DS Forums

 
 

M62 Police Shooting


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Yesterday, 09:59
welwynrose
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Welwyn Garden City
Posts: 29,546
A vigil was held where he was killed, with banners that said "stop the killings". Didn't this man have a gun in his car at the time he was shot?
Were vigils held for each of the the 5 people shot by police in the UK last year or did their lives not matter, I'm sure they were all fine members of the community that wouldn't hurt a fly and were "loving sons"
welwynrose is online now   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old Yesterday, 10:32
Deep Purple
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Deep Within The Chain Of Evil
Posts: 51,266
All true but if he has no convictions and no outstanding charges ie not a known threat to others, then I would hope the intelligence they were acting on was good and the immediate threat at the time of the shooting was very clear.
If they found a gun in the car, it would seem the intelligence was good. Convictions are not a measure of whether someone is a threat or not. Plenty of dangerous people are out there without convictions. The more dangerous some are, the less chance of anyone giving evidence against them.

The only issue here is whether there was a threat at the time, and we wont know that until the evidence is presented at court.
Deep Purple is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 10:34
DMN1968
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,280
Well done to the police.

Any officer that takes part in an operation that rids society of scum like this and Duggan should be handsomely rewarded.
DMN1968 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 10:48
EvieJ
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 3,601
If they found a gun in the car, it would seem the intelligence was good. Convictions are not a measure of whether someone is a threat or not. Plenty of dangerous people are out there without convictions. The more dangerous some are, the less chance of anyone giving evidence against them.

The only issue here is whether there was a threat at the time, and we wont know that until the evidence is presented at court.
The problem is without convictions then he is still innocent despite the hearsay.

From the articles I've seen its not very clear but do we know if there was an actual car chase or was the boxing in of the vehicle a surprise move by unmarked police cars?
EvieJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 10:52
Dotheboyshall
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,312
Surrounded by armed police officers pointing guns at him and his response is going for a gun. Not exactly clever is it.
Dotheboyshall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 11:01
Jellied Eel
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: In a jar, on a shelf
Posts: 31,660
Surrounded by armed police officers pointing guns at him and his response is going for a gun. Not exactly clever is it.
We don't know that he did. If so, then it's one way to exit the gene pool. It may be that he tried to use his car as a weapon though, ie drive over officers who were trying to stop him. If so, that may also have justified stopping him.
Jellied Eel is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 11:02
el_bardos
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,970
The problem is without convictions then he is still innocent despite the hearsay.

From the articles I've seen its not very clear but do we know if there was an actual car chase or was the boxing in of the vehicle a surprise move by unmarked police cars?
His background and previous criminality (or lack thereof), even the lead up to the event is all complete irrelevance.

What matters is if he was a threat (or reasonably perceived to be a threat) to life at the time he was shot, and nothing else. If he was, its a justifiable shooting. If he wasn't it isn't.
el_bardos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 11:09
Jellied Eel
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: In a jar, on a shelf
Posts: 31,660
You can wrap it up in any way you want but it is a shoot to kill outcome.
And it is going to backfire again.
It's a subtle but important distinction. There are sometimes situations where 'shoot to kill' is authorised, ie against suicide bombers where you want to make sure there's a 'hard' stop and the bomber can't act. The law still requires reasonable force though, hence the very small number of rounds fired by our police.

The difference is mostly reality vs fiction, so Hollywood versions of shooting that are pretty much always unrealistic. Reality is people frequently survive being shot multiple times, and can remain a threat. So shoot to kill means keep shooting until you're sure the person is dead. Shoot to stop means until they're no longer a threat. Then in a planned operation, there were probably paramedics on hand to try to stabilise the suspect, or AFO's are usually trained paramedics as well to render first aid.
Jellied Eel is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 11:24
Somner
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 8,617
I challenge where I feel appropriate. Despite some posters admiration they're not saints or above the law and in a number of cases in recent years they have earned the scrutiny.
Using the term "they" to refer to many other groups in society will at the very least be frowned upon. Oddly enough it's acceptable to refer to police officers this way, when discussing how individual officers may have acted. Police Officers come in all different shapes, sizes, colours and genders, with even more having varying ideologies, political influences, opinions, levels of intelligence, attitudes, tolerances etc. Yet because a small minority have earned scrutiny (and indeed they have), "they" have all done so.

Bizarre.
Somner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 11:36
EvieJ
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 3,601
Using the term "they" to refer to many other groups in society will at the very least be frowned upon. Oddly enough it's acceptable to refer to police officers this way, when discussing how individual officers may have acted. Police Officers come in all different shapes, sizes, colours and genders, with even more having varying ideologies, political influences, opinions, levels of intelligence, attitudes, tolerances etc. Yet because a small minority have earned scrutiny (and indeed they have), "they" have all done so.

Bizarre.
Because individuality should not come into it. They are representing a body which has its own ideology, political influences attitude and tolerances. Where a representative (or in some cases entire forces) act outside those unfortunately yes, it leads to the scrutiny of the body as a whole.
EvieJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 11:51
big brother 9
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 15,025
His background and previous criminality (or lack thereof), even the lead up to the event is all complete irrelevance.

What matters is if he was a threat (or reasonably perceived to be a threat) to life at the time he was shot, and nothing else. If he was, its a justifiable shooting. If he wasn't it isn't.
He had a gun.....that justified the shooting.
big brother 9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 11:52
Dotheboyshall
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,312
He had a gun.....that justified the shooting.
Under the rules of engagement it doesn't.
Dotheboyshall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 11:59
LakieLady
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 9,173
He had a gun.....that justified the shooting.
Did the police know that for sure though? Had they seen it? I don't think that is known yet.

I'm uncomfortable with police shooting people on the basis of suspicion or tip-offs that they might have a firearm.
LakieLady is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 12:21
Babsefc
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 821
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.
As the wife of an ex firearms officer I was told this and asked if I was happy with it before my husband was accepted to train as a firearms officer. Whether it's true today I don't know as this was back in the 90's
Babsefc is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 12:30
skp20040
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Central London
Posts: 43,667
As the wife of an ex firearms officer I was told this and asked if I was happy with it before my husband was accepted to train as a firearms officer. Whether it's true today I don't know as this was back in the 90's
The sad thing is some people think people become firearms officers because they want to go out and shoot people, whereas in reality that is the last thing they want to do when they go in to work.
skp20040 is online now Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 13:22
Caxton
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 24,059
Criminals who carry guns deserve to be shot. What excuse can there be for carrying one? Criminalsare bad enough without guns, with them they are just expendable.
Caxton is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 13:37
SaturnV
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 5,621
Did the police know that for sure though? Had they seen it? I don't think that is known yet.

I'm uncomfortable with police shooting people on the basis of suspicion or tip-offs that they might have a firearm.
Stopping when told and cooperating sensibly and peacefully will not get you shot. Arse about and you're likely to raise the stakes.
Don't know what applied in this case though but we'll find out in due course.
SaturnV is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 13:40
Brandy211
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 769
Parents were on Sky News today. Father said, he knew the police didn't like his son. "It was a planned assassination".

According to a Chris Bean who was known to Yasser Yaqub, he used drones carrying drugs into HMP Armley prison, selling them to prisoners at 10 times their street value.

(The Telegraph) Stud badboy shot on M62 b police used fast cars to launder profits from his drugs empire.
Brandy211 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 14:12
spkx
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 14,185
Did the police know that for sure though? Had they seen it? I don't think that is known yet.

I'm uncomfortable with police shooting people on the basis of suspicion or tip-offs that they might have a firearm.
Police almost always shoot on suspicion.

There's no way on earth any human can be sure if someone poses a threat in the split second they have to decide whether or not to shoot.

In many cases, even after decades of inquests, combing over witnesses statements, analysing CCTV frame by frame, etc, it's STILL not clear.

Police act on genuine, reasonable belief of a threat.

Unfortunately that does mean there will be mistakes, but the other options are either no armed police at all (as they can never be sure there is a threat) or only allowing the police to shoot after a suspect has so they can verify they are actually a threat.

However that second option also has issues: Robert Dixon was killed after shooting at officers but it turned out he was firing blanks, so wasn't actually a real threat.
spkx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 14:21
skp20040
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Central London
Posts: 43,667
I love the local paper that is reporting a "spate of police shootings" then state 4 in the area since 1992, so 4 in 24 years ? I think they need to look up the definition of spate.

http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/west-...-shot-12399474

The police shooting on the M62 is the latest in a spate of police shootings in Huddersfield that have coincidentally all happened around this time of year



Police almost always shoot on suspicion.

There's no way on earth any human can be sure if someone poses a threat in the split second they have to decide whether or not to shoot.

In many cases, even after decades of inquests, combing over witnesses statements, analysing CCTV frame by frame, etc, it's STILL not clear.

Police act on genuine, reasonable belief of a threat.

Unfortunately that does mean there will be mistakes, but the other options are either no armed police at all (as they can never be sure there is a threat) or only allowing the police to shoot after a suspect has so they can verify they are actually a threat.

However that second option also has issues: Robert Dixon was killed after shooting at officers but it turned out he was firing blanks, so wasn't actually a real threat
.
However carrying a weapon is bad enough, the people that do so have to realise they make themselves a target, to then discharge a weapon even if it is blanks is then fully justified for Police to shoot, I mean they cannot know they are blanks all they know is a person is shooting at them as you say they cannot know at that point if the person is a real threat.
skp20040 is online now Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 14:24
anne_666
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 30,179
Parents were on Sky News today. Father said, he knew the police didn't like his son. "It was a planned assassination".

According to a Chris Bean who was known to Yasser Yaqub, he used drones carrying drugs into HMP Armley prison, selling them to prisoners at 10 times their street value.

(The Telegraph) Stud badboy shot on M62 b police used fast cars to launder profits from his drugs empire.
I'm pretty sure he knows why.
anne_666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 14:56
VicnBob
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 948
Parents were on Sky News today. Father said, he knew the police didn't like his son. "It was a planned assassination".

According to a Chris Bean who was known to Yasser Yaqub, he used drones carrying drugs into HMP Armley prison, selling them to prisoners at 10 times their street value.

(The Telegraph) Stud badboy shot on M62 b police used fast cars to launder profits from his drugs empire.
Oh please! You have brought up a wrong un, end of.
VicnBob is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 15:15
ayrshireman1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,026
Oh please! You have brought up a wrong un, end of.
Just like the whinging Palestinian father, re the convicted IDF soldier case this week. No mention of why his son was out stabbing Israeli soldiers.
ayrshireman1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 15:15
GusGus
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 619
Oh please! You have brought up a wrong un, end of.

Could you refresh our memory as to what the dead man has ever been convicted of
GusGus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 15:23
TeeGee
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Dark Satanic Mills
Posts: 4,809
Could you refresh our memory as to what the dead man has ever been convicted of
Clutching at straws with that comment. IIRC one of the Brinksmat robbers allegedly stabbed a policeman to death but got away with it. He was only convicted after later stabbing to death a motorist in a road rage incident. Leopard, spots.......
TeeGee is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 13:43.