DS Forums

 
 

M62 Police Shooting


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-01-2017, 15:10
GusGus
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 615
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.

How do you know that "They didn't just shoot him because he is a suspected criminal;"
Were you there?
GusGus is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 04-01-2017, 15:11
EvieJ
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 3,595
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 arm ed, 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.
BIB Andy, you have replied to a post from 9 pages and over 200 posts ago, so forgive me for wondering if you really wanted to 'put this to bed'.

Yes, we have been told time and time again that police are not trained to shoot to disable. But we know that mistakes are made which result in death - regardless of how things are done now I stand by my opinion that where there is doubt and the target is not a real threat why wouldn't an alternative method would be preferable. Its not really such a wild question to ask is it?

I'd be interested to know though, why you see an opinion which isn't backslapping a death is seen as defending armed violent criminals?
EvieJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 15:14
Deep Purple
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Deep Within The Chain Of Evil
Posts: 51,262
How do you know that "They didn't just shoot him because he is a suspected criminal;"
Were you there?
I cant believe you'd ask such a stupid question. They encounter criminals on a daily basis. Why would they choose to shoot this one simply for being a criminal?

However, after you reading your other ridiculous comments, it does fit in that you'd ask this one.
Deep Purple is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 15:16
Deep Purple
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Deep Within The Chain Of Evil
Posts: 51,262
BIB Andy, you have replied to a post from 9 pages and over 200 posts ago, so forgive me for wondering if you really wanted to 'put this to bed'.

Yes, we have been told time and time again that police are not trained to shoot to disable. But we know that mistakes are made which result in death - regardless of how things are done now I stand by my opinion that where there is doubt and the target is not a real threat why wouldn't an alternative method would be preferable. Its not really such a wild question to ask is it?

I'd be interested to know though, why you see an opinion which isn't backslapping a death is seen as defending armed violent criminals?
If there is a doubt, and no real threat, then there is no authority to shoot at all. They can only shoot if they believe a life is in immediate danger. Therefore it is a wild question, and it has been explained why. You cant start shooting people in the leg just in case.

There are other methods for dealing with non lethal perceived threats.
Deep Purple is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 15:29
EvieJ
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 3,595
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.
Forgive me if I don't have complete faith in what you say DP. You haven't challenged any of the comments about Yuqabs alleged history and one has to wonder what you were hoping for with your 'riot' comment or indeed the comments and suggestions you have made about me?

If you're concerned about Duggan comparisons or 'sly digs' then a) don't make them and b) don't bait and make points which can be contradict by the findings in that enquiry and c) use the alert button.
EvieJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 15:30
WhatJoeThinks
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 10,189
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.
It would be more ridiculous to believe that all police officers are beyond reproach. As with all people, the majority are good people, a small minority are not. Some are career criminals. To my knowledge, I've never met anyone from any walk of life who wanted to shoot anyone else, but it's an undeniable fact of life that such people exist.
WhatJoeThinks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 15:32
EvieJ
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 3,595
If there is a doubt, and no real threat, then there is no authority to shoot at all. They can only shoot if they believe a life is in immediate danger. Therefore it is a wild question, and it has been explained why. You cant start shooting people in the leg just in case.

There are other methods for dealing with non lethal perceived threats.
So what are the options for managing the risk of incompetency, errors of judgement and mistakes?
EvieJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 15:36
VicnBob
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 948
So what are the options for managing the risk of incompetency, errors of judgement and mistakes?
Like any other job, recruiting the right type of people, and training.
VicnBob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 15:39
blueblade
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern East Anglia
Posts: 75,202
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.
I think the problem in cases like this is the fact that public awareness of the detail is limited to a car being chased down by ordinary cars, boxed in, and a guy in the boxed in car was shot dead, whilst three others were arrested. We don't know whether the officers were plain clothes, shouted a warning, or whether the guy drew a gun or not.

That's literally the extent of our knowledge about the shooting.

Now whether right or wrong, inevitably, such a complete blank on information will cause considerable public speculation as to whether the shooting was justified or not - and we simply do not know. We don't have a clue eitherway.

I do know that for all their other considerable shortcomings, the US police are light years more open when a member of the public gets shot dead. That is very apparent from the threads on US cops shooting members of the public threads. Pretty obviously, footage is always available and always released to the public within a matter of hours.

Again, whether right or wrong, it is a fact in being.

I put the comparison out there as they are hard facts, and would re-iterate that inevitably a media blackout on detail will cause public speculation, whether the police like it or not.
blueblade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 15:55
GusGus
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 615
I cant believe you'd ask such a stupid question. They encounter criminals on a daily basis. Why would they choose to shoot this one simply for being a criminal?

However, after you reading your other ridiculous comments, it does fit in that you'd ask this one.

That was not my comment, it was yours
I was merely asking how you knew what their decision to shoot him was
Thankfully, since PACE, the old opinions preconceptions, and attitude of police staff have been contained and controlled
GusGus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 15:59
el_bardos
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,969
Pretty obviously, footage is always available and always released to the public within a matter of hours.

Again, whether right or wrong, it is a fact in being.

I put the comparison out there as they are hard facts, and would re-iterate that inevitably a media blackout on detail will cause public speculation, whether the police like it or not.
Only that's not a 'fact', is it?

Police department policies, where they exist, tend to specify all footage from the body cams are the property of the police department in question, and may not be released without the specific authorisation of the superintendent.

Some states have even passed laws making body cam footage exempt from freedom of information requests.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37440114

There's also a whole long list of the reasons they might not release footage - so by no means do they always release footage at all. ETA- that's not to say I think all of the reasons to not release footage are by any means valid.
el_bardos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 16:08
blueblade
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern East Anglia
Posts: 75,202
Only that's not a 'fact', is it?



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37440114

There's also a whole long list of the reasons they might not release footage - so by no means do they always release footage at all. ETA- that's not to say I think all of the reasons to not release footage are by any means valid.
OK, well let's just say that in all the cases of USA police shooting related threads on this board, there has been video footage of the event freely available for public dissection after a relatively short time.

That would definitely not be the case in the UK.
blueblade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 16:17
Girth
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 9,337
OK, well let's just say that in all the cases of USA police shooting related threads on this board, there has been video footage of the event freely available for public dissection after a relatively short time.

That would definitely not be the case in the UK.
I think you'll find that most of the initial footage of shootings in America is from non-police sources. Official footage only comes to light some time afterwards.
Girth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 16:29
blueblade
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern East Anglia
Posts: 75,202
I think you'll find that most of the initial footage of shootings in America is from non-police sources. Official footage only comes to light some time afterwards.
US police release footage of shootings

Moreover, pretty much all the US police shooting threads on here, have contained footage released by the police, usually within a relatively short time.

One video was released and the officer indicted for murder. Unfortunately I've forgotten the name of the individual the officer shot.

ETA: Samuel Du Bose

Here's the thread
blueblade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 16:35
seacam
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 15,301
If there is a doubt, and no real threat, then there is no authority to shoot at all. They can only shoot if they believe a life is in immediate danger. Therefore it is a wild question, and it has been explained why. You cant start shooting people in the leg just in case.

There are other methods for dealing with non lethal perceived threats.
But in affect DP what that means is a shoot to kill policy.
seacam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 16:48
TrollHunter
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,682
But in affect DP what that means is a shoot to kill policy.
No it doesn't. It's a shoot to STOP. Sometimes the people getting shot die. Often they don't. If it genuinely was a shoot to KILL policy, most people who got shot would die as a result, and that's not the case.
TrollHunter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 17:12
Jane Doh!
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 32,699
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.
Things have changed since 2010.
Jane Doh! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 17:16
Jane Doh!
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 32,699
BIB Andy, you have replied to a post from 9 pages and over 200 posts ago, so forgive me for wondering if you really wanted to 'put this to bed'.

Yes, we have been told time and time again that police are not trained to shoot to disable. But we know that mistakes are made which result in death - regardless of how things are done now I stand by my opinion that where there is doubt and the target is not a real threat why wouldn't an alternative method would be preferable. Its not really such a wild question to ask is it?

I'd be interested to know though, why you see an opinion which isn't backslapping a death is seen as defending armed violent criminals?
An alternative method - like tasers? They are used often. Obviously the police regarded this as more than just a threat.
Jane Doh! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 17:35
skp20040
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Central London
Posts: 43,666
No it doesn't. It's a shoot to STOP. Sometimes the people getting shot die. Often they don't. If it genuinely was a shoot to KILL policy, most people who got shot would die as a result, and that's not the case.
Slightly off topic but we know Mr Corbyn does not agree with shoot to kill (basically bullet to the head ) even if it is a terrorist who needs to be stopped

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34832023

Jeremy Corbyn says he is "not happy" with UK police or security services operating a "shoot-to-kill" policy in the event of a terror attack.

The Labour leader told the BBC such an approach could "often be counter-productive".


Whilst his sidekick John McDonnell (he isn't actually half as barmy as he sounds when you meet him in a private setting) agreed with those who wanted to disband MI5, disarm the police completely and scrap specialist squads. He denied it but he did sign the letter .

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz4UoaK5TaF

Mr McDonnell was the only MP to sign the letter organised by the Socialist Campaign for a Labour Victory setting out a series demands including 'slashing' military spending, scrapping Trident and abolishing the monarchy.

It also called to. 'Extend civil liberties and rights to organise and protest. Disband MI5 and special police squads, disarm the police.'


Both need to take a step into the real world

In reality the officer who fires has to justify his/her actions and if fatal then to be in line with the ECHR "the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary".
skp20040 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 18:09
Jellied Eel
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: In a jar, on a shelf
Posts: 31,654
But in affect DP what that means is a shoot to kill policy.
Nope. It's the difference between shooting someone until they've stopped being a threat, and shooting until you're sure they're dead. So say, 2-3 rounds centre mass, then walk up and one to the head.. Which becomes an execution and murder/manslaughter.
Jellied Eel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 18:13
Deep Purple
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Deep Within The Chain Of Evil
Posts: 51,262
So what are the options for managing the risk of incompetency, errors of judgement and mistakes?
Continual training and experience. The fact shootings are so rare suggests we do a good job.
Deep Purple is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 18:16
Deep Purple
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Deep Within The Chain Of Evil
Posts: 51,262
But in affect DP what that means is a shoot to kill policy.
It isn't. It's a likely effect, but the reasonable force law justifies it.

The policy is to stop someone, and once they are not a threat, there is no further intent to kill someone if they are still alive, which they can be.
Deep Purple is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 18:17
Inspiration
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 53,385
They performed a TPAC movement which is done when a vehicle refuses to stop. Even unmarked cars have flashing blue lights. He would know they were police no question.
Flashing lights where? At the front of the car where the headlights are? Because there were no lights on the car roof. It was an unmarked Mercedes. I'm just curious more than anything.
Inspiration is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 18:18
Deep Purple
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Deep Within The Chain Of Evil
Posts: 51,262
That was not my comment, it was yours
I was merely asking how you knew what their decision to shoot him was
Thankfully, since PACE, the old opinions preconceptions, and attitude of police staff have been contained and controlled
I was answering someone who was suggesting the police should kill people because they are drug dealers.

I said they didn't shoot him because he was simply a criminal, and I do know that wouldn't be the case.
Deep Purple is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 18:30
bluesdiamond
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,501
Listening to the news seems a concern that aside from a vigil tonight. Other protests in West Yorkshire.

Interesting the words,,straight off black loves matter.

Grow up. Don't think I can recall a year when Police shot and killed 10 people. USA Police seem to kill a person a day.
Think some arseholes in this country need to move to the USA and realise how damn good the Police in this country are.
bluesdiamond is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:53.