor always make the correct decisions.
Deep Purple
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by EvieJ:
“Yeah DP, it was just different perceptions. You should speak to the IPCC, clear that up for them. ”

I prefer the Inquest conclusions.
Deep Purple
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by skp20040:
“The thing is with eye witnesses ( no connection with this mans previous case as I do not know whether that witness was mistaken, confused, lying or what ) but in general when you get a group of dispersed independent eye witnesses you end up looking for a short , tall , black, white multicoloured dwarf. As we have seen in other cases eye witnesses can often see something and misinterpret it (not on purpose) and then sadly often the media run with it only for it to be wrong at the end”

Spot on. We've seen it happen so many times.
wns_195
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by Deep Purple:
“The police cant just go around shooting criminals,”

That's exactly what they did in this case.

Quote:
“they have to comply with the hugely complex legal system that controls them, one that criminals ignore, which makes it so much easier for them.”

The reasons criminals ignore the legal system are because they are criminals and they can ignore the legal system. The police turn a blind eye. Judges don't bother sending dangerous criminals to prison for a long time.

Soft justice empowers criminals and endangers the public.
Deep Purple
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by wns_195:
“That's exactly what they did in this case.

The reasons criminals ignore the legal system are because they are criminals and they can ignore the legal system. The police turn a blind eye. Judges don't bother sending dangerous criminals to prison for a long time.

Soft justice empowers criminals and endangers the public.”

They didn't just shoot him because he is a suspected criminal. They have to comply with the law on reasonable force.

I would argue for stronger sentencing for violent criminals, but that is nothing to do with this.
EvieJ
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by Deep Purple:
“No, the OP stated there would likely be comparisons with the Duggan case. I said there shouldn't be.

Before I said that, you said you almost started a thread making the same points.

If you cant get that right, no wonder you are so way off the mark with this subject.”

Originally Posted by Deep Purple:
“It shouldn't draw comparisons, because no one knows any details.

It's nice that it hasn't initiated riots though.”

I don't deny or apologise for the comparisons I make, its a police shooting - I would hope that there will be no doubt in this instance that the right action was taken. It may in some part undo some of the damage.

Your denial, avoidance of the points that don't suit you and not so subtle suggestions which you can't support in this thread are to be expected given your assessment of the case.
Jellied Eel
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by eggchen:
“There is no shoot to kill policy, there is no shoot to wound policy. Officers will fire when they perceive the immediate threat to be severe enough, and they aim for the largest mass of a person, in order to stop them.”

Also complicated if the person was inside a car, especially if they were armed and there were other people inside the car. So preventing the suspect from fleeing by shooting off their big toes, or shooting off their trigger fingers wouldn't have been an option. Instead officers would have had a very short time to get into a position where they could shoot safely, and stop the threat. Plus of course not igniting fuel tanks with the sparks that come off bullets..

But like people have said, the training is to only shoot when there's an immediate threat to life, and shoot to stop. Hence the scoring rings on standard training targets like the good'ol fig.11 or DP11.

I do also wonder if reporting hasn't helped in this case, ie intial reports saying the person was shot as a result of a planned operation.. which makes it sound more like a planned shooting. Subsequent reporting's used less inflamatory language.
TrollHunter
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by Deep Purple:
“This is just more of the nonsense you always write. The police cant just go around shooting criminals, and they have to comply with the hugely complex legal system that controls them, one that criminals ignore, which makes it so much easier for them.”

Originally Posted by wns_195:
“That's exactly what they did in this case.”

The BiB is what you quoted. I've added the rest of DP's post because your cherry-picking of text has taken his comment completely out of context.

The point is that the police aren't a bunch of lawless armed people who can indiscriminately shoot people. They have to abide by legislations, protocols, the actual law, Simply shooting someone ISN'T exactly what they did, unless you're privy to more information about this case other than what is known at the time, in which case, pray tell. You're starting to sound like this was an execution rather than something else.
TerraCanis
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by Deep Purple:
“There is no force in the world that will guarantee a 100% accuracy rate, nor always make the correct decisions.”

Hence aiming for the middle of the target. Do what some here have suggested and aim at a periphal area, and even an inch or two off-aim in the wrong direction could be enough to send a stray bullet zooming off into the distance.
anne_666
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by GusGus:
“Well you could try and give me some of yours which you clearly believe you have
Explain to me how a farmer who has no basic training other than practice can shoot a rabbit, or those who shoot game for fun can hit a pheasant, both at some sdistance, yet a highly trained police marksman can not hit to disable or disarm”

Just hope you're never within range of the either if POs were only expected to do anything so damned stupid. Does it matter to you that other people could be?
What do you think they would do? Keep perfectly still knowing a PC is going to shoot at their limbs?
Tassium
04-01-2017
I doubt many people will care if some scumbag get's shot dead,

the problem is when innocent people get killed by the police and this is more likely if the police are in any way let off for being trigger happy.
andy1231
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by EvieJ:
“I'm sorry, I'm going to overlook your rather patronising and long winded attempt to compare dramatic effect with real life deaths.

The fact is, that death should be a last resort for anyone. If at all possible shoot to disable rather than shoot to kill would a preferable option to shooting someone who is no threat to others and should be tried and found guilty of any crimes they have committed.”

EvieJ, everyone has their own opinions and rightly or wrongly i try and respect yours. But, you have been told time and time again that the Police are not trained to shoot to disable, indeed I can not think of a single authorised fire arms user in the world, including the army , who are trained in this way. Police marksmen are trained to shoot to stop and if the person shot dies well that's a possible consequence of carrying a firearm or failing to do what the Police say in any instance when they are identified as armed police Officers.
Why some people continue to defend armed, violent criminals is beyond me
In the 24 years up to June 2015 Police officers in the UK shot and killed 55 people. In America, Police shot and killed 59 people in the first 24 days of 2015. Between 1992 and 2011 Australian Police shot and killed 94 people. Canada averages 25 fatal Police shootings every year. No one can say that the British Police are trigger happy. Yes mistakes are sometimes made but it is very rare.
So for the last time can we put this to bed. British Police are not trained to shoot to disable, they never have been and never will be, just like every other law enforcement agency in the world. We do not have trigger happy officers, if you ever spoke to a Police Officer who has shot and killed someone, as I have, you would know that they are usually devastated at having done so.
Enough is enough.
Dotheboyshall
04-01-2017
He comes across as a bit of a knob.
Deep Purple
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by EvieJ:
“I don't deny or apologise for the comparisons I make, its a police shooting - I would hope that there will be no doubt in this instance that the right action was taken. It may in some part undo some of the damage.

Your denial, avoidance of the points that don't suit you and not so subtle suggestions which you can't support in this thread are to be expected given your assessment of the case.”

The point about riots was a general one in relation to the aftermath of shootings, in some areas here, and in the US, which is frequently discussed here.

I said simply that we shouldn't make comparisons with Duggan. You claimed I was the first to use specifics of that case. I clearly didn't. Forget Duggan, or go to the threads about him.
Deep Purple
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by TerraCanis:
“Hence aiming for the middle of the target. Do what some here have suggested and aim at a periphal area, and even an inch or two off-aim in the wrong direction could be enough to send a stray bullet zooming off into the distance.”

It really is an ill thought out notion for all manner of reasons.
Jellied Eel
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by andy1231:
“We do not have trigger happy officers, if you ever spoke to a Police Officer who has shot and killed someone, as I have, you would know that they are usually devastated at having done so.”

Or just any AFO, who may view having to shoot as a failure in not being able to resolve the situation by other means. The training and selection is very strict to weed out anyone who might be trigger happy. Our statistics show that deadly force is very much viewed as a last resort.

Quote:
“Enough is enough.”

One would hope so, but too many people's 'knowledge' of firearms comes via media misrepresentations.
Deep Purple
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by Jellied Eel:
“Or just any AFO, who may view having to shoot as a failure in not being able to resolve the situation by other means. The training and selection is very strict to weed out anyone who might be trigger happy. Our statistics show that deadly force is very much viewed as a last resort.



One would hope so, but too many people's 'knowledge' of firearms comes via media misrepresentations.”

Every officer from day one of training is told what they will have to go through if they fire their weapon, and I've never met any who wanted to shoot someone. It is a ridiculous notion.
Deep Purple
04-01-2017
Originally Posted by wear thefoxhat:
“Police only shoot the torso or head, the dummies used to train marksmen don't even have arms and legs to practice on. Last time I saw a Dirty Harry film Clint pretty much blew every hoodlum away!”

Clint was a cowboy before he was Dirty Harry, and shooting the gun out of a baddies hand was common place. if only the police could do that.
<<
<
10 of 36
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map