I remember a bloke called Yosser Hughes who was always asking for a job.

Criminals don't always do what the police would like*, but if possilbe armed police like to do the stops somewhere with a low bystander count.
For a criminal operating in and around a large city, and travelling in that city it's obviously not going to be possible to do it away from other people completely, but it may be possible to do it away from say a busy shop or school (IIRC in the Duggan case they did the stop next to a park, which was probably about as good as you could get for a relatively low bystander count in the area).

*Although some are surprisingly obliging (every time I hear of one forgetting to pick his phone up at a burglary or other crime scene I have a laugh to myself).

Are there grouse moors up there? Or just pheasant?

Call me old-fashioned, but I prefer justice done by due process - you know, trials, juries judges, that kind of stuff.

#GamekeepersLivesMatter donate now!

So was there more than one gun, or was the wrong man shot?

Funny how the Black Live Matter people have gotten involved stating it was racially motivated. Guess it doesn't matter what a person may have done criminally or what the facts are anymore, it's all down to skin color. BLM idiots making themselves look real smart as always.

Ffs, since when was everyone in a car responsible for whatever was in the possession of everyone else?

In my misspent South London youth, I was slightly acquainted with someone who, unbeknown to me, was a complete villain who regularly carried a gun. I dread to think how many times I and my friends got lifts with him. Did we deserve to be shot for being naive girls who found bad boys exciting?

Will the finding of the gun mean he won't meet the virgins?

Apparently his dad's the one who's quoted as saying he would buy his son the cars, as he worked in the business.

According to the initial coroner's report, the victim's occupation was 'office clerk'. Must have been some office.

Similar thing happened in our town. Teenage boy was messing around with a very obvious looking water gun, when some moron rang the police. Next thing you know....there's a massive operation going on by armed police. It was all very exciting for me as a young teenager, who was annoyed my parents wouldn't let me anywhere near it. Police broke into the flat above the busy town centre shops, to find a rather surprised teenage boy in sweatpants. However, what if that young boy had been shot? As he too was first described as threatening passers-bys with a gun.

now if he'd said Barristers clerk I would expect him to earn loads of dosh but an office clerk nah

Sounds horrendous for you, I think I'd have been the same.

I think was handled appropriately though. I bet he won't do that again!

Call us all old fashioned, can't see anyone arguing against you there.
Can you tell us how much further, in your opinion, the situation should have been allowed to develop before the police took decisive action and fired?
What harm or further threat should he have been allowed to present?

Probably trying to deflect from this office worker being in possession of a gun and having enough CCTV on his house for a small cul -d- sac.

Me neither. When you look at the quality of footage taken with £100 camera attached to a car dashboard or a helmet, I can't see why they don't go for it.

Wasn't there a bank robber who wrote his "hand over the money" note on the back of a gas bill addressed to himself (or something of the sort)?

If the victim's drug dealing past is all true, then he was on the cops radar for some time, whatever intel they were doing on him they knew enough that he was bad news to the point to be armed when trying to arrest him. Can't have sympathy for someone that lives that lifestyle. I had read that there was an attempt made on his life by his house, so for him to have a gun in the car is only logical for said lifestyle at that level.

It was good to see one good news story in all the doom and gloom.

In an ideal world the only thing that matters is indeed the facts at the time of shooting but why then is the past of the person involved mentioned at all and why is it considered relevant when assessing information received?

The level of intelligence received in the Duggan incident was considered very low, he was shot because he was holding a mobile phone and despite not having any serious convictions his 'suggested' lifestyle was taken into consideration. If some bloke in a pub made a remark about me having a gun I have enough confidence in the police to know that is would take more than me carrying a mobile phone to be shot dead.

The 'text book' procedure is just that, and its foolish for anyone in any position to deny that there are human beings holding those guns and thoughts, feelings and prejudices play a part in out actions.

That's pretty much what happened to my friend in the incident I mentioned upthread.

Until we know more detail about the threat that WAS presented, it's impossible to comment.

You'r old fashioned

You're welcome

Legally, that is exactly how it works. The force used has to be reasonable in the circumstances, and past history has nothing to do with the circumstances at the time.

Look at how often serious, and dangerous criminals are arrested in armed operations, when no shots are fired.