DS Forums

 
 

M62 Police Shooting


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Today, 00:47
Brandy211
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 766
Either way it'll take some explaining, I don't envy them.
I think they have made a mistake speaking out so soon.

Of course, as parents they are entitled to know what happened, but they wont find out any quicker than the process takes.
Where cameras aren't worn, especially if there are no other witnesses no one may ever know what exactly DID take place at the scene that day.
That's why people are calling for them to be worn and recording devices that are available, to be used in police cars.
I don't understand why anyone has a problem with that?
Brandy211 is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old Today, 00:48
spkx
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 14,185
very odd killing. unmarked cars, pre planned actrion, no body cams, on a slip road with no cctv, and the victim trapped in his car and shot at.

the family say its a pre-planned assassination. the gamble for the inherently racist west yorkshire police is that no one will mind much because the victim is muslim and the discredited ipcc does not in vast majority of cases act against the police.
Nothing odd about unmarked cars.

Not odd about a pre-planned stop. Indeed, never heard of the police stopping a car on the off chance of there being a gun.

No body cams is explained on the previous page.

No "relevant" CCTV - not no CCTV at all - motorway cameras are mounted high to give an overview of traffic and aren't usually useful in seeing down into cars. Also, they only tend to look in one direction. Furthermore, at night they may show absolutely nothing due to low light levels (esp. on unlit carriageways).

As for the whole "assassination" conspiracy: Why? If we are to assume there is any truth to it, he must be a VERY bad man given West Yorkshire haven't bothered to "assassinate" anyone else in the past 7 years.
spkx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 00:50
EvieJ
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 3,595
AFOs dont tend to use use body cams because the technology isn't there quite yet. The met is trialling several solutions. The IPCC themselves have branded them useless.

Also, bodycams are not used with plain clothes officers for obvious reasons.
Not directed at you but tbh I'm getting a bit sick of hearing this excuse. Those cameras are designed to wear on various parts of the body, not just the shoulder which is the best point for vision. Theres also in-car cameras. Ok, neither of which are 100% certain of catching everything but they can capture part of it and sound. There shouldn't be a need for secrecy.
EvieJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 00:52
Inspiration
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 53,385
From the only reasonable picture I've seen, it looks like the shots were fired from directly in front of the vehicle. Once thing we know is that firearms officers do not shoot through their own front windscreens - period. There's a fair chance of killing/injuring either yourself or your driver if you were stupid enough to try this.
Wasn't suggesting firing through their own front windscreen. I was seeing a scenario where shots were fired from the open passenger window of the police car. To me the holes seem to be side on entries rather than frontal. The spray of glass seems to go towards the passenger seat of the car shot. But I could be wrong. You're the second person to say you think the armed officer was stood in front of the car so maybe I'm wrong and the shots weren't fired from police car to suspect car.
Inspiration is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 00:58
Keyser_Soze1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: The Sixth Circle of Hell
Posts: 20,158
very odd killing. unmarked cars, pre planned actrion, no body cams, on a slip road with no cctv, and the victim trapped in his car and shot at.

the family say its a pre-planned assassination. the gamble for the inherently racist west yorkshire police is that no one will mind much because the victim is muslim and the discredited ipcc does not in vast majority of cases act against the police.
For this post you should win the deflection oscar - well done.

Perhaps you should write for the Guardian.

Yes of course the coppers were targeting a dangerous armed drug dealer just because he was Muslim and they were all despicable racists.
Keyser_Soze1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 00:58
Brandy211
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 766
AFOs dont tend to use use body cams because the technology isn't there quite yet. The met is trialling several solutions. The IPCC themselves have branded them useless.



Also, bodycams are not used with plain clothes officers for obvious reasons.
The cameras are meant to be tiny.
http://www.converseprisonnews.com/co...ams-from-today

There are also recording devices for the cars used. Why aren't they used to save complaints?
Brandy211 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 01:03
SnowStorm86
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Lincs
Posts: 16,159
The Country is a safer place to be thanks to the good work of those armed officers.
SnowStorm86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 01:04
seacam
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 15,300
It was an ambush, a well planned ambush. And rightly so. If a gun is being moved from one place to another what do you expect the police to do? Ask him to be a good boy and hand it in at the station?
Err---yes, give yourself up now!!
seacam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 01:05
Brandy211
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 766


No "relevant" CCTV - not no CCTV at all - motorway cameras are mounted high to give an overview of traffic and aren't usually useful in seeing down into cars. Also, they only tend to look in one direction. Furthermore, at night they may show absolutely nothing due to low light levels (esp. on unlit carriageways).
It will be questioned why that particular spot with no cctv was chosen, considering the cars had been out of town, to Bradford and back in daylight too, as the incident took place at 6pm.
Brandy211 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 01:10
spkx
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 14,185
It will be questioned why that particular spot with no cctv was chosen, considering the cars had been out of town, to Bradford and back in daylight too, as the incident took place at 6pm.
Again, there is no "relevant" CCTV, not no CCTV at all. There may be loads of footage but it just doesn't show anything useful, for reasons I mentioned or others. You never know, there could be a spider on the lens: http://www.libertysecuritysolutions....piders-Day.jpg

As for why they didn't stop the car in town most of the time you're going to want a sterile area. You certainly don't want a potential firefight in the middle of a city.
spkx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 01:12
EvieJ
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 3,595
For this post you should win the deflection oscar - well done.

Perhaps you should write for the Guardian.

Yes of course the coppers were targeting a dangerous armed drug dealer just because he was Muslim and they were all despicable racists.
Have you thought about writing for the Sun? I hear theres an opening after Mr McKenzie made accusations which weren't proven and turned out to be complete lies.
EvieJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 01:13
spkx
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 14,185
The cameras are meant to be tiny.
http://www.converseprisonnews.com/co...ams-from-today

There are also recording devices for the cars used. Why aren't they used to save complaints?
Not sure what the size has to do with anything, the issue is that their view is obscured when an AFO uses their weapon.
spkx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 01:16
Keyser_Soze1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: The Sixth Circle of Hell
Posts: 20,158
Have you thought about writing for the Sun? I hear theres an opening after Mr McKenzie made accusations which weren't proven and turned out to be complete lies.
Nice try - but I am not biting.
Keyser_Soze1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 01:18
spkx
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 14,185
Not directed at you but tbh I'm getting a bit sick of hearing this excuse. Those cameras are designed to wear on various parts of the body, not just the shoulder which is the best point for vision. Theres also in-car cameras. Ok, neither of which are 100% certain of catching everything but they can capture part of it and sound. There shouldn't be a need for secrecy.
It's no an excuse it's what those who have investigated past shootings where officers did have cameras have told the police.

Trials are ongoing to see where and how best to mount them.

They could waste millions in buying cameras for officers that don't really work but then you'd get headlines about police wasting money, so you know...

As for dash cams or lack thereof, the IPCC statement doesn't mention them explicitly.
spkx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 01:34
EvieJ
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 3,595
Nice try - but I am not biting.
If you think that was baiting then you need to look at your own post.
EvieJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 01:41
EvieJ
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 3,595
It's no an excuse it's what those who have investigated past shootings where officers did have cameras have told the police.

Trials are ongoing to see where and how best to mount them.

They could waste millions in buying cameras for officers that don't really work but then you'd get headlines about police wasting money, so you know...

As for dash cams or lack thereof, the IPCC statement doesn't mention them explicitly.
Partial recording is better than none, the reasons given for not using the cameras already purchased just does not make sense and leaves them open to criticism. There should be no need for secrecy.
EvieJ is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:02.